Why there is no even close correlation between MajesticSEO data and Open Site? Explorer?
-
I compared my site home page against my competitor homepage with Open Site Explorer and I found that according Open Site Explorer I have only 3 backlinks where in MajesticSEO I have more than 100 backlinks in 'Historic' data and more 90 in '30 days fresh data'.
Why there is no even close correlation between MajesticSEO data and Open Site Explorer?
How SEOMoz count backlinks?
-
What's so awesome about a fresh index when it thoroughly confuses the issue (includes dupes from weird sessionIDs/URL parameters, etc). If MajesticSEO isn't showing accurate link count numbers, I have no use for it.
Mike Corso
Cool Site of the Day
The Internet's Oldest Directory
http://www.coolsiteoftheday.com -
We did a bunch of work on this a while back, so my stats are probably not up to date (I think around October of 2010). Basically, we compared Yahoo! Site Explorer numbers, Google numbers (via the crappy but somewhat proportional link: command), Exalead, SEOmoz, Majestic and Alexa.
Majestic was definitely odd and so was Alexa. Neither of those two mapped/correlated well to the quantities reported by the others. Thus, for example, if xyz.com has:
- 50 links according to Google
- 1,000 links according to Yahoo!
- 500 links according to SEOmoz (Linkscape/OSE)
And site abc.com has:
- 100 links according to Google
- 2,000 links according to Yahoo!
- 1,000 links according to SEOmoz (Linkscape/OSE)
The percentages of quantity will match up fairly well for these, but not for Majestic (e.g. they might show 5,000 links for xyz.com and 3,500 for site abc.com).
This is a bit odd, but we don't know exactly why. They crawl a ton more links than even what Google/Yahoo!/Bing reportedly do, which could be part of it, but my best guess is the canonicalization and freshness issues. Since MJ crawls the web all the time, and doesn't build "indices" every X time period (like Google/Yahoo!/Bing/Linkscape), but rather maintains a single consistent link index to which new sites/links are added, the data structures may be different.
Majestic also appears, at least to us, to do far less canonicalization, removal of unnecessary URL parameters, etc. Thus, if one site links from 50,000 pages due to weird session IDs in the URL, that might bias the crawl and link count, but standard canonicalization will normalize these.
I really don't mean to bash on a competitor - MJ's fresh index is awesome, their tools are good, and a ton of SEO folks find them useful, including myself. But, on the index matching and link count numbers, we definitely see this same weirdness that many other SEOs do.
Hope that helps!
-
Opensiteexplorer more or less takes a representative random sample of the available links. More prominent links have a tendency to be visible on opensiteexplorer rather than majestic seo. Also check out yahoo links.
-
Can you provide the site url?
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
-
2 sites with low DA and PA and unoptimised <title>outranking everyone for competitive search term - How ?</title>
Im doing some keyword research for a new client, Ive found 2 anomalies for competitive search terms where sites with unoptimised <title>tags, poor backlinks and other stats, (compared to the other sites listed in the SERP) are out ranking everyone and claiming the #1 spot</p> <p> The 2 search terms are :</p> <ul> <li dir="ltr"> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=interior+designers+london&oq=interior+designers+london&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j69i60j69i65l2j69i60.2784j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8">Interior designers London</a>- #1 new-id.co.uk - <a href="https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/links?site=new-id.co.uk&filter=&source=external&target=page&group=0&page=1&sort=page_authority&anchor_id=&anchor_type=&anchor_text=&from_site=">OSE info</a></p> </li> <li dir="ltr"> <p dir="ltr"><a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=interior+designers+london&oq=interior+designers+london&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i65j69i60j69i65l2j69i60.2784j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=interior+designer+london">Interior designer London</a>- #1 nstudio.co.uk - <a href="https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/links?site=http%3A%2F%2Fnstudio.com%2F&filter=&source=external&target=page&group=0&page=1&sort=page_authority&anchor_id=&anchor_type=&anchor_text=&from_site=">OSE info</a></p> </li> </ul> <p> (interestingly they hardly rank at all for any modification of those search terms)</p> <p> The only thing i could think of is that they both had some really good links using that exact anchor text, but ive been checking OSE for the past month both in the backlinks and the just discovered but couldnt see anything like that.</p> <p>I conducted the SERP checking from a laptop with a broadband connection based in London, although im not very local to either of these locations im about an 8th of the cities distance away from one of those location and about half a cities distance away from the other. So i dont think its a local skew thats causing the SERP rankings.</p> <p>For both sites i can see they had old domains which now redirect to the them :</p> <ul> <li dir="ltr"> <p dir="ltr"><span data-mce-mark="1">New-id.co.uk = </span><span data-mce-mark="1"><a href="http://newidinteriors.com/">newidinteriors.com</a> - <a href="https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/links?site=http%3A%2F%2Fnewidinteriors.com&no_redirects=1&filter=&source=external&target=page&group=0&page=1&sort=page_authority&anchor_id=&anchor_type=&anchor_text=&from_site=">OSE info</a> - PA1, DA1</span></p> </li> <li dir="ltr"> <p dir="ltr"><span data-mce-mark="1">Nstudio.co.uk = intarya.com - <a href="https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/links?site=www.intarya.com&filter=&source=external&target=page&group=0&page=1&sort=page_authority&anchor_id=&anchor_type=&anchor_text=&from_site=">OSE info</a> - Da 32, PA43</span></p> </li> </ul> <p> Although the intarya domain was quite strong with good backlinks (but nothing above par comapred to the other sites the nstudio.co.uk site is now outranking, the anchor text was mostly natural with only some keyword anchor text from PA1 pages. </p> <p>The <a href="http://newidinteriors.com/">newidinteriors.com</a> didnt seem to have a backlink profile, both PA1 and DA1.</p> <p> Ive taken screenshots of the SERP pages below, but feel free to dig further</p> <p>Any idea what's going on here ?</p> <a download="HWkjmDf.png" class="imported-anchor-tag" href="http://i.imgur.com/HWkjmDf.png" target="_blank">HWkjmDf.png</a> <a download="A70jXse.png" class="imported-anchor-tag" href="http://i.imgur.com/A70jXse.png" target="_blank">A70jXse.png</a></title>
Competitive Research | | mike8780 -
What tools can give reliable competitor traffic data?
Could you give details of reliable tools that can measure and provide competitors' traffic data? Google Adplanner used to provide such information until June of last year, and while it's numbers didn't match Google Analytics data, the numbers were reasonably close. The metrics we are most interested in are visits, page views and unique visitors. We have looked at sites such as Compete -- but feel it is far too inaccurate/ skewed with US data only; also, would prefer to not rely on Alexa traffic stats. Thanks in advance.
Competitive Research | | ontarget-media0 -
C Block Links in Open Explorer
Hi there, Wondering if anyone can help me with understanding the advanced reports in Open Explorer. I'm looking to create a list of competitors links to go after but don't want to create loads of links from the same c blocks for blog posts, articles etc. In open explorer it says my competitor has 451 linking C Blocks but when i download csv's using advanced reports with the filter of 'links that come from the same C block', the csv only has 26 links. The same happened with the filter 'from the same ip address'. How can i download and analyse the links so I can see all the linking C blocks and know which sites I want to use and which ones I want to avoid? Thanks, Ross
Competitive Research | | Will_Craig1 -
How can a site rank higher when you beat them by A LOT on virtually every SEOMOZ factor?
Any insight into what's driving these results would be appreciated. Another site ranks #6 and we rank #22 on a keyword that scores 67% for "Keyword Difficulty", but we score significantly higher than them on almost every ranking factor including having nearly 10 times more backlinks along with higher PA and DA scores,etc. Here is a comparison from the Keyword Difficulty Tool report. Question: What could be going on? Factor and ranking comparison (us v. them) with our higher rankings are listed first. PA: 61 v. 39, mozRank 5,85 v. 4,54, mozTrust 6.00 v. 5.49, mT/mR = 1.0 v. 1.2, total links = 4,198 v. 90, internal links = 4198 v 90, external links = 275 v. 57, followed links = 4171 v 85, no follow links = 27 v 5, linking root domains = 46 v 30 on-page grade = A v B broad keyword usage in title: yes v yes broad keyword usage in document: yes v yes keyword used in url = no v no keyword used in domain = partial v no KW exact match - no v no exact anchor text links = 2373 v 13 %links w/ exact anchor text = 56% v 14% linking root domains w/ exact anchor text = 7 v 8 % linking root domains w/ exact anchor text = 15% v 26% partial anchor text links = 0 v 0 Domain Authority = 54 v 27 Domain mozRank = 5.4 v 3.2 Domain mozTrust = 5.8 v 3.7 DmT/DmR = 1.1 v 1.2 External links to domain 9261 v 63 Linking root domains to this domain = 355 v 33 linking c- blocks domains to domain = 267 v 30 tweets = 4 v 3 FB shares = 13 v 11 Google Plus one shares = 1 v 0
Competitive Research | | rickt0070 -
Sites With Duplicate Content Ranking Way Higher
The site I am writing about is easendtorontohomes.com I don't get it. I see that some of my competitors have more inbound links and have been around longer. Their SEOmoz trust etc is also higher. But I don't get how many could possibly be ranking higher since they're sites are all template based site via Web Tech Design and the content is duplicated from one to the other. The other weird thing is that they do everything wrong - they stuff their keywords tag, some of them use the same keywords/meta data on every single page, some of them don't even have meta tags, some of them don't even have a blog with ANY original content. Apart from listings EastEndTorontoHomes.com has TONS of original, well-researched, and keyword rich content. I just don't get it. Is it possible that google has some sort of relationship with that company? Or am I totally missing something? Some of these sites include: tinasmith.ca, mikeclarke.com, teamkassen.com
Competitive Research | | annasus0 -
Our site being outranked by competitors with lower "moz" scores - due to on-page SEO?
Howdy, Our SEO efforts are doing well, but for a few keywords it seems we cannot budge one of the competitors sitting in spot #1. Through some competitive analysis I've noticed that our website has a much higher mozRank with regards to both page and domain compared to the current #1 spot. My question is what kind of factors could be the issue as to why we are still being outranked. Is it simply a case of poor on-page SEO at this point or should I be taking the mozRanks with a grain of salt.
Competitive Research | | marketingdepartment.ch0 -
Keywords in URL structure for Large Site
We are creating a national real estate website which will contain 2mil+ listings. Our aim is to compete with the National leaders in the field. We are trying to lock down a url structure and it basically comes down to if we should put a major keyword in the url structure or not. The structure would have regional keywords naturally. Its the addition of a more descriptive key word which is in question. Our domain name has no keywords in it. For the sake of this example, we would be targeting "city real estate"... oursite.com/real-estate/state/city/ or oursite.com/state/city/ Here is what the big sites use as an example: http://www.zillow.com/homes/for_sale/New-York-NY/ http://www.trulia.com/NY/New_York/ http://www.trulia.com/real_estate/New_York-New_York/ http://www.realtor.com/realestateandhomes-search/New-York Id love to not have to throw keywords in there and be as clean as possible but i also dont want to shoot myself in the foot. The big boys do add additional keywords in the url, does that mean we should? Id much rather be a leader than a follower but again, I dont want to mess this up from the start and these guys have probably tested this (or have they?). Input would be greatly appreciated.
Competitive Research | | cobbsfriedman0 -
Site redirect
Hi, Our site www.suncamp.nl has, for language reasons, 2 redirects So : www.suncamp.nl is redirected with a 301 to www.suncamp.nl/nl/nl and is than redirected 301 to http://www.suncamp.nl/nl/nl/home/uc19-l1-n804/ My question is; is this bad for our SEO? Recently we've been doing a lot of linkbuilding and SEO copywriting, but in comparison with our competitors were lagging behind. So I'm looking for other bottlenecks. Kind regards, Dennis Overbeek My email: dennis@acsi.eu ACSI
Competitive Research | | SEO_ACSI0