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

Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

moz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 103 posts

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#51

Post by jennita »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #32
tgb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is why all of those points were addressed in the article! In fact, that's why the article didn't make the claim that Google is doing anything unusual in handling G+ links and shares - just that G+ is laid out in a way that makes it more relevant to existing SEO techniques.

Most of the initial discussion on this thread seemed to take from the blog post the idea that more Google +1s led to higher web ranking. I wanted to preemptively tackle that perception.

Why not state that the other items listed in the post are true? (Yes, I work at Moz)

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#52

Post by umsm »

anon1385 wrote: post #40
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

johnward, I know of at least one other SEO that has been doing a more rigorous study of whether more +1s lead to a higher ranking. I suspect that study might come out in the next month or two. Suffice it to say that I would be very skeptical of anyone who claimed that more +1s led to a higher search ranking in Google's web results.

I notice that you avoided answering the direct question…

I believe he answered the question in the original comment.

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#53

Post by thezilch »

anon1385 wrote: post #46
cyrusshepard wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cyrus here (the author) Thanks Matt, I think we both agree that Google doesn't use +1's directly in your algorithm. But are you implying there are no SEO benefits to posting popular content on Google+? Google does use PageRank and anchor text, 2 things present in Google+ posts that aren't passed as easily in Facebook and Twitter. It seems to me that a popular post on Google+, shared and linked to by well known author…

>The goal is […] to share high quality content on Google+ and build your influence through this channel, and this can lead to real world success. i.e. if you don't use Google+ you will lose out in rankings compared to sites that do. So the SEO advice about "make good content people want to see" needs to be amended to "make good content but make sure you share it on the closed proprietary social network run by the sea…

Rubbish. Make good content, and make sure to share it to everyone that will find it good -- those following you on social networks.

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#54

Post by JDDunn9 »

dalore wrote: post #10
buro9 wrote: post #6

2 things: 1) I think most people suspected this, and it's not amazing. 2) Is this not an abuse of their monopoly position in search? In that, to obtain a better placement or even just retain existing placement, you would have to participate in Google+

Do they really have a monopoly in search? Have they bought/created all the patents that stop other companies from implementing online search engines? I don't think there is a monopoly in search, look we have duckduckgo for instance. Since it's their search and their google+ why aren't they allowed to use one as metrics for the other?

Patents are a legal monopoly. To say a company has a monopoly just means that it is extremely difficult to compete. In search, the market naturally created a monopoly.

Not only does google have twice the market share of anyone else, they likely have more than twice the number of advertisers as well. This means they are making more money on each visitor. That's why Yahoo and Ask both had to outsource their ads to Google, even though they had large market shares. Blekko has cited this as a huge reason they are having trouble competing.

Creating a real search engine (not a meta-search like Duck Duck Go) from scratch is very expensive. Blekko started out with 700 servers. Until you get to a very high scale, the server costs are prohibitive.

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#55

Post by mbesto »

cyrusshepard wrote: post #45
Matt_Cutts wrote: post #20

Just trying to decide the politest way to debunk the idea that more Google +1s lead to higher Google web rankings. Let's start with correlation != causation: http://xkcd.com/552/ But it would probably be better to point to this 2011 post (also from SEOMoz/Moz) from two years ago in which a similar claim was made about Facebook shares: http://moz.com/blog/does-google-use-facebook-shares-to-influ... . From that blog po…

Cyrus here (the author) Thanks Matt, I think we both agree that Google doesn't use +1's directly in your algorithm. But are you implying there are no SEO benefits to posting popular content on Google+? Google does use PageRank and anchor text, 2 things present in Google+ posts that aren't passed as easily in Facebook and Twitter. It seems to me that a popular post on Google+, shared and linked to by well known author…

> Thanks Matt, I think we both agree that Google doesn't use +1's directly in your algorithm.

> Now, if you tell me you treat Google+ differently in a way that blocks link juice, blocks anchor text and doesn't pass link equity, then I think I would have to rethink my thesis.

> My argument is that Google+ as a platform passes actual SEO value, and I don't think this is a bad thing or something that needs to be debunked.

Huh? You first say it doesn't pass directly in the algorithm ("blocks link juice, anchor text, and equity"), but then argue that it does ("passes value")? What part of the argument am I missing here?

If you're arguing that overall exposure to content goes up because social media sharing, then I'd be inclined to agree. Overall exposure then translates to better SEO because links are being used more often outside of non-seo-algorithmic social media (for example in blogs), hence the correlation.

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#56

Post by skriticos2 »

I have fired a quick Google search for "Google correlate". This site came up second which is high considering the first result was a product by Google called correlate I found this way that makes search data correlations. Interesting.

http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/comic

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#57

Post by garysieling »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #20

Just trying to decide the politest way to debunk the idea that more Google +1s lead to higher Google web rankings. Let's start with correlation != causation: http://xkcd.com/552/ But it would probably be better to point to this 2011 post (also from SEOMoz/Moz) from two years ago in which a similar claim was made about Facebook shares: http://moz.com/blog/does-google-use-facebook-shares-to-influ... . From that blog po…

My experience has been that making better content is great for getting more readers, but not for SEO, which in the long term is fine because it removes the risk of having to chase algorithm changes.

When I switched from writing to fill holes in search results to writing for specific communities (including g+ groups) my readership shot up, but the SEO part has stayed pretty flat. It's possible I have something set up incorrectly, or that what I'm writing isn't something people are searching for, I'm not really sure. I put some charts up here that show this- http://garysieling.com/blog/google-1s-and-search-rankings

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#58

Post by ignostic »

I have found enormously high correlations - as high as 99% in some industries - between links and brand-name searches in Google. I've also found enormously high correlations for non-commercial phrase rankings and social shares. I have used Google finance for public companies in the same industries and found correlations between sales and links to a site. I suspect you can compare almost any popularity metric and find huge correlations with other popularity metrics.

Equating correlation with cause is one of the main problems I see in the modern SEO industry. Many SEOs are so obsessed with links, for example, that they have lost sight of the importance of building content, awareness, and products that real people will care about. I can't wait to see SEOs wasting their time spamming links on G+ and buying +1s after skimming this post.

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#59

Post by portentint »

I'm pasting in a comment I wrote directly on the Moz blog. Hope that's OK:

First: DON'T READ THIS ARTICLE AND START BUYING/ACCUMULATING CRAP Google +1 VOTES. That's not what Cyrus wants you to do. It's not what Moz wants you to do. And it'd be catastrophically stupid - you'll be providing direct evidence, directly to Google, that you're a spammer.

On second thought - go ahead. Fewer competitors that way...

The advice in the article about how to handle G+, and how to make sure you're taking advantage of the audience there, is spot-on. But the causation is definitely super-complex.

With G+'s healthy but still incomplete user base, Google wouldn't use G+ as a direct SEO factor. G+ does correlate, and strongly. But I think the reasons are:

Marketers know a lot about G+ and like to use it.

If your content is submitted to G+, chances are you have your SEO and social ducks in a row.

So the vast majority of content submitted to G+ already has a solid marketing strategy behind it.

And, Google does take G+ submission, overall submission velocity, user audience and the other typical social media metrics into account when determining how much a G+1 really matters.

The only reason I bring this up: So that folks reading this article don't go onto Fiverr and start buying G+ votes.

Like the Facebook kerfuffle 2 years ago, whether the causal link is direct or not doesn't really matter. A legitimate, popular G+ account, and lots of legit G+1's on content, are super-valuable for SEO, social media and overall visibility.

That's true even if your content has nothing to do with the marketing or other popular G+ niche industries, because there's a decent population of authoritative bloggers on G+. Getting in front of them is always good.

Re: Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings

#60

Post by ignostic »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #23
andylei wrote: post #19

1. the correlation is 0.3. that's not a high number. 2. the correlation for facebook likes is 0.27. that's lower, but not by much. 3. its possible the causality runs the other direction: high quality results get more +1s

Yup, I love that the correlation for "Facebook shares, like, comments" (though those are three different things) is listed as 0.03 less, even though I've pointed out multiple times that Facebook doesn't exactly make it easy for Google to crawl Facebook to see that data. Your point #3 is critical: high quality things get more +1s (and tweets, and Facebook likes or comments or shares).

Indeed, it's a little embarrassing. The tenuous conclusions reached based on correlation in the SEO industry are out of control. It should not be surprising that any metric of popularity (+1s, shares) will have some sort of correlation to another metric of popularity (links, brand searches?, editorial coverage, etc.) that Google might use in rankings.
Post reply on HN