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

81–90 of 103 posts

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

#81

Post by alanh »

Ah, this may help explain why so many sites have +1 buttons while they get so little use (often on the order of 1% of the Facebook Like activity).

So Google uses its search monopoly in such a way as to incentivize site operators to advertise its social network (in the form of those buttons), which encourages growth of its social network — and as a separate issue, allows them to track people, be they Google users or not, across more of the Web.

No anti-trust issues here, move along...

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

#82

Post by christyk »

Thanks for all the info, so Matt says Google is not considering G+ as ranking factor, I don' believe this. All social media engagement have a correlation with rankings. I think now a days correlation value of Google+ is increased(this is why they index everything ASAP).

Guys Need help:

We recently faced a situation where we replaced the Facebook like button with Share button from our internet marketing blog(company site/blog).

Still I personally feel ‘Like’ was getting more engagement than share button, what will you advice for me. Implementing both Like & Share button is a good idea? I believe since our site only deals with particular industry i.e. Internet Marketing, less people will be sharing the blogs. We feel Facebook share is much valuable than Like, but we are confused here.

Please advice.

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

#83

Post by markadoi84 »

cyrusshepard wrote: post #69
mbesto wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 debunke…

+1s and Google+ posts are two separate things. A Google+ post passes SEO benefits (through linking) independent of the number of +1s it has. So although Google doesn't use +1s directly, it does use the link signals found naturally in the Google+ post itself. Because these link signals are by design blocked by Facebook and Twitter, this makes Google+ a superior platform from an SEO perspective.

Perhaps I have missed something here, however does this mean that a Google+ post that has zero +1s will pass the same amount of link juice as one that has fifty +1s? I guess this would be dependent upon the author that posted it, so let's assume these two posts are both by you, Cyrus Shepard.

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

#84

Post by andreascarpetta »

threeseed wrote: post #77
garysieling wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Exactly. Great content is often succinct and simple to comprehend. SEO wants your content to be full of unnecessary keywords that match the search terms which conflicts with this.

it depends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulysses_(novel)

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

#85

Post by markadoi84 »

johnward wrote: post #67
umsm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he answered the question in the original comment.

"Are you, Matt Cutts, saying that +1s make no difference in Google rankings?" I don't think he answered it. He basically avoided the question as expected. Not that I have anything against Cutts. There are probably things he can and cannot say or maybe he doesn't know.

"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."

We can paraphrase that to: "Yes. I am saying that +1s make no difference in Google rankings."

The wonderful thing about the English language is that there are often many ways of saying the same thing.

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

#86

Post by Julianhearn »

johnward wrote: post #67
umsm wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe he answered the question in the original comment.

"Are you, Matt Cutts, saying that +1s make no difference in Google rankings?" I don't think he answered it. He basically avoided the question as expected. Not that I have anything against Cutts. There are probably things he can and cannot say or maybe he doesn't know.

You are asking the wrong question. The question should be "Matt, does google treat google+ mentions any differently than other nofollowed links on the interweb? If yes, how."

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

#87

Post by markadoi84 »

umsm wrote: post #76
johnward wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Are you, Matt Cutts, saying that +1s make no difference in Google rankings?" I don't think he answered it. He basically avoided the question as expected. Not that I have anything against Cutts. There are probably things he can and cannot say or maybe he doesn't know.

I believe that people that want to avoid a question do best to answer it using terminology which can be interpreted in many ways. Politicians have been known to do this. That being said, he probably answered the question as well as he can or wants to. It's pointless to nitpick.

Agreed - perhaps he could have used more explicit language but, as you rightly said, I think he had answered that question already. I know he's public enemy #1 amongst some SEOs but people should stop being so rude to the guy!

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

#88

Post by foimfster »

Matt_Cutts wrote: post #26
johnward wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pointing out that Facebook likes don't increasing rankings doesn't debunk Google +1s. Obviously you know if they do or do not affect rankings. I'm not sure you would tell us if they actually were used as a signal in rankings because that would lead SEO's to focus on +1's in a way similar to what happened with pagerank. It could also lead to +1 spamming/exploiting. Not that I'm going to believe you anyway, but I just…

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.

Matt - thanks for taking the time to respond here.

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

#89

Post by Zoe-Slater »

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…

Hi Matt

We created some compelling that got lots of natural coverage both on social networks and news sites and we seem to have been punished for it!

http://productforums.google.com/forum/#!category-topic/webma...

Thoughts?

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

#90

Post by johnward »

markadoi84 wrote: post #85
johnward wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Are you, Matt Cutts, saying that +1s make no difference in Google rankings?" I don't think he answered it. He basically avoided the question as expected. Not that I have anything against Cutts. There are probably things he can and cannot say or maybe he doesn't know.

"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." We can paraphrase that to: "Yes. I am saying that +1s make no difference in Google rankings." The wonderful thing about the English language is that there are often many ways of saying the same thing.

But that is not saying the same thing. Your interpretation of it is "Yes. I am saying that +1s make no difference in Google rankings." but that is not what cutts said. His answer leaves it up to your interpretation. He could be saying "people who say +1s have an effect have no way of knowing that for sure" because we don't have access to their algorithms.
Post reply on HN