Does Google still need links? - SearchLove San Diego 2017

Does Google Still Need Links?Off-Site Ranking Factors for 2017

MozCon, September 2016

@THCapper

http://dis.tl/RandTipping

@THCapper



PageRank & links were a proxyfor user behaviour

@THCapper

Google doesn’t need a proxy anymore

@THCapper

Google is a browser

@THCapper

Google is an ISP

@THCapper

Google is, of course,a dominant search engine

@THCapper

& links have become a dirty signal

@THCapper

(Rand says) Build links that might genuinely drive high quality traffic

@THCapper

Today, taking this further

@THCapper

I’m going to try to present both sides of this argument

@THCapper

& I have some data to share with you

@THCapper

Don’t tweet this:

@THCapper

Do tweet this:

@THCapper

Over the next 30 minutes:

@THCapper

Has it already happened?

What could replace links?

What should you do next?

What would you do?

@THCapper

Machine learning

@THCapper

http://dis.tl/LarryCTR



What if you could find away to measure brand?

We all struggle with this.

@THCapper

This is elementary for Google.

@THCapper

All of the above & much more besides

@THCapperhttp://dis.tl/CuttsPorn

http://dis.tl/CuttsPorn

http://dis.tl/CuttsPorn

All of these factors correlatewith each other, and links

@THCapper

What does Google say?

@THCapper

https://youtu.be/l8VnZCcl9J4



@THCapper

“And I can tell you what they are.It is content. And it’s links pointing to your site.”

Andrey Lipattsev, Search Quality Senior Strategist, Googlehttps://youtu.be/l8VnZCcl9J4



@THCapper

Question: Are links already redundant?● Google: No

End of talk?

Counterclaim:Google is routinely wrong technically

correct about how Google works

@THCapper

Classic examples:● HTTPS migrations pre-2016● 302s are as good as 301s● Subdomains are as good as sub-folders● CCTLDs are as good as .com

@THCapper

@THCapper

http://bit.ly/GaryDA



@THCapper

Question: Are links already redundant?● Google: No

Correlations

Lots of people have found correlations

@THCapper

@THCapper

http://dis.tl/MozCorrelations



We all know that correlationdoes not imply causation

@THCapper

But causation & coincidenceare not the only possibilities

@THCapper

We’ve all enjoyed this

@THCapper

http://dis.tl/TylerVigen



And this

@THCapper




@THCapper

But how do these happen?

@THCapper

Potential Mechanisms

1. Complete coincidence - Nicholas Cage and drownings are in fact unrelated

(!)

@THCapper



(!)

2. Linearity - both cheese consumption and bedsheet-related deaths are

trending linearly, and thus loosely correlated

@THCapper



(!)


trending linearly , and thus loosely correlated

@THCapper



(!)



3. Reverse causation - it is in fact drownings that cause Nicholas Cage films,

not vice versa

@THCapper



(!)



3. Reverse causation - it is in fact drownings that cause Nicholas Cage films,

not vice versa

4. Joint causation - both cheese consumption and deaths in bedsheets are

related to increasing affluence (& effluence)

@THCapper

Affluence causes:● Cheese consumption● Bedsheet deaths

@THCapper

Brand awareness causes:● Links● Rankings?

@THCapper

@THCapper

Question: Are links already redundant?● Google: No● Correlation Studies: Inconclusive

So how does brand awareness compare?

@THCapper

@THCapper




@THCapper

Moz Study My Study

17,600 queries from KWP 4,900 queries from STAT

@THCapper

Moz Study My Study


Top 50 results Top 10 results

@THCapper

Moz Study My Study



Desktop only (?) Desktop & Smartphone

@THCapper

Moz Study My Study



Desktop only (?) Desktop & Smartphone

Mean Spearman correlations Mean Spearman correlations

Quantifying Brand Awareness

@THCapper

Branded Search Volume

@THCapper

@THCapper

Therefore:

If you care about DA, you should care about Branded Search Volume

@THCapper

& here’s another interesting thing

@THCapper

For my main data set, both variables are incredibly statistically significant

@THCapper

@THCapper

DA significance:

99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

Log(branded search volume) significance:

99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

9999999999999999999999999999%

@THCapper

For some clients, including both in the same model knocks DA out of statistical

significance

@THCapper

What does this mean?

@THCapper

Branded Search Volume explains most of what can be explained with DA

@THCapper

The reverse is not true.

@THCapper

(Yes I will be publishing this data)

@THCapper

@THCapper

Question: Are links already redundant?● Google: No● Correlation Studies: Inconclusive● My Data: Yes

@THCapper

http://dis.tl/MarcusTober



Counterclaim: This might have been true in 1998

@THCapper

Qualitatively, what doesranking flux look like?

Real World Example 1: Flowers

@THCapper

Keyword: FlowersMarket: GB-enPeriod: May-Dec 2016Device: Smartphone

@THCapper

@THCapper

What do we notice?1. Highly erratic

@THCapper

@THCapper

What do we notice?1. Highly erratic2. Interflora collapsed

@THCapper

@THCapper

What do we notice?1. Highly erratic2. Interflora collapsed3. DA 33 site overtakes DA 53 site(s)

@THCapper

Old-school ranking factors:1. On-site2. Algorithm updates3. Links

@THCapper

http://dis.tl/2016algo



@THCapper


@THCapper

Interflora.co.uk

Flyingflowers.co.uk

@THCapper

Interflora.co.uk

Flyingflowers.co.uk

40 domains

40 domains

@THCapper


This is not unusual.

@THCapper

Takeaway 1:Google is continuously iterating

@THCapper

Takeaway 2:(Users like) Aesthetics & Price

@THCapper

@THCapper

Real World Example 2: Fleximize.com

@THCapper

@THCapper

Content piece gains 168 referring domains

@THCapper


Takeaway:Links move the needle ...sometimes?

@THCapper

Question: Are links already redundant?● Google: No● Correlation Studies: Inconclusive● My Data: Yes● Anecdotal: Mixed

@THCapper

So: Are links dead yet?

There is quantitative and qualitative evidence to suggest that links are not

always the most important off-site factor.

@THCapper

Bringing all this together

An explanation that is consistentwith all of this

@THCapper

There are now two tiers.

@THCapper

1. At the competitive, data-rich top end, links mean increasingly little

@THCapper

@THCapper

1. At the competitive, data-rich top end, links mean increasingly little

2. But, for now, links might be a big part of what gets you into that shortlist.

Win at user testing

User testing for SEO: Places to start

@THCapper


1. Panda surveys

@THCapper

https://youtu.be/At51X-aZ4Y4




1. Panda surveys

2. Click-through rate experiments

@THCapper


1. Panda surveys


3. Plain old CRO - especially focusing on initial bounce

@THCapper


1. Panda surveys



4. All of the above: Mobile first

@THCapper


1. Panda surveys



4. All of the above: Mobile first

None of this is new!

@THCapper

Win at brand awareness & perception

(Content marketing, anyone?)

@THCapper

(& this has additional benefitsoutside of digital)

@THCapper

Google is trying to think like a person

@THCapper

So cut out the middleman:

Optimize for people

@THCapper

If you want to build links, think:

Would Google value this tacticin a world without links?

@THCapper

Closing thoughts

Thank You

@THCapper

Does Google still need links? - SearchLove San Diego 2017

Marketing

Transcript of Does Google still need links? - SearchLove San Diego 2017