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
-
W3C Validation: How Important is This to Ranking
Hi, I'm currently working with a developer who is trying to tell me that validation errors and warnings are of little to no importance in a website's SERP. In the past, whenever I've had a site that was experiencing problems ranking for a keyword terms, this was one of the first places we'd look. Is this still a relatively important component in getting a site to rank?
Algorithm Updates | | maxcarnage2 -
Website Rankings Dropped April 12
A client website dropped drastically on April 12. Outside of some branded keywords, search results dropped off of the first page and are buried on page 3+ at best. Nothing has changed on the site, and there were no problems with the link profile. GWT has no manual actions. Kind of at a loss. Does anyone know if there was an algorithm update or anything external that may be causing some problems here? Site is www.averybiomedical.com if you want to take a look, but I'm just curious if there was anything I should be aware of. Thanks for the help!
Algorithm Updates | | AdamWormann0 -
Rankings fluctuating by around 10 pages between night and day
Hi all, I'm experiencing something very odd with my website ranking at the moment. My homepage is fluctuating in rank for my main keyword by 10 pages every day and night. So, during the day i am on page 14, 15 or 16 for my main keyword yet by night i am on page 5 or 6. This trend has continued for the past 7 days now and i can't quite understand why this is. I'm using pagewash dot net to carry out manual searches and a ranking tool - both of which produce exactly the same result. Does anyone have any experience of this or why this is happening? My domain is around 8 years old and has around 50,000 pages. Any pointers would be greatly appreciated.
Algorithm Updates | | MarkHincks0 -
Ranking drops over weekend
Hi all, Has anyone noticed any ranking changes over the weekend? I've noticed an almost uniform drop of a few positions across almost all of my chosen phrases. Nothing major has occurred on our site, no messages in webmaster tools. An analysis of our competitors positions (which we track the top 10) doesn't reveal any clues. Cheers Aran
Algorithm Updates | | Aran_Smithson1 -
What do you think Google analyzes for SERP ranking?
I've been doing some research trying to figure out how the Google algorithm works. The one thing that is constant is that nothing is constant. This makes me believe that Google takes a variable that all sites have and divides it by that number. One example would be taking the load time in MS and dividing it by the total number or points the website scored. This would give all of the websites a random appearance since there that variable would throw off all the other constants. I'm going to continue doing research but I was wondering what you guys think matters in the Google Algorithm. -Shane
Algorithm Updates | | Seoperior0 -
How can Chrome rankings vary wildly from Mozilla and IE8?
Our website (www.theideapeople.com) has generally ranked on page 4 on Google search for the phrase "charlotte web design" for the past year...regardless of which browser I used. Oh, and my browser location is always set to Charlotte, NC. I also have the Moz toolbar installed and logged-in. Today, I Googled the same keyword using Chrome and we were on page 1 in 4th position! The other browsers still showed us on page 4, as usual. Has anybody else noticed this wild variance with Chrome? Is Chrome learning that I work at The Idea People?!!
Algorithm Updates | | theideapeople0 -
Rankings dropped in Yahoo
Hi All, I've recently seen some of my clients experience drops in Yahoo.co.uk. Does anyone have any info on any algo changes or updates? Thanks Bush
Algorithm Updates | | Bush_JSM0 -
When Panda's attack...
I have a predicament. The site I manage (www.duhaime.org) has been hit by the Panda update but the system seems fixed against this site’s purpose. I need some advice on what i'm planning and what could be done. First, the issues: Content Length The site is legal reference including dictionary and citation look up. Hundreds (perhaps upwards of 1000) of pages, by virtue of the content, are thin. The acronym C.B.N.S. stands for “Common Bench Reports, New Series” a part of the English reports. There really isn’t too much more to say nor is there much value to the target audience in saying it. Visit Length as a Metric There is chatter claiming Google watches how long a person uses a page to gauge it’s value. Fair enough but, a large number of people that visit this site are looking for one small piece of data. They want the definition of a term or citation then they return to whatever caused the query in the first place. My strategy so far… Noindex some Pages Identify terms and citations that are really small – less than 500 characters – and put a no index tag on them. I will also remove the directory links to the pages and clean the sitemaps. This should remove the obviously troublesome pages. We’ll have to live with the fact these page won’t be found in Google’s index despite their value. Create more click incentives We already started with related terms and now we are looking at diagrams and images. Anything to punch up the content for that ever important second click. Expand Content (of course) The author will focus the next six months on doing his best to extend the content of these short pages. There are images and text to be added in many cases – perhaps 200 pages. Still won't be able to cover them all without heavy cut-n-paste feel. Site Redesign Looking to lighten up the code and boiler plate content shortly. We were working on this anyway. Resulting pages should have less than 15 hard-coded site-wide links and the disclaimer will be loaded with AJAX upon scroll. Ads units will be kept at 3 per page. What do you think? Are the super light pages of the citations and dictionary why site traffic is down 35% this week?
Algorithm Updates | | sprynewmedia0