You can be the queen, but definitely not the king and tell you why. I'm really tired of hearing the virtues of content when all the search engines place more value on external influences. If the content really be king, and had ten sites that were all on the same subject, well written and optimized, how the search engines to determine which site was most relevant? One of these sites are going to have to be the first and one of these sites will have to be tenth. Well, Google has found an answer to this and that influence is out of place, specifically link popularity - site with links to your site. Each site you link to a "vote" for their website saying: "This site is about this and that."

This off-site impact is so strong that the sites can be classified very well for terms that do not exist in the copy of the site. If you search "miserable failure" in Google the # Biography of President George Bush.  If you search the copy on the home page you will find that the term "miserable failure" does not exist on the page. If content is king how can a site rank # 1 for a term that does not exist on the page? Is not this telling us that the content is not really the king and link popularity is really the ruling power?

The content is not king, and probably never will be. It certainly helps, but never give the weight in search engines link popularity is not now.