Google Ranking Factors: Correlations,

Testing, & Hypotheses

What does it mean? How should

we apply the data?

Correlation

Correlation does NOT

say why these results

rank higher than these

results

More on

http://moz.com/rand/what-do-correlation-metrics-really-tell-us-about-search-rankings/

Correlation tells us what

features, on average, the

results that rank higher have

which the lower ranking results

do not have.

More on

http://moz.com/rand/what-do-correlation-metrics-really-tell-us-about-search-rankings/

Correlation tells us what

features, on average, the

results that rank higher have

which the lower ranking results

do not have.

More on

actually using to rank the results!

http://moz.com/rand/what-do-correlation-metrics-really-tell-us-about-search-rankings/

Via 2013 Search Ranking Factors

http://moz.com/search-ranking-factors

Via 2013 Search Ranking Factors

To me, this says individual pages still

hosting domain.

http://moz.com/search-ranking-factors

Via 2013 Search Ranking Factors

MozRank used to be higher, and so did

getting more complex.

http://moz.com/search-ranking-factors

Via 2013 Search Ranking Factors

$100 says that if we could get more comprehensive

brand mention data, this correlation would start to

look a lot like links

http://moz.com/search-ranking-factors

Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post

Google+ is just too damn high.

http://moz.com/blog/google-plus-correlations

Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post

Google:

the blog post the idea that more Google +1s led to higher web ranking. I

http://moz.com/blog/google-plus-correlations

Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post

from Google+ (directly or indirectly) at all in our ranking algorithms.

be very surprised if they said that.

http://moz.com/blog/google-plus-correlations

Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post

That said, all of the correlations with social are high. That tells me the things

that make content have success on social probably have a lot of overlap

with what makes content successful in Google.

http://moz.com/blog/google-plus-correlations

Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post

Domain name keyword matching continues to show decline.

http://moz.com/blog/google-plus-correlations

Via Mozcast

PMD was as high as 5%

two years ago. EMD was

almost 6%. Both have

fallen precipitously.

http://mozcast.com/metrics

Basic introduction to LDA and topic-modeling systems here.

We were able to build a better keyword-modeling system in 2013, and

correlations were higher than in past studies looking at raw keyword

repetition or use in title elements.

http://moz.com/blog/lda-and-googles-rankings-well-correlatedhttp://moz.com/blog/lda-and-googles-rankings-well-correlatedhttp://moz.com/blog/lda-and-googles-rankings-well-correlated

More on rankings and page load time here.

relatively big indirect factor (i.e. users like fast-loading pages, and people

link to/share what they like)

http://moz.com/blog/how-website-speed-actually-impacts-search-ranking

See How Unique Does Content Need to Be.

Last, more content still seems to, on average, slightly overperform vs. less

http://moz.com/blog/how-unique-does-content-need-to-be-to-perform-well-in-search-engines-whiteboard-friday

I hope to see many, many more correlation tests

and more things considered! Causal or not,

correlation data is incredibly useful.

What can we learn from a recent

SEO test?

Testing

Hypothesis:

It seems like Google is starting to ignore or

discount anchor text in links.

Here were the test conditions:

#1: Three-word keyword phrase in Google.com US

#3: We pointed links with NO query-matching anchor text from

20 unique, not-particularly-on-topic, high DA domains at result

A and EXACT-anchor-text match links from the same pages at

result A.

#2: At start of test, result A ranked #20, B ranked #13.

After 3 Weeks:

All of the links had been indexed by Google

Result B (with exact-match anchor text) ranked #9 in

Google.com US

Result A (with non-query-matching anchor text) ranked

#18 in Google.com US

Of Additional Interest:

Result B (with exact-match anchor text) ranked #4 in

Google.co.uk

Result A (with non-query-matching anchor text) ranked

#19 in Google.co.uk

~5 of the 20 linking domains were from UK sites

Takeaways:

#1) Anchor text still matters

#2) Geographic location of links matters

world. Even imperfect tests are fascinating and

useful, IMO.

Three guesses Rand has about

Hypotheses

Hypothesis #1

connected to their entities and brand signals

Hypothesis #2

aspect of mention frequency

and mention source in

More and more, these queries return

you polled people on the street to tell

you what brands they most

Hypothesis #3: Google is using

search & visit patterns to connect

words & phrases and rank results

Why do they list these 3 in the top

10? My guess