1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Google hating on Social Signals... or lying?

Discussion in 'Black Hat SEO' started by ThopHayt, Aug 26, 2015.

  1. ThopHayt

    ThopHayt Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    6,562
    Likes Received:
    2,449
    https://www.seroundtable.com/google-social-signals-ranking-20803.html

    So Google is claiming that social signals, shares, tweets, and the like have NOOOO impact on a page's ranking. From this it appears that they are making the claim that their algorithm absolutely does not take social links directly into its ranking equation. Meaning sheerly from a linkjuice standpoint that social links HAVE NONE.

    So may I say that I call bullshit. Based on my usage it is clear that social signals are quite relevant. So I have to ask myself why Google would be saying this? Are they trying to convince people to stop spamming by saying it won't work? Or have they worded this cunningly enough to not be a lie?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
    Last edited: Aug 26, 2015
  2. iamsolo

    iamsolo Power Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2014
    Messages:
    557
    Likes Received:
    338
    Gender:
    Male
    They dont have any control on social sites. If they write algorithm based on any social networking site, they have to rewrite entire algorithm if any of the site closed and they dont have access to posts if user sets privacy to private. Thats why they dont treat social signals seperately except gplus because they've full control and access. They treat social signals same as normal links.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  3. Samson82

    Samson82 Newbie

    Joined:
    May 30, 2015
    Messages:
    14
    Likes Received:
    5
    It's hard to trust what Google says, best to do our own experiments to find the answer
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  4. scottmarra

    scottmarra Newbie

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2014
    Messages:
    27
    Likes Received:
    4
    Interesting. I have noticed minimal impact from the social work I have done.
     
  5. veboo

    veboo Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2014
    Messages:
    1,096
    Likes Received:
    680
    It's true that Social Signals have minimum effect on rankings however I think it is necessary have them as to diversify the link profile and keep it natural in Google's Eye :)
     
  6. ThopHayt

    ThopHayt Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    6,562
    Likes Received:
    2,449
    Can anyone verify that Google Plus shares are treated differently than say Facebook shares?
     
  7. SainaGroup

    SainaGroup Regular Member

    Joined:
    Apr 20, 2015
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    77
    Social signals make you site profile more natural .
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
  8. xZorex

    xZorex Newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2015
    Messages:
    1
    Likes Received:
    2
    As I can remember when a post was shared by a Google+ account it had a better position in search results, but, not sure about that today because I didn't see any Google+ profile in search results anymore. Also we must consider the future "shutdown" of Google+.

    I agree with Google because is easy to buy fake likes and shares over there, so, basically if they consider social interactions as a positive indicator for ranking. Anyway, this can change in the future, right?

    BTW: hi, I'm new here.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  9. fc-dh

    fc-dh Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,846
    Likes Received:
    1,428
    Occupation:
    Blackhatting
    Location:
    Den Haag | Netherlands

    I belief Google is right on this... social signals is not a ranking factor, it is to easy to manipulate like most metrics SEO's and webmasters think have a major affect on their rankings

    However..... That being said....

    I do belief that there is a red flag if you have 1000 quality links and no shares or/and tweets to speak of, so i belief -because it makes the most sense in my opinion- that Google is using social signals as a way to validate your links, i have no real hard data on this hypothesis, as i find it hard to come up with a full proof test, and come to conclusion (because of all the variables) but it makes so much sense that i am going with it, if it isn't the case then no harm is done anyway.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 1
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2015
  10. tony_d

    tony_d Elite Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2013
    Messages:
    2,582
    Likes Received:
    3,176
    Location:
    1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View CA
    What he said. I said the same thing last time this topic came up...
     
  11. kelvinjohn

    kelvinjohn BANNED BANNED

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2014
    Messages:
    75
    Likes Received:
    3
    Lots of benefits of social signals. In my views social signals is just because we can keep our backlink profile look natural.
     
  12. godspeed007

    godspeed007 Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    273
    Always trust the opposite of what Google guys say. They actually fear the consequences of actions taken by blackhaters lol
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  13. ThopHayt

    ThopHayt Jr. VIP Jr. VIP Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    6,562
    Likes Received:
    2,449

    I believe that makes sense. I think Google knows how EASY it is to fake signals. BUT... they don't want to make their links toxic like they have with other abused links in the past (wiki links anybody). So maybe what they do is ignore them in terms of link juice... while at the same time doing what you said: using them as a metric similar to traffic. Something to validate a page with.
     
  14. novakchot

    novakchot Newbie

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7
    Likes Received:
    0
    Use them to drive traffic instead of ranking on google.
     
  15. john-benjamin

    john-benjamin Regular Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2013
    Messages:
    313
    Likes Received:
    427
    I personally dont feel like Social Signals have any kind of impact as that is something out of control from google. They have control over Google+ and there are chances that they take Google+ upvotes as signals but I cant guarantee about others :/

    Anyone can buy thousands of likes and rank? You must be kidding lol..
     
  16. ChanzGrande

    ChanzGrande Elite Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2008
    Messages:
    2,485
    Likes Received:
    1,174
    Occupation:
    Accountant
    Location:
    Northern Woods Counting Money
    Ah, I think this "discussion" is silly. Turn a faucet on some time real slowly, and get a sense for how social signals lube the link chain. Big G is not exactly lying, but not telling the whole story as always. Do keep in mind it is their business model to keep people in the dark about their overall ranking algorithms. Social signals are definitely relevant, and often point the way for G to find the links that exist pointing towards ones sites. Additionally, as has been pointed it - they are and can be used as a validation mechanism.

    Of course you could go run some tests, but seriously ... it's a bit overkill when thousands of people have already run the tests, and people continue to buy and sell social signals. It speaks for itself.
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  17. fc-dh

    fc-dh Elite Member

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,846
    Likes Received:
    1,428
    Occupation:
    Blackhatting
    Location:
    Den Haag | Netherlands
    That people are still buying social signals (or any other so called ranking metric besides links) is not something you can draw a conclusion from imho, and it is real hard to test and see if social signals is or is not a ranking factor, i know for a fact (true testing) that only social signals does nothing for your rankings but give you some tricks traffic, but after that it gets real tricky to test.... i have two test started in January that are still ranking fine with HQ links and no signals at all.

    So my data says that it COULD be a validation tool for Google, it makes sense and i really depend more on my data then on the shopping habits of so called SEOĆ©rs that are indoctrinated by WF/MOZ/SEL and never have done a simple test in their lives...
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  18. sforzando

    sforzando Regular Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    May 27, 2011
    Messages:
    368
    Likes Received:
    120
    Agreed 100%. There needs to be some kind of measurable user engagement to check out with the backlinks.
     
  19. mickyfu

    mickyfu Jr. VIP Jr. VIP

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,109
    Likes Received:
    20,429
    Occupation:
    King Of Crypto C
    Location:
    Solihull Young Offenders
    I have one question, what are social signals?
     
    • Thanks Thanks x 2
  20. Anonoptimization

    Anonoptimization Power Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2015
    Messages:
    616
    Likes Received:
    54
    Some of the top ranking sites in my niche barely have social signals, one of the top sites doesn't even appear to have a facebook page. I can see it being a vallidation thing like traffic but also they are pretty noisy signals and they can easily be spammed with stuff like fivver, and g00gle doesn't have access to twitter and facebooks feeds so I doubt g00gle uses it much to rank sites.