SEO ranking factors
-
Hello I am reading SEO ranking factor (very good informations)
and I want to ask: what does it mean:
of linking C bloks to page
I think that: how many(#) links from the same server (C block) links to your
homepage or some pages of your web...
of linking IP adresses to page
how many web links are going to my web and every links are from another server.
if I understand it good, it is no different between, if you have links from
webpages in one server (one C block) or
from webpages on another servers as your web is, because both correlation is 0.25...
THX
Could anybody expalin me, what does it mean: # of External Links w/ Partial Match Anchor Text http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#metrics-5
The number of external links and all these external links contain partial match anchor text from my query:
(I am finding in Google "tennis" and see in SERP domain www.usta.com. # of External Links w/ Partial Match Anchor Text: tells me the number how many external links contain partial match anchor text "play tennis, tennis school, tennis info..."? )
-
Thank you very much for your opinion,
I understand the methodology of ranking factors
http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#methodology
, but with ilustration of ranking factors I have sometimes problem...
THX one more time
-
Thanks for the link - I read this before though.
Well, the correlation data is the result of a high amount of websites that have been analyzed and how their rankings were positely/negatively related to a certain dimension, in this case number of different c-blocks/IPs linking.
Even though I agree with you that a more diverse IP profile should have more impact than diversity in terms of c-blocks, it might just be that websites having a high diversity of IPs also have more websites from different c-blocks linking and vice versa.
Just my thoughts...
-
OK I understand, that this is bad when you have all links from on C-block, but why # of linking C bloks to page - have correlation 0.25 and: # of linking IP addresses to page - have correlation 0.25.
I think that correlation: # of linking C block should by less than correlation: # of linking IP addresses.
http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#metrics-5
-
http://www.seomoz.org/q/links-from-same-c-block
if I understand it good, it is no different between, if you have links from
webpages in one server (one C block) or
from webpages on another servers as your web is, because both correlation is 0.25
This is the big difference - if you have a vast majority of links from one C-Block or one IP address, both has a negative impact in the same amount. Links should come from a wide variety of different IPs on different c-blocks
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
-
Nofolow links drive to losing ranking
Hello there,
Algorithm Updates | | Goran024
I am an owner of mobilnishop website. We selling mobile phones. As you know , new phones coming every few days and they starting to be old after 1-2 years. So I decided to all pages which present old (discontinued) phones make them "noindex". I this way I meant to to focus google on new pages ( for new phones). After 1 year I find a huge losing trafic and key word position on goole. For example, word :
"mobilni telefoni " from 2 place I move to 11. So what I find out is that I LOST LINK JUICE. Is it possible that google does not see given link of my noindex pages? It look that I made auto goal.
Any opinion? Suggest ?0 -
Local SEO: 1 Location Covering Multiple Surrounding Cities
I am setting up local pages on our main site for each of our dealers. Some of them cover multiple cities. For example, one dealer in Santa Rosa, CA, but also covers San Francisco (50 mile drive). While I know that with Google+ Local I can add coverage radius or zip code/cities covered, what about on that dealer's local page on our site? Should I create local pages for each city covered or cram local optimization into one? Keep in mind I only have one address to work with for each dealer (P.O. Boxes or Virtual Mail Boxes are NOT a good solutions). Looking for any white hat tips before I implement for all 100+ dealers.
Algorithm Updates | | the-coopersmith0 -
With regards to SEO is it good or bad to remove all the old events from our website?
Our website sells tickets for various events across the UK, we do have a LOT of old event pages on our website which simply say SOLD OUT. What is the best practice? Should these event pages be removed and a 301 redirect added to redirect to the home page? Or should these pages remain in tact with simply SOLD OUT on the page?
Algorithm Updates | | Alexogilvie0 -
Trying to recover from a ranking crash
My site was well established and I'd built up some good rankings in Google using link building and onsite optimization. Then last year it completely fell out of the rankings except for a few keywords. There were some suspicious links but nothing that seemed too toxic, no warnings from Webmaster Tools. 9 months later I still haven't recovered. The site is well optimized. Any ideas?
Algorithm Updates | | Infogenix0 -
Videos increase ranking of products in SERPS from Ecommerce Website
Just noticed something I've never seen before..and I just wanted to see if anyone else experienced this. I work for a 15000+ item eccommerce website, and today I noticed that on a few brand searches, several individual product pages were coming up. This is actually unusual because most of our individual item pages (including these) aren't ranked well enough to show up well in a brand search (and don't try to target brand terms either), but a correlation here was that both items contained videos referenced within. These were not videos hosted on our YouTube brand page either..these were videos done by separate manufacturers - one was hosted on their site, one on ours. Google actually pulled the snapshot of the video to the SERP as well... even though it was embedded within other product copy. Has anyone else noticed any preferential treatment given to effectively random items on your eCommerce website because it was augmented by video? I can assure you there was nothing otherwise unique about these products and they're not really that sought after. Neither item or url was new, and neither were the videos within. Also, this was a Universal Google search, not one for videos. (Sorry, I'm not allowed to reference directly). Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | Blenny0 -
SEO Link building / Article Distributation
Quick question in regards to link building and OFF PAGE SEO... Why isn't Articles distributation via wire services considered a "Duplicate Content" issue by Google? i.e. If take the one article and post it accross 50 (do follow) websites, Press release sites, and blogs. I would love to hear your thoughts and feedback on this. Regard, Sammy
Algorithm Updates | | revsystems.com0 -
What Happend To My Ranks? Began Dec 22 - detailed Info Inside
I have a .co.uk domain that was setup in November 2009 and it has always done pretty will in the SERPS. In Oct-Dec last year I could literally publish a post and be on the first page for a keyword with no backlinks at all. All of my posts/pages feature- 100% unique content (min 500 words)
Algorithm Updates | | mwoody
Imagery
Embeded video which is part of a video sitemap
External links
keyword density between 2 and 4
keyword in first paragraph bolded
Title tags are written like KEYWORD - Title, eg BLUE WIDGETS - What You Need To Know Then this happened- http://i53.tinypic.com/2a62fb8.jpg
On december 22nd - december 24th i see a sharp decline in traffic, and then a further decline december 31st - Jan 1st? On that graph I have marked out changes I have made to the site. The bottom bar that was deployed on Nov 30th was simply a floating price comparison bar stuck to the bottom of pages. Other than that change, nothing else had changed on the site during that period. Here's what I have done so far to try and fix things- Optimized load time (now 2.5 seconds)
Deployed MaxCDN content delivery network
Removed some pages which were similar, but 100% unique (unlock pages on graph)
Change H2 tags to H1 (previously there were no H1 tags)
Removed the bottom bar on nov 30th
reduced price compare results to 3 from 10
Ran a broken link check
Noindex/Follow 2nd pages of tag/categories pages
Improved blog posting rates to at least twice a day I have 100% indexation rate across the site, an average load time of 2.5 seconds. I've tried everything I can think of, and can't seem to pin point the issue and after 5 months of trying to get it fixed I think an outside view is needed! So what happened at Google mid-end december? Any advice/thoughts/feedback is greatly appreciated, thanks for your time. 2a62fb8.jpg0 -
If a page one result for a keyword is mostly directories, do I have a chance to rank for this keyword?
I feel like although directories carry a lot of weight and links, I'd think that my client would be able to gain a top position, since none of the others are competitor pages, nor are the directories engaging.
Algorithm Updates | | randallseo0