What is more important, and promises success in search engine optimization? The technology or the content (content)? To tell you the same away from the front: The A correct answer to this question does not exist. This is of course partly due to the large number of ranking factors that Google uses in particular. And the lack of clarity on this issue is of course intended, because the search engines might wrap certainly, if it were known exactly how their result lists come about. In answering the question as to content or technology so you will always have some room for interpretation and sometimes have to go into the nebulous realm of speculation. But what can be safely Conclude from the search results, from experience and from the tests themselves are tendencies.
What speaks for the content?
First of all, of course, Google itself Their stated goal has indeed always been to deliver the best possible results to the people (users) (just claiming malicious, the meaning lies in making money). And what are the best possible results? Usually that's the best fit to the content searched. Now one might naturally think that this question is decided, but it is not. In it, we must not take the next question, namely, by what then is the right or the good content then? It is this question, I have already devoted an article in which it is clear that this cannot be so easily answered, because good content is relatively normally. It should provide the user or rather the reader an added value. A search engine has the quality of content but once recognize. The text must therefore be understood and taken in conjunction with relevant keywords, because as before is naturally sought after keywords. Then you have to decide: Does this content for the user who has entered this search phrase, add value? And then all the contents have been answered "yes" to even be compared. So what content the user is offered for this keyword with the highest value?
You see: it's complicated and even difficult for people to decide. For a robot or computer once so impossible. It initiates multiple technical difficulties. How should the content be properly understood and evaluated? Since it was so right technically possible were not exactly early on established criteria. I mention here are just the links. The underlying assumption: If many refer to something, then it must be important. A simple and in principle, correct assumption, however, such criteria can be manipulated and thus lose the reference to the content. And so generally worded could often be used technical means to fool the search engines relevant content.
The search engines have evolved, however, extremely strong and are always in a better position to understand and evaluate content. If earlier spelling errors were a serious problem for the crawlers of the search engines, the car corrections have now been improved so much that losing the understanding of error pages in relevance. The same applies to the syntax. Minor errors are so much easier to balance.
What speaks for the technology?
About technology speaks first and foremost: the technology. As mentioned machines are (still) limited and only partially adaptive. Search engines can only understand content, and generally only perceive when they are deployed in environments in which they are familiar and easy to find the right. It is therefore necessary to search engines and their crawlers to offer the best environment so that they can find all the good content. For this reason, for example, the error-free programming of websites important and a good internal linking and also things like Sitemaps and XML Sitemaps to which we also already pointed out. When programming, the technical limitations regarding the indexation of the content, but not nearly as big as before. Here, therefore, less consideration on the search engines must be taken.
Although e.g. Google is getting better understand the content itself, it is still important to give instructions. I mean especially techniques of search engine optimized writing. The central distinction HTML elements (headings), is an important example. Another is Off course the keywords that should be used in the right way. Often enough that they can be perceived as relevant and rare enough that they do not seem vex the user and the search engine. Should use the right keyword density is, however, not only are in my opinion the technology. Because it depends very much indeed, the content and its quality.
A technical problem that persists is the fact that the crawler can deal well with text only. For content such as images or videos they are blind. This should therefore be described, so that the search engines can do anything. Also the technique I would include things like duplicates content. Duplicate content is often evaluated negatively, but usually arise due to technical errors.