Jump to content

Cre8asiteforums Internet Marketing
and Conversion Web Design


Photo

Your Choices For Search Engine On-Page Seo Ranking Factors

google bing seo search engine rank

  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13876 posts

Posted 19 May 2015 - 10:17 AM

Barry points to a discussion at WebmasterWorld in which a list of on-page ranking factors for 2015 are listed, with some devalued and new ones recommended.

 

It is about Google only.  

Google SEO On-Page Ranking Factor List 2015 Version

There is push-back from Barry's readers about the list, as you can see in the comments section.

 

What do you believe to be part of a solid list, for both Google and Bing rank?  Is the list at WMW wrong?



#2 TheAlex

TheAlex

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 255 posts

Posted 19 May 2015 - 02:25 PM

It's one person's opinion and doesn't seem worth writing an article about. It's interesting how he says "shorter title tags" though because I don't think I've seen anyone say that apart from EGOL (I think) and me!

 

The deprecated list doesn't make sense. Keywords? Who would focus on longtail phrases? And lean code? Lean code can provide big speed benefits over competitors, more than ever with all the bloat these days. Google wouldn't be running that minimised website test in Indonesia if they didn't care about bloated code.

 

Do you realise you've created a discussion about a discussion about a discussion? Or something like that... :)



#3 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5716 posts

Posted 19 May 2015 - 02:58 PM

This is a fun question.

 

You know how every year some of the popular SEO websites post their big SEO ranking factors reports?   They get the data presented in these reports by sending a checkbox questionnaire out to a bunch of people who post in SEO forums and then post aggregate results.

 

A lot of time and effort goes into these reports but really, they are pure rubbish.

 

If those same reports included people's names and revealed their individual inputs then I would call them awesome!

 

Why is one of these rubbish and the other awesome! ?

 

Because there are enough drunks singing in that choir to drown out the people who know what they are takin' about.

 

However, if I could read the input from people like iamlost, Donna and MarieHaynes, then I would think those reports are worth reading.  But you take the input from those brilliant minds and average or mingle it with a bunch of other people and it isn't anything you can bet on.


Edited by EGOL, 19 May 2015 - 11:32 PM.


#4 TheAlex

TheAlex

    Mach 1 Member

  • 250 Posts Club
  • 255 posts

Posted 19 May 2015 - 03:46 PM

I don't know which sites you're referring to but I've only really taken notice of Searchmetrics and Moz - Moz list the participants (https://moz.com/sear...rs/contributors), and the correlation data adds merit to both of these studies. Do Moz provide a download of the data that shows individual responses? I'm not sure - I know they provide a few quotes from them.

 

Even if these studies only featured the 10 people I consider to be the best SEOs, I still wouldn't treat them as gospel. Or 10 Google algorithm employees. The algorithm is mutating by itself, it's out of control...



#5 JOSourcing

JOSourcing

    Ready To Fly Member

  • Members
  • 10 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 03:08 AM

That has got to be the shortest list on SEO ranking that I've ever seen! :o

 

Nevertheless, I finally buckled down and scoured through the manual that Google gives its human quality raters. An eyebrow raising read for sure! But IMO, much more thorough and meaningful than what's being published on those types of SEO and webmaster sites.

 

I figure, if I'm going to appease to humans, I'd better learn what humans (and not algorithms) look for.



#6 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13876 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 10:01 AM

I figure, if I'm going to appease to humans, I'd better learn what humans (and not algorithms) look for.

 

I've been doing this since the light went on for me in 2000.   :infinite-banana:



#7 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5716 posts

Posted 20 May 2015 - 10:35 AM

If you go look at the "factors" that SEOs talk about in these surveys, you see very little mention of how visitors behave on the site.  Things like pageviews, amount of time spent, scroll depth, bookmarking, bounce rate are almost absent in the things that SEOs say are important.  

 

They must be nuts.

 

Google has every ability to measure these things, especially with the Chrome Browser.  This is data beyond the reach of SEOs that Google can use to determine the rankings of pages.  I am confident that Google uses it.   I upload pages that initially rank ten to twenty pages deep in the SERPs, but they have what I believe are nice images and good text content.  I do nothing to promote them.  The can sit deep in the SERPs for months, slowly they climb and in a year or two they rank at or near the top of the SERPs.  I believe that the rise in the rankings because of how visitors behave.

 

SEOs don't buy into this and it stays off of their radar because very few of them are in the content business or work in the real business of building better websites. 



#8 EGOL

EGOL

    Professor

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 5716 posts

Posted Yesterday, 11:55 AM

Today, Bill Slawski published an article titled

The Long Click and the Quality of Search Success

It describes a Google patent to use the behavior of visitors on a website to help determine rankings.  It is quite relevant to this discussion.



#9 cre8pc

cre8pc

    Dream Catcher Forums Founder

  • Admin - Top Level
  • 13876 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:16 PM

I left a comment on the MOZ thread there.  Now waiting to be boo'd off-stage.  :morningcoffee:



#10 bobbb

bobbb

    Sonic Boom Member

  • Hall Of Fame
  • 2460 posts

Posted Yesterday, 01:22 PM

This is more like it.

Things that come to mind and how (or could) they skew results:

People click results 1 to 3 not realising they are ads. G knows this or the ads would be on the right side.
This almost presumes the site uses GA otherwise how do they know.
Or adsense somehow.
People like me that may open two or more articles into a new tab (in quick succession) then read.
People that otherwise leave a tab or window open.

What she said in MOZ.

 

Maybe it will only skew a bit (few %) and it makes no difference overall.

I'm sure they have other methods of following you.

In another thought this does demonstrate how Google knows everything or too much about you.


Edited by bobbb, Yesterday, 01:47 PM.




RSS Feed


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users