Factors: Correlations, Testing, & Hypotheses
- Главная
- Разное
- Дизайн
- Бизнес и предпринимательство
- Аналитика
- Образование
- Развлечения
- Красота и здоровье
- Финансы
- Государство
- Путешествия
- Спорт
- Недвижимость
- Армия
- Графика
- Культурология
- Еда и кулинария
- Лингвистика
- Английский язык
- Астрономия
- Алгебра
- Биология
- География
- Детские презентации
- Информатика
- История
- Литература
- Маркетинг
- Математика
- Медицина
- Менеджмент
- Музыка
- МХК
- Немецкий язык
- ОБЖ
- Обществознание
- Окружающий мир
- Педагогика
- Русский язык
- Технология
- Физика
- Философия
- Химия
- Шаблоны, картинки для презентаций
- Экология
- Экономика
- Юриспруденция
Google Ranking Factors: Correlations, Testing, & Hypotheses презентация
Содержание
- 1. Google Ranking Factors: Correlations, Testing, & Hypotheses
- 2. This Presentation Is Online Here: bit.ly/grankfactors2014
- 3. What does it mean? How should we apply the data? Correlation
- 4. Correlation does NOT say why these results
- 5. Correlation tells us what features, on average,
- 6. Correlation tells us what features, on average,
- 7. Via Moz’s 2013 Search Ranking Factors
- 8. Via Moz’s 2013 Search Ranking Factors To
- 9. Via Moz’s 2013 Search Ranking Factors MozRank
- 10. Via Moz’s 2013 Search Ranking Factors $100
- 11. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post Google+ is just too damn high.
- 12. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this
- 13. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this
- 14. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this
- 15. Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this
- 16. Via Mozcast PMD was as high as
- 17. Basic introduction to LDA and topic-modeling systems
- 18. More on rankings and page load time
- 19. See How Unique Does Content Need to
- 20. I hope to see many, many
- 21. What can we learn from a recent SEO test? Testing
- 22. Hypothesis: It seems like Google is
- 23. Here were the test conditions: #1: Three-word
- 24. After 3 Weeks: All of the links
- 25. Of Additional Interest: Result B (with exact-match
- 26. Takeaways: #1) Anchor text still matters #2) Geographic location of links matters
- 27. I’d love to see lots more
- 28. Three guesses Rand has about what Google’s up to Hypotheses
- 29. Hypothesis #1: Carousels and “Brand” are Connected
- 30. Hypothesis #2: There’s an aspect of mention
- 31. Hypothesis #3: Google is using search &
- 32. Hopefully, these hypotheses can lead to experiments, results, and more sharing ☺
- 33. Rand Fishkin, Wizard of Moz | @randfish | rand@moz.com bit.ly/grankfactors2014
This Presentation Is Online Here: bit.ly/grankfactors2014
Слайд 5Correlation tells us what features, on average, the results that rank
higher have which the lower ranking results do not have.
More on Rand’s Blog
Слайд 6Correlation tells us what features, on average, the results that rank
higher have which the lower ranking results do not have.
More on Rand’s Blog
I’m actually MORE interested in this than I am in whatever Google’s actually using to rank the results!
Слайд 8Via Moz’s 2013 Search Ranking Factors
To me, this says individual pages
still matter, but there’s a lot of weight on the hosting domain.
Слайд 9Via Moz’s 2013 Search Ranking Factors
MozRank used to be higher, and
so did linking root domains. Google’s probably getting more complex.
Слайд 10Via Moz’s 2013 Search Ranking Factors
$100 says that if we could
get more comprehensive brand mention data, this correlation would start to look a lot like links
Слайд 12Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post
Google: “Most of the
initial discussion on this thread seemed to take from the blog post the idea that more Google +1s led to higher web ranking. I wanted to preemptively tackle that perception.”
Слайд 13Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post
To me, that’s Google
working really hard to NOT say “we don’t use any data from Google+ (directly or indirectly) at all in our ranking algorithms.” I would be very surprised if they said that.
Слайд 14Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post
That said, all of
the correlations with social are high. That tells me the things that make content have success on social probably have a lot of overlap with what makes content successful in Google.
Слайд 15Good discussion about Google+ correlations in this post
Domain name keyword matching
continues to show decline.
Слайд 16Via Mozcast
PMD was as high as 5% two years ago. EMD
was almost 6%. Both have fallen precipitously.
Слайд 17Basic introduction to LDA and topic-modeling systems here.
We were able to
build a better keyword-modeling system in 2013, and correlations were higher than in past studies looking at raw keyword repetition or use in title elements.
Слайд 18More on rankings and page load time here.
Response time was interesting,
but it’s likely a very small direct factor and relatively big indirect factor (i.e. users like fast-loading pages, and people link to/share what they like) ☺
Слайд 19See How Unique Does Content Need to Be.
Last, more content still
seems to, on average, slightly overperform vs. less content. I’d question any causality here, though.
Слайд 20
I hope to see many, many more correlation tests and more
things considered! Causal or not, correlation data is incredibly useful.
Слайд 23Here were the test conditions:
#1: Three-word keyword phrase in Google.com US
#3:
We pointed links with NO query-matching anchor text from 20 unique, not-particularly-on-topic, high DA domains at result A and EXACT-anchor-text match links from the same pages at result A.
#2: At start of test, result A ranked #20, B ranked #13.
Слайд 24After 3 Weeks:
All of the links had been indexed by Google
Result
B (with exact-match anchor text) ranked #9 in Google.com US
Result A (with non-query-matching anchor text) ranked #18 in Google.com US
Слайд 25Of Additional Interest:
Result B (with exact-match anchor text) ranked #4 in
Google.co.uk
Result A (with non-query-matching anchor text) ranked #19 in Google.co.uk
~5 of the 20 linking domains were from UK sites
Слайд 27
I’d love to see lots more testing in the SEO world.
Even imperfect tests are fascinating and useful, IMO.
Слайд 29Hypothesis #1: Carousels and “Brand” are Connected
However Google’s determining carousel placement
is also connected to their entities and brand signals
Слайд 30Hypothesis #2: There’s an aspect of mention frequency and mention source
in Google’s brand/domain bias
More and more, these queries return results that look like what you’d get if you polled people on the street to tell you what brands they most associated with the phrase “men’s sneakers”
Слайд 31Hypothesis #3: Google is using search & visit patterns to connect
words & phrases and rank results
Why do they list these 3 in the top 10? My guess – it’s because they are most often visited by people who’ve done searchers around “luxury resorts Australia”
