I just missed the importance of links in this introduction to seo. This is often overlooked, because e.g. managers in companies with a website often only look at the on-page optimization and don’t think about links in any way.

At last, that’s what I have noticed lately.
But still, it’s a great post!

I think the logic you follow is solid, but this is a question of which came first the hen or the egg, and in this case content (take that paradoxes!).

The reason is that a bad site simply won’t get quality links. By saying “produce good content and people will come” I also indirectly meant links and so forth, since natuarally your link strength is most important, since that is what can be quanitzed. But in essence the quality of your links is mostly determined indirectly by your content.

On Flash sites I totally agree. I hate all-flash sites, but in some instances they are of course appropriate.

Good content without links (votes) pointing to it won’t help you either to get higher rankings.

And even flash sites can rank high when a lot of links are pointing to it (e.g. official movie/game sites).

So I don’t agree that content is weighed most heavily by Google, links are. But it is save to say that content is the second most important.

With your content you tell Google where you want to rank high for and the number of links will tell Google that you don’t only want it, but that you also deserve it.

More text means more keywords where you make a chance to rank high for, but finally the quantity and quality of the links pointing to a site will or will not make that happen.