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

41–50 of 103 posts

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

#41

Post by sullivandanny »

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…

Of course, for personalized results, Google+ activity can have a huge impact on rankings. At times, it can trump any other factor. For personalized results. Important caveat, but then again, we're probably at the point where more people see personalized results than don't.

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

#42

Post by Ryan_Jones »

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).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't anything under .5 considered extremely weak correlation?

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

#43

Post by savszymura »

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

Yes, at university they thought us that this is what you'd refer to as a "weak correlation".

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

#44

Post by superjeff »

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…

What about the claim that G+ links pass value? Clearly they're no-followed, but has Google prevented them in passing value in some other way (algorithmically, perhaps?), as is widely believed to be the case for affiliate links?

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

#45

Post by cyrusshepard »

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 authorities, is just like earning a high authority editorial link - and this is a bit different than most other social media platforms.

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. Regardless, I think we're both on the same page here. The goal is not to accumulate a massive amounts of +1's (and I'll amend my post to make that clear) but to share high quality content on Google+ and build your influence through this channel, and this can lead to real world success.

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. Feel free to disagree if I'm way off base here.

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

#46

Post by anon1385 »

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…

>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 search engine".

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

#47

Post by JDDunn9 »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #29
dynamic99 wrote: post #18

Isn't this obvious? Google _made_ +1s (and Google+).

Well, no. Unless Google is shooting itself in the foot, then either the research is wrong or pages that attract +1's are hosted and linked to in more SEO friendly ways. Google is really unlikely to be blatantly and obviously fixing its rankings. That is the golden goose. everything goes away when that is shown to be true in public.

When sites.google.com first came out it ranked their own pages much better than a new site (they've since turned it down a bit). Many tech reporters say the only reason they use Google+ is to post stories on there because Google will rank it more highly than their own site.

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

#48

Post by JDDunn9 »

It's hard to think of what the lurking variable could be here if you want to make the argument that this is purely correlation and not causation. With Facebook likes, that could also indicate overall traffic levels or other popularity-based metrics, because everyone uses Facebook. Only the tech/news industry really uses Google+ though. So considering how few pages have a lot of +1's, this is a very high correlation. e.g. If +1's were just an indicator of # of unique linking domains, you'd expect that correlation to be much higher than +1's, since almost all sites have links but few have +1's.

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

#49

Post by JDDunn9 »

saosebastiao wrote: post #15
lmm wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have more than 90% of the market. The fact that alternatives exist doesn't make them not a monopoly when hardly anyone is using those alternatives. See windows in the late '90s.

Actually, by definition, you are wrong. And you are wrong about 90% of the market as well. http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2289560/Googles-Search-...

That's only for the U.S. In all but a few foreign countries, Google has closer to a 90% market share.

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

#50

Post by aioprisan »

thurn wrote: post #27
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…

So, why not? Has it been experimentally shown that +1-based ranking performs worse?

you're missing the point. there are many useless things that can be done that won't hurt SEO per se, so can can go ahead and do them, but the ROI isn't there to justify it.
Post reply on HN