What do you think of SearchMetrics' claim that there are no longer universal ranking factors?

[AdamThompson]

I agree that Google's machine learning/AI means that Google is using a more dynamic set of factors to match searcher intent to content, but this claim feels like an overstatement:

Let’s be quite clear: Except for important technical standards, there are no longer any specifc factors
or benchmark values that are universally valid for all online marketers and SEOs. Instead, there
are different ranking factors for every single industry, or even every single search query. And these
now change continuously.

Keyword-relevant content, backlinks, etc. still seem to be ranking factors across pretty much all queries/industries. For example, I can't think of a single industry where it would be a good idea to try to rank for [keyword] without including [keyword] in the visible text of the page. Also, websites that rank without any backlinks are incredibly rare (unheard of for competitive terms).

Doubtless some factors change (eg Google may favor webpages with images for a query like "best hairstyle for men" but not for another query), but other factors still seem to apply to all queries (or at least 95%+).

Thoughts?

[brettmandoes]

Were they referencing Rank Brain in their article? The statement sounds similar to an explanation given on what Rank Brain is and how it impacts search. It does seem like a bit of hyperbole but I see their point and I agree with it to a certain extent. I believe the purpose of a machine learner is to continuously innovate without human intervention so that improvements are made while you sleep. It's my understanding that Rank Brain does this based on feedback from users. It's the perfect solution to handling the complexity of search, and would result in a continuously changing algorithm.

I do see a lot of websites ranking without backlinks. Try any local home services query - they're mostly propped up by citations which is a little different than your standard backlink.

[AdamThompson]

Agreed, I also see their point to some extent. I think Google's ranking factors are much more dynamic than they used to be. Google's rankings are also becoming for more intuitive and less metrics-driven (eg keyword density). SEO studies are increasingly having trouble explaining Google's algorithm. For example, we all know that social shares and engagement metrics correlate strongly with Google rankings, but nobody is quite sure what the mechanism for that is.

"Likewise, if you're a local plumber and the top results have 1 or 2 referring domains but great content, ranking is going to take more focus on quality onsite than the car hire example."

Or, maybe they are ranking in spite of not having links, and if you get great content + 5 links you'll be #1...hard to say!

"what it takes to rank in each one will require different strengths and weaknesses"

Agreed, because Google is getting close to actually measuring what the searcher wants. i.e. Google has some way of knowing (through user interaction data, maybe?) that a person searching for "hair styles 2016" wants a photo-heavy article, but a person searching for "barack obama policies" wants a long form text article. Yet, IMO, keyword in text and backlinks will be important factors in both cases.

[ChrisAshton]

I wouldn't say that I strictly agree with it but I do see their point.

The way I look at it is quite similar though from a slightly different angle. For any given vertical, where you rank is entirely relative to the other sites presented in that query.

For example, if you're in the car hire industry and all of your competitors have incredibile link profiles and passable onsite factors then for your industry, your link profile is going to be an important ranking factor for you.

Likewise, if you're a local plumber and the top results have 1 or 2 referring domains but great content, ranking is going to take more focus on quality onsite than the car hire example.

Now, obviously the approach to outranking another site shouldn't be to just copy what they do and you should be exploiting their weak points but no amount of great content is going to push your car hire company above a competitor with 2,000 legitimately quality referring domains!

What this all means is that while Google may not be directly measuring each vertical differently, what it takes to rank in each one will require different strengths and weaknesses. This is conjecture so take from it what you will; it's mostly just my 2c and viewpoint on the whole thing.

[EGOL]

It's marketing hyperbole.