The latest buzz is about having a lot of content on a Web site to please search engine robots, so that they will give the site a good position on the search results. However, web designers are worried about being compromised when it comes to creating a great looking page design for web pages that does not leave much room for content, because some of them called a site that only displays content without some bell and whistle a bit boring.

It might have some truth in it, because imaginative design could be intriguing and might even fight boredom. The question is, as long a site has enough content somewhere else on the Web site that has a visible link to it, why would search engines not be happy with it? In other words, why does content has to be in the first landing page when accessing it by anyone looking for content is possible as long as there is a link to it?

For the most part, it makes sense, as having enough amount of informative content makes sense too. But the search engines might want visitors to be engulfed with a lot of informative content when they land on a page and if they were not planning to peruse through any content at all, its glaring at them might captivate them to do so.

The end result is visitors do not hop from one site to the other, without getting information about a thing or two, but what will happen if they are made to look for it. They might leave without doing so. If that is the outlook, content might have been shoved down their throat, but the fact that they have the option will make them opt-ins or opt-outs by choice.

Again, it is Google that made content a requirement more than the other search engines, and if they have to be commended for it or not is up for grabs. At least surfing the Internet would have not been different than going through a catalogue, but still there is no gauging made on what users think about content. Do they read them or they are just there to be irking? Seen from Web site