Links & rankings, the story in the data - BrightonSEO April 2017

Links & RankingsThe Story in the Data

1998

@THCapper

You navigate the web using links

@THCapper

So links are a usefulproxy for popularity & trust

@THCapper

2017

@THCapper

There are now other waysto browse the web

@THCapper

& Google doesn’t need toapproximate popularity

@THCapper

Google is a browser

@THCapper

Google is an ISP

@THCapper

Google is, of course,a dominant search engine

@THCapper

So they have the real dataon user behaviour.

No need for a proxy.

@THCapper

& links have become a dirty signal

@THCapper

So what, for Google, is the point in links?

Are they obsolete?

@THCapper

First: House rules

@THCapper

Don’t tweet this:

@THCapper

Do tweet this:

@THCapper

Has it already happened?

What could replace links?

What should you do next?

1. What could replace links?

The obvious answer:

Machine learning + user signals

@THCapper

http://dis.tl/LarryCTR



The less obvious answer:

Brand

What if you could find a way to measure brand?

We all struggle with this.

@THCapper

This is elementary for Google.

@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

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

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




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



2. Linearity - both cheese consumption and bedsheet-related deaths are trending linearly , and thus loosely correlated

@THCapper



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

trending linearly, and thus loosely correlated

3. Reverse causation - it is in fact drownings that cause Nicholas Cage films, not

vice versa

@THCapper






vice versa

Or in our case...

@THCapper






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

@THCapper

Brand awareness causes:● Links● Rankings?

Brand awareness causes:● Links● Rankings?

This would explain those studies.

@THCapper

@THCapper

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

So how does brand awareness compare?

@THCapper

@THCapper




@THCapper

http://dis.tl/BSVdata



@THCapper

Therefore:

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

@THCapper

@THCapper

@THCapper

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

But

@THCapper

Statistical Significance: 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

9999999999999999999999999%

R Squared: ~1%

Pearson’s Correlation: ~0.1

Which means that there’s something I’m missing.

@THCapper

@THCapper

Qualitatively, what doesranking flux look like?

Real World Example 1: Flowers

@THCapper

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

(This is all public data)

@THCapper

@THCapper

What do we notice?1. Highly erratic

@THCapper

@THCapper

What do we notice?1. Highly erratic2. Dominant site collapsed

@THCapper

@THCapper

What do we notice?1. Highly erratic2. Dominant site 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

Site A (DA 53)

Site B (DA 33)

Site A (DA 53)

Site B (DA 33)

@THCapper

40 domains

40 domains

@THCapper


This is not unusual.

@THCapper

Takeaway 1:Google is continuously iterating

@THCapper

Takeaway 2:(Users like) Aesthetics & Price

@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

Bringing all this together

An explanation that is consistentwith all of this

@THCapper

Perhaps 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

1. Panda surveys

2. Click-through rate experiments

3. Plain old CRO - especially focusing on initial bounce

4. All of the above: Mobile first

None of this is new!

@THCapper

Win at brand awareness & perception

@THCapper

If you want to build links, think:

Would Google value this tacticin a world without links?

@THCapper

Thank You

@THCapper

Links & rankings, the story in the data - BrightonSEO April 2017

Marketing

Transcript of Links & rankings, the story in the data - BrightonSEO April 2017