When did Google include display results per page into their ranking algorithm?
-
It looks like the change took place approx. 1-2 weeks ago.
Example: A search for "business credit cards" with search settings at "never show instant results" and "50 results per page", the SERP has a total of 5 different domains in the top 10 (4 domains have multiple results).
With the slider set at "10 results per page", there are 9 different domains with only 1 having multiple results.
I haven't seen any mention of this change, did I just miss it?
Are they becoming that blatant about forcing as many page views as possible for the sake of serving more ads?
-
In case you haven't seen it, check out this post
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-bigfoot-update-aka-dr-pete-goes-crazy
Talks about domain diversification and ranking fluctuations as of recent.
-
When I built my rank tracker I was originally going to get 50 per page, then noticed the results are much different from 10 results per page. That was at the beginning of March - not sure about before that time.
-
Interesting. Have you guys seen an increase in disparity between the two methods over the last couple of weeks?
I don't use the 50 and 100 count pages for rank tracking, but I use them for prospecting and analysis. I definitely started noticing the increase in domains with multiple results about two weeks ago, but it's possible I just didn't pay close enough attention before that.
What really sparked this question was the fact that I found a SERP in which the top 12 results were all from a single domain. I thought I was hallucinating.
-
This has been happening for a while now. We use rank tracking with 100 results per page and the ranking results are usually different than comparing it to 10 results per page.E.g. 10 results per page ranking = 19, 100 results per page ranking = 33
First time we noticed this was back in March 12'.. although it could have started earlier than that.
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
-
The evolution of Google's 'Quality' filters - Do thin product pages still need noindex?
I'm hoping that Mozzers can weigh in with any recent experiences with eCommerce SEO..... I like to assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Google's 'Quality' filters (formerly known as Panda) have evolved with some intelligence since Panda first launched and started penalising eCommerce sites for having thin product pages. On this basis i'd expect that the filters are now less heavy handed and know that product pages with no or little product description on them are still a quality user experience for people who want to buy that product. Therefore my question is this...
Algorithm Updates | | QubaSEO
Do thin product pages still need noindex given that more often that not they are a quality search result for those using a product specific search query? Has anyone experienced penalty recently (last 12 months) on an ecommerce site because of a high number of thin product pages?0 -
Why would google favour overseas retailers? Really weird results..
Why would google favour results from overseas retailers for queries in the UK? It's weird since most won't ship to the UK and the same products are found at dozens of UK retailers. It's not the case that the overseas sites are necessarily bigger brands or better SEO optimised, so having asked the leading agencies in the UK and them being stumped I was curious if this was something anyone else had seen? Our theory is that this can only be a poorly disguised attempt to drive Adwords.
Algorithm Updates | | predatornutrition0 -
Is it stil a rule that Google will only index pages up to three tiers deep? Or has this changed?
I haven't looked into this in a while, it used to be that you didn't want to bury pages beyond three clicks from the main page. What is the rule now in order to have deep pages indexed?
Algorithm Updates | | seoessentials0 -
Why does this website rank so well?
We've just taken on a new client who wants to rank well for 'Emergency dentist' related keywords in the London area and they have identified a website that they would like to compete with rankings wise. www.valedental.com I've done a backlink analysis with Open Site explorer and it says that the domain only has 2 inbound links? I've also done a who-is lookup and the domain was only registered in December 2012. Any idea why it is ranking so well for 'emergency dentist' 'emergency dentists' 'emergency dentist london' 'dental emergencies' (when searched for in the london area) thanks in advance for any help Marcus
Algorithm Updates | | dentaldesign0 -
Google Algorithm Update .. Author-rank finally kicking in ?
These few days I've been seeing great movement of my sites growing by 70-100% in traffic spikes. Some how I think this has something to do with AuthorRank maybe kicking in now as more of a factor in rankings? Anyone have an idea whats going on ?
Algorithm Updates | | NikolasNikolaou0 -
URL is starting to appear capitalized in Google Search Results. How come?
Our domain (www.absoluteautomation.com) has just today started appearing in search results as www.AbsoluteAutomation.com. Any ideas why?
Algorithm Updates | | absoauto0 -
Google and Wikipedia
Ok, I love Wikipedia as much as the next guy but the amount of weight that google puts on this site is getting crazy. My search terms that I am going after are "speakers" and "loudspeakers" Can somebody tell me why wikipedia needs the top 8 -10 spots for those terms? is that really a good search result for users of google? More of a rant then a question I know. I just needed to get that off my chest!.
Algorithm Updates | | kevin48030 -
Phantom Indexed: 301 Redirected Old URL Shows in Google Search Result!
Today, I have read about Phantom Indexed in Google search result. Because, I was searching about 301 redirect due to indexing of 301 redirected old URLs in Google search result rather than new landing pages. I've added my comment on jennita's blog post about 301 redirect. I would like to paste similar question over here! I have 301 redirected following 3 domains to new website... http://www.lampslightingandmore.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas http://www.spiderofficechairs.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs I have done it before 3 months but, Google still shows me home page URL in search result rather than new landing page. You can check following search results to know more about it. For LampsLightingandMore ~ On second or third page::: For VistaPatioUmbrellas ~ On second or third page::: For SpiderOfficeChairs ~ On Second or third page::: I come to know about Phantom Indexed after raised my comment over there. So, why should not start discussion on it. Because, It's all about branding and who'll love to hang old address in front of new home.
Algorithm Updates | | CommercePundit0