Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

rankscience.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#21

Post by saycheese »

ryanb wrote: post #16
saycheese wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why have you taken this approach to monetizing this SEO optimization method, instead of other options, for example PPC arbitrage? Why A/B testing and not a more complex statistical hypothesis testing method?

The biggest reason is that there's so much more volume in organic search (80% of all clicks) vs paid search (20%), and the ROI on SEO is so high. There's also so many companies in the PPC space -- it's quite saturated. SEO is appealing to us because we think it's overlooked due to stigma. SEO and PPC are really two very different games overall, but I have a ton of respect for people who are really good at PPC.

Thanks, just to be clear, I mean you generate the clicks via SEO and selling them on a PPC, lead, etc. basis.

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#22

Post by will_critchlow »

mhoad wrote: post #12
dillonforrest wrote: post #3

Co-founder/CTO here. Please share any SEO questions!

How does your product compare to Distilled's offering? https://www.distilledodn.com/

I think it's fairly similar - I remember showing Ryan a demo of our tool back when he was at 7cupsoftea before RankScience got going.

We just published an update on our first year of data: https://www.distilled.net/resources/distilled-odn-by-the-num...

(Distilled founder & CEO here)

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#23

Post by dillonforrest »

Fede_V wrote: post #17
ryanb wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're not reverse engineering Google's ranking algorithm, so no. : ) Good luck to anyone trying to do that! (I'd recommend against it) Yes, you're allowed to make changes to your pages.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you are trying to determine the effect that many different tweaks have on Google's ranking. You are not explicitly trying to reverse engineer their search algorithm, but, implicitly , you are trying to build a model of their model, and to then use your implicit model to drive up rankings. Of course, the final determination is entirely up to Google, but this seems kind of a risky game to…

Google's algorithm is to reward high quality websites which add value to their users. Our approach to SEO is to help our customers define "high quality" in Google's ever-changing definition and serve their quality to Google's users. This is exactly what Google wants.

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#24

Post by TomAnthony »

Hey guys! Congratulations on the launch! Very exciting!

We've been seeing some great results with SEO testing, and have recently had our biggest test result (in terms of revenue impact). Looking forward to hearing more of what you guys are up to. :)

I think the fact that DistilledODN, RankScience, Etsy, and Pinterest have all published SEO split-test results recently demonstrates the importance of this type of data-driven approach to SEO!

Best of luck with everything!

Tom, Distilled (Disclaimer: I run the https://www.distilledodn.com/ team)

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#26

Post by ryanb »

saycheese wrote: post #21
ryanb wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest reason is that there's so much more volume in organic search (80% of all clicks) vs paid search (20%), and the ROI on SEO is so high. There's also so many companies in the PPC space -- it's quite saturated. SEO is appealing to us because we think it's overlooked due to stigma. SEO and PPC are really two very different games overall, but I have a ton of respect for people who are really good at PPC.

Thanks, just to be clear, I mean you generate the clicks via SEO and selling them on a PPC, lead, etc. basis.

Oh, I misunderstood. Good question. A lot of people have suggested this. The main reason we've avoided it is complexity, but it's something we might revisit. I'd also be concerned about customers not having an easy way to understand our pricing.

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#27

Post by BickNowstrom »

ryanb wrote: post #11
BickNowstrom wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My post was in response to the homepage copy: > RankScience sits next to your website, making thousands of experiments to tweak your HTML in order to improve your page rankings. This seems to me an attempt at reverse engineering the ranking algorithm. Is my interpretation correct? And if so, is this allowed / in scope of the guidelines?

We're not reverse engineering Google's ranking algorithm, so no. : ) Good luck to anyone trying to do that! (I'd recommend against it) Yes, you're allowed to make changes to your pages.

Thanks! Though my (dated?) concern is probably not all that common, you could think of adding something like "Split-testing to improve SEO is a perfectly legitimate marketing technique" in your FAQ/technical copy.

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#28

Post by austenallred »

A few questions about your product (I run SEO and digital marketing at LendUp - YCW12). This is very, very cool.

* What types of optimizations does it do/do you test?

* I assume tests take a while to run, waiting for Google to re-index etc. Do you essentially monitor rank changes, assume that Google has re-indexed at that point, and use that as the data to optimize on? Or do you have some smart way to monitor for when Google re-indexes?

* I'm again assuming here - that a user will plug in a few variations of things to test, and let your software test them? Or are there automatic optimizations the software tries to make?

* How many tests can one do in a given time period, without confounding test & control variants? It seems like they would take a while to run?

* Is there a good way to control for non-technical/non-content-based changes (e.g. external, links)? For example we get hundreds of negative links pointed at us per week. Do we just hope/assume that's not the cause of rank changes?

Re: Launch HN: RankScience (YC W17) – Automated Split-Testing for SEO

#30

Post by saycheese »

ryanb wrote: post #26
saycheese wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, just to be clear, I mean you generate the clicks via SEO and selling them on a PPC, lead, etc. basis.

Oh, I misunderstood. Good question. A lot of people have suggested this. The main reason we've avoided it is complexity, but it's something we might revisit. I'd also be concerned about customers not having an easy way to understand our pricing.

>> "I'd also be concerned about customers not having an easy way to understand our pricing."

That would likely to be best expressed relative to major PPC players like Google.

For example, "clicks are 20% cheaper than Google for the same keywords."

Anyway, just nitpicking, awesome solution to a big problem. Good luck!

Post reply on HN