What do you think of SearchMetrics' claim that there are no longer universal ranking factors?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
It's marketing hyperbole.
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
-
PDFs With No Index Contribute To Page Ranks?
I have a question I'm hoping you can help me with. If I upload a PDF and add a no index under the meta robots index so that the PDF doesn't appear in search results when I send people the link to this PDF, does it still contribute to my site traffic/ranking etc? Basically we are deciding whether to put some PDFs with pricing options etc onto our website or on a google drive. We will be sending the links to potential clients. If visitors clicking on the link would still help with increasing traffic and increasing our google rank (without that PDF showing in results) we thought this might be the best solution.
Algorithm Updates | | whiterabbitnz0 -
Do the referring domains matter a lot in back-links? Google's stand?
Hi, It's a known fact about quality of back-links than quantity. Still domains are heavily different from links. Multiple domains are huge comparing to multiple links. Taking an average, how much does 'number of referring domains" boost website authority? I am not speaking about low quality domains, just number of domains including which are irrelevant to the topic or industry. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google has indexed some of our old posts. What took so long and will we lose rank for their brevity?
Hi, We just had a few of our old blog posts indexed by Google. There are short formed posts, and I want to make sure we're not going to get dinged by Google for their length. Can you advise?https://www.policygenius.com/blog/guaranteed-issue
Algorithm Updates | | francoisdelame0 -
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 -
Our root domain is no longer appearing in search results
Hi all The root domain for our site, roadtrippers.com, has been disappearing from Google's search results. Subfolders and subdomains still appear, but our root domain isn't found at all. I believe I've verified this by searching "-inurl:trips -inurl:byways -inurl:support -inurl:blog -inurl:places -inurl:guides -inurl:destinations site:https://roadtrippers.com/" in Google and our root domain is nowhere to be found. This may or may not be related to another issue we've had, where the root domain is appearing with a seemingly rotating set of parameters. Sometimes it'll be ?mod=, sometimes it'll be ?tag=translation. Originally they appeared to simply displace our ranking root domain, but now they and our root domain are completely disappearing. Our dev team believes they fixed the problem with recent 301 tags to any unapproved parameter being added to the root domain, but this hasn't fixed the original problem. Any insight into this is greatly appreciated! Brandon
Algorithm Updates | | brandonRT0 -
Mozcast: 5th & 9th May - what's shaking up?
What's going on at the moment, i can't find any info on the 5/9th May but Mozcast is showing some movement. Anyone have any info? Cheers
Algorithm Updates | | Bondara0 -
Do you think Google is destroying search?
I've seen garbage in google results for some time now, but it seems to be getting worse. I was just searching for a line of text that was in one of our stories from 2009. I just wanted to check that story and I didn't have a direct link. So I did the search and I found one copy of the story, but it wasn't on our site. I knew that it was on the other site as well as ours, because the writer writes for both publications. What I expected to see was the two results, one above the other, depending on which one had more links or better on-page for the query. What I got didn't really surprise me, but I was annoyed. In #1 position was the other site, That was OK by me, but ours wasn't there at all. I'm almost used to that now (not happy about it and trying to change it, but not doing well at all, even after 18 months of trying) What really made me angry was the garbage results that followed. One site, a wordpress blog, has tag pages and category pages being indexed. I didn't count them all but my guess is about 200 results from this blog, one after the other, most of them tag pages, with the same content on every one of them. Then the tag pages stopped and it started with dated archive pages, dozens of them. There were other sites, some with just one entry, some with dozens of tag pages. After that, porn sites, hundreds of them. I got right to the very end - 100 pages of 10 results per page. That blog seems to have done everything wrong, yet it has interesting stats. It is a PR6, yet Alexa ranks it 25,680,321. It has the same text in every headline. Most of the headlines are very short. It has all of the category and tag and archive pages indexed. There is a link to the designer's website on every page. There is a blogroll on every page, with links out to 50 sites. None of the pages appear to have a description. there are dozens of empty H2 tags and the H1 tag is 80% through the document. Yet google lists all of this stuff in the results. I don't remember the last time I saw 100 pages of results, it hasn't happened in a very long time. Is this something new that google is doing? What about the multiple tag and category pages in results - Is this just a special thing google is doing to upset me or are you seeing it too? I did eventually find my page, but not in that list. I found it by using site:mysite.com in the search box.
Algorithm Updates | | loopyal0 -
Let's talk about link networks
With the recent deindexing of blog/link networks, I was hoping to get the Q&A's take on what defines a link network. Are all link building services using link networks? Would you consider something like: submitedge.com thehoth.com To use link networks? They generate links for you, but most of the time they will do it with "decent" content, on sites like Wordpress, Blogger, Squidoo and other similar sites. I don't think that most of their link sources are owned internally, but I could be wrong. Some of them use profile links to send links to their articles, which is garbage. Would you suggest staying away from services like this all together? I'd say that 90% of the services offered on submitedge might be junk, but a few look useful. I've seen a few people at my company have success with them, but fully understand that it could be short term, and potentially inevitable that those links get deindexed. I'd like to potentially find a good link building service that could bridge the gaps between when I have time to write content and do link building, as I know the engines like to see a steady stream of both. Any thoughts? Any other services you guys have used with some success? I am not looking for sites like fiverr or anything quick/cheap. I'd be willing to spend the appropriate money occasionally when I think I could use a few extra links, but don't think I need a regular link builder (as that's something I like to do). I also don't want to go the route of outright buying links from other websites. Cheers, Vinnie
Algorithm Updates | | vforvinnie2