Very Professional SEO Study On Google Ranking Factors
ron
SERLists.com
I found this on a thread at TP (kudos to the poster that found this), and just wanted everyone here to take a look at this:
http://www.searchmetrics.com/media/documents/ranking-faktoren/download-ranking-factor-study-2013.pdf
It's basically a 70 page whitepaper where they took a very large sample of competitive search terms, and then analyzed the search results to see what the top ranking websites had in common.
Make no mistake that this is not some blogger study. This is by far the most analytical study I have ever seen. There are some very valuable nuggets and analysis in there - and some things you would have never guessed. (I'll give you a hint : Top ranked sites have way more NO-follow links than sites further down the rankings).
Comments
Yeah, and the importance of images was very interesting.
I just added the last sentence in the post above as an edit, but no-follow links are very important to rankings. I always knew it but couldn't prove it until now.
Thanks for this. Where do you get good quality no-follow links?
Get Guestposts and let the site owner tag it as nofollow
Create Web 2.0s with a nofollow tag
get creative..
Thanks ron, it was a good read, with some decent info. Although I take everything with a grain of salt and base success on our own experiences.
@mmtj I understand, you are a jaded veteran lol. The reason I like this is that it is a correlation study which is a very strict mathematical relationship. Plus they used an extraordinarily large sample size.
I do agree though, I use my own experience to form my own rules. It was nice to see such a professional approach on so many different metrics. Never saw anything like it. Very cool.
Correlation studies do not reflect how the algorithm is behaving. Correlation studies reflect how SEOs are behaving.
Just because +1s have such a high correlation, doesn't mean that's what's making the sites rank. It just means that the people who are working on the site deem it necessary to rank.
Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't (I'm firmly in the court that it doesn't long term), but correlation studies are in no way an accurate representation of how an algorithm works. The most purchase you can get out of a study like this is that is what most SEOs are focused on.
They definitely made the point that correlation does not equal causation. However...
They did make two important points on social signals. One of their conclusions was "it appears that social signals can influence the ranking of URLs in isolation". I take this to mean that they were able to find 'an effect'. Maybe not a big effect, but some level of effect.
But their bigger point to me was that Google +1 will overtake Facebook Shares by February 2016. I think Google will definitely factor this into rankings once it spreads heavily through the internet. So I think it is important to think through how to integrate +1's into the plan, maybe not today or tomorrow, but not too far down the road. It is more difficult to game that signal (properly).
I agree with the issue regarding the clumping of social signals that you buy. Just dumb and a waste of money.
Anything with a drip is the way to go. And the worst one of all of them is +1's. In fact that is probably the best reason to look at this service.
@jurky3fo, you rock. If I had to draw the diagram, it would pretty much be the same, although I would have pdf's in there as well in the T1.
The part I was really asking you to expand on was the social signals area. What are PVA's and SIM's? And is Web2Rule the only thing you need to make it work? Do you use any social signal service to enhance your facebook or twitter account pages to create a direct boost to your personal authority accounts (as opposed to the money sites)?
Great job! I like how you think.