Studies showing that social sharing does/doesn't affect rankings?
-
I'm currently researching this area in order to show to a client that social shares aren't as valuable for SEO as they might think. Can anyone point me in the direction of the best studies done on this topic?
Thanks in advance!
-
I hear you loud and clear re. studying different query spaces.
Do we know that in those query spaces where social shares correlate it is not actually down to links i.e can we remove the influence of links from the studies?
-
Thanks Josh. Great video. This would match up with what SearchMetrics concluded in their ranking factors study.
I'm astonished by the number of SEOs that assume social shares are a ranking factor. You've only got to look at Moz's survey to see that people still think so despite no-one (that i've seen) having conclusive evidence.
It kind of feels like a share should help rankings so that might explain Moz's study of SEO's. BUT we all know that a share is a hell of a lot easier to get and much easier to manipulate than even links. If Google arent looking at them I guess this explain why.
-
The video will switch you off social media forever - so be warned.
I see social media impact in creating links, and generally driving traffic to websites. Social media when done well with seo in mind can be beneficial. To my knowledge that is not in dispute. I just find it not as costs effective as content creation and technical.
-
Thanks Zoe!
Moz are careful to point out that their social results are correlation and likely to be because of a link between content that is shared heavily also achieving links (the real cause of good rankings).
i know that the recent Buzzsumo report highlights that this is not necessarilly the case but still...
-
Thanks John, I'll take a look at the video. When you say "social media does have an SEO value" do you mean that you believe that shares directly affect rankings? If so what evidence have you used to come to this conclusion?
-
Make them watch this. This video is what I show them. Not 100% correct as social media does have seo value. But it is an absolute rip snorter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2NUayn2vP0
Hope this assists.
-
Hi,
I'd say Moz' 2015 ranking factors study is great for this, particularly the correlation section. If you scroll to 'Social and Brand Features', there's a graph showing correlations between rankings and shares, broken down by social platform. I've always found this incredibly insightful and useful!
Also the latest Whiteboard Friday, and related Buzzsumo collaboration study, are slightly on a tangent but both very insightful, they investigate any correlation between social shares & backlinks, and touch on the correlations with rankings.
Edit: of course, correlation isn't causation. You might also want to mention this video from Matt Cutts, in which he explains that social signals, like shares, +1s etc, aren't directly factored into algorithms.
I hope this helps! Interested to see anything others might post here too.
Zoe
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Search results performance affected by similarly named Adult business?!
Hey This is an unusual one I guess and one we've scratched our heads on for ages without reaching any definitive answer, so would be very grateful to the Moz community for some thought and guidance! Client website: https://www.themassagerooms.com This is a professionally run, therapeutic health business offering on-demand ("mobile", ie visiting customers at their homes) massage service. Importantly, please note again (you'll see why in a minute) the exact URL and the fact that this business, our client, is a registered therapeutic health and wellness business (ie it is genuine, real, massage services). The business has been around for about 10 years and used to rank very highly for many dream keywords for their industry. However, several years ago they got approached by a domain reseller offer to sell them "massagerooms.com" (ie the same name but without the "The" at the beginning) for a few thousand pounds. They rejected the offer. Interesting Aside: This happened a short while before the Facebook movie was launched ... if they'd seen that movie perhaps they would have accepted! (Facebook was originally called The Facebook but then one of the key investors advised them to drop the "The"! Anyway, unfortunately for them, that offered domain name (massagerooms.com) was then sold to an online adult video services company. Soon after, themassagerooms.com rankings started to suffer. Today, TheMassageRooms.com have a technically very clean site (great scores on Google LightSpeed etc), with regularly updated relevant health and wellness content. They are doing ok in terms of rankings but no where near as well as many of their competitors who on the face of it seem to have significantly worse on and off-page scores as well as many spammy links. Also, TheMassageRooms.com have a much better Moz DA then those competitors that are ranking better. The big question is whether the existence of an adult services website, MassageRooms.com with such a similar name is causing them issues in search results? Especially since many people (regular customers and even their own staff), do search for TheMassageRooms (ie the therapeutic health and wellness company) by only typing "massage rooms". So, there is a clear argument for saying "The Massage Rooms" = "Massage Rooms" in many respects, even through the two URLs which match these exact terms lead to very different businesses. Of course, one solution, might be to change the URL and 301 redirect everything. But would that actually make a difference if the actual issue is that Google's algorithm is somehow connected "MassageRooms.com" (adult site) with "TheMassageRooms.com" (our client's health and wellness site). Also it seems a bit drastic to ask them to change a 10 year established brand name etc.
Algorithm Updates | | AmerTMR0 -
What tools and metrics do you use to show a topic's search interest over time?
I have a foundation repair client that is down in leads for the structural repair portion of their business. They have not lost any major rankings, but leads are down compared to last year. They asked if people are searching for this type of work less this year compared to last. I checked Google Trends and Keyword Planner data but found very different results. Is either of these tools accurate, or is there a better tool to use?
Algorithm Updates | | DigitalDivision1 -
Google June Core update massive drop in visibility and rank
Following Google Core update in June, I noticed that some websites has seen small improvements or stayed on same positions in SERPs, but our website received nearly 60% visibility drop. Now, after two weeks, some keywords shows "slight" improvement, while majority of keywords still sits on quite low places in searches. Even others big brands got hit after update, but some competitors didn't and overtook our positions. Anyone else noticed any patterns after update and can share some thoughts? Thank you.
Algorithm Updates | | Optimal_Strategies1 -
Rankings Change
Hi I've noticed some ranking drops on 15th Jan, I saw there was an update on Jan 8th - could this have had a knock on effect a week later?
Algorithm Updates | | BeckyKey0 -
How soon before author rank becomes a major ranking factor?
Hi, I wanted to pose a question How soon do guys think itll be before author rank becomes a one of Googles major ranking factors? From what I can see the way they have designed it signals that it is only matter of time, before they start using it as a major ranking factor... And I have a question on Author ranks impact on the ability to sell a blog/site in the future. Surely if the blog is tied to an author(s) and the ranking of the site in the search engine is somewhat based on this authors author rank who is a part of the site/blog, then it becomes harder to sell the property if the author is not going to be a part of the property after the sale?. I look forward to your responses on this,
Algorithm Updates | | sanj50501 -
Interesting SERP trend I'm observing
I know Google has been favoring brands a big names lately, but I'm seeing something a bit more alarming Our company offers custom embroidered patches, and through keyword and search research I have discovered that almost all searches for "embroidered patches" are by people who need embroidered patches and are looking to purchase them, or learn more about the process of purchasing them. The SERPs for this term used to be all embroidered patch companies such as ours. In the past month: We've been outranked by a page on Amazon that's fairly irrelevant. An equally irrelevant ebay page has emerged The Wikipedia page for "embroidered patch" is now number seven. This has pushed three other embroidered patch companies off the first page (not that I'm complaining because it wasn't our company . . . yet). My question is, has anyone else noticed something similar happening, where large sites are gaining ground, in spite of the fact that they have low relevance to the search term?
Algorithm Updates | | UnderRugSwept0 -
How did a competitor's brand name get in google's related search list?
When doing a google search for the term "ulster county real estate" the related search list at the bottom of the serp includes 7 obviously related search terms and 1 brand name of a competitor. (see attachment) The competitor doesn't rank for this term organically at all yet he enjoys a link on the first page with those of us that do by being in the related search list? I don't get it. Anyone know how something like this happens? Innhs.png
Algorithm Updates | | jhogan801