If you do SEO, read this

[FuryKyle]

I stumbled upon an extremely well written white paper about SEO ranking factors from some post. This is by far one of the most comprehensive and non-biased study I've read. Even if you're really good at SEO, I'd recommend you to go through it. It has some pretty good info in there, some you wouldn't even have expected to be a ranking factor. It's pretty long but well worth the time.

http://www.searchmetrics.com/media/documents/ranking-faktoren/download-ranking-factor-study-2013.pdf

 

[SkyrocketSEO]

Groundbraking...."Links are still important".

 

[thedorf]

Yea I dunno about that article.

It states "Keyword domains are no longer a ranking factor" which is complete BS as I just ranked at #1 an EMD.com and I don't think for a minute I would be at number 1 without the EMD.

But thanks for the share, there are some good tidbits in there.

 

[SkyrocketSEO]

which is complete BS as I just ranked at #1 an EMD.com and I don't think for a minute I would be at number 1 without the EMD.

Hush there

 

[sifar6484]

I stumbled upon an extremely well written white paper about SEO ranking factors from some post. This is by far one of the most comprehensive and non-biased study I've read. Even if you're really good at SEO, I'd recommend you to go through it. It has some pretty good info in there, some you wouldn't even have expected to be a ranking factor. It's pretty long but well worth the time.

http://www.searchmetrics.com/media/documents/ranking-faktoren/download-ranking-factor-study-2013.pdf

Yep thanks for the info......but honestly been wolrking as a seo freelancer over a period of time....i discovered some techinques that are well worth even to rank new websites within one month period...and truly seo is all about skill and approach which is unique to achieve results ...that are safe in google eyes...seo is nothing but link -building on safe platforms which google values....what it if your are building links on google safe platforms which already have PR 2 and PR 3 blogs...think about it...seo is all about executing perfect skill...that gives results...

 

[Martin1971]

Yeah....

Nice article, just need 2 points to now:

3.2 The number of backlinks remains immensely important.
3.3 Link diversity is always relevant.

Thanks for you share, jk i now you want to share good info, but 90% of the seo is in sub 3.2 and 3.3

 

[bigballin6161]

Social signals are going to be more and more important.

 

[MosesW]

Social signals are going to be more and more important.

So are we going to pay more to fiverr sellers for more FB Likes?

 

[Junkfood00]

Hmmm... it says you have to buy my link package to rank quickest.

 

[pegasus11]

yes indeed social signals are way more important now

 

[Smeems]

Not this shit again.

This correlation study does not look at what factors search engines consider to be important - this correlation study only reports what search engine marketers think to be important.

Seriously, that's all it shows. It just shows what people have been doing to try and rank on Google. Doesn't give any evidence at all to what may or may not work.

If you want to read a brilliant blog post that completely takes this apart, read this: http://www.seo-theory.com/2013/06/27/madness-reigns-in-the-state-of-confusion-in-online-marketing/

This "correlation study" has been shared multiple times now. It needs to die.

 

[FuryKyle]

Not this shit again.

This correlation study does not look at what factors search engines consider to be important - this correlation study only reports what search engine marketers think to be important.

Seriously, that's all it shows. It just shows what people have been doing to try and rank on Google. Doesn't give any evidence at all to what may or may not work.

If you want to read a brilliant blog post that completely takes this apart, read this: http://www.seo-theory.com/2013/06/27/madness-reigns-in-the-state-of-confusion-in-online-marketing/

This "correlation study" has been shared multiple times now. It needs to die.

What's important here is how important rankings factors are relative to each other, and that's what interesting here unless someone involved in Google's major algorithm coding comes and spill the beans, no? I don't see the harm in creating and publishing studies like this, so I certainly wouldn't call it "shit".

Seriously, that's all it shows. It just shows what people have been doing to try and rank on Google. Doesn't give any evidence at all to what may or may not work.

Yeah, that's all it shows. Did it claim otherwise in any part of the paper? It was meant for us to read and interpret, not as some golden SEO hackbook.

 

[LakeForest]

"Article"? You guys call a 69 page ebook an "article"?

I'm going to give it a thorough read, because if someone is going to spend this much time and effort, there has to be some nugget of informa...

...I just read the Rank Correlation 2013 section. It might as well have been written by someone who's been at BHW for a month.

 

[FuryKyle]

"Article"? You guys call a 69 page ebook an "article"?

I'm going to give it a thorough read, because if someone is going to spend this much time and effort, there has to be some nugget of informa...

...I just read the Rank Correlation 2013 section. It might as well have been written by someone who's been at BHW for a month.

SearchMetrics is pretty credible so I'd give them a bit more credit for publishing the paper. There are some flaws here and there but it's worth the read (at least it was for me). Everything up there is up for interpretation and there are occasionally some gold nuggets scattered around.

 

[satyr85]

If you want to read a brilliant blog post that completely takes this apart, read this

Just read this and found this:

What a bullshit Thousands of hundreds visitors a month by content not backlinks.
Another seo guru who says "link building is inefficient" LMAO

 

[DebtFreeMe]

I read the study... It was interesting, and it says repeatedly throughout the paper that correlation is not the same as causation... So really more than anything it should be looked at as a guide to best practices and not a how to guide...

The best way to succeed is to look at those that are successful and copy what they are doing... This is simply a study of what those at the top of the search engine rankings are doing, not really why they are at the top of the search engine rankings.

Is Papa Johns at the top of the search listings for the word pizza because they have a google + page... No, they have a Google + page because they are very successful at selling pizza and interacting with their customers... Thus correlation is not causation... But if you're going to build a national pizza chain would it be in your best interest to build a Google + page... ahhh yaaa...

Read it for what it is. Not for what people want it to be... Even in the paper they say they are not Google and can't tell you what the algorithm is that Google is using. But they can tell you the major areas where it, or more precisely the folks at the top of the search rankings have changed in relation to what they were doing last year...

Its a guide to current best practices not a guide on how to rank tomorrow...

Enjoy.. DFM

 

[FuryKyle]

I read the study... It was interesting, and it says repeatedly throughout the paper that correlation is not the same as causation... So really more than anything it should be looked at as a guide to best practices and not a how to guide...

The best way to succeed is to look at those that are successful and copy what they are doing... This is simply a study of what those at the top of the search engine rankings are doing, not really why they are at the top of the search engine rankings.

Is Papa Johns at the top of the search listings for the word pizza because they have a google + page... No, they have a Google + page because they are very successful at selling pizza and interacting with their customers... Thus correlation is not causation... But if you're going to build a national pizza chain would it be in your best interest to build a Google + page... ahhh yaaa...

Read it for what it is. Not for what people want it to be... Even in the paper they say they are not Google and can't tell you what the algorithm is that Google is using. But they can tell you the major areas where it, or more precisely the folks at the top of the search rankings have changed in relation to what they were doing last year...

Its a guide to current best practices not a guide on how to rank tomorrow...

Enjoy.. DFM

Well said.

 

[picas]

thanks anyway ...

 

[blackhatboss9]

Thanx op for the share. Just went through and found it is a good and must read ebook.