I've made a small discovery!

A thing that i`m trying to understand- do you have legit social profiles with real followers or do u use social signals providers? I use social signals providers and I don`t see any improvements in rankings.

I start out buying a good number of fake followers for social profiles, which makes the Social Media pages look like established businesses or organizations. This helps me to get more real followers. I then get real organic shares from the real users.

You won't see many results with fake followers, they just make your account look good...

Your main objective is to drive traffic to your website from social media sites by posting links to your website in your tweets and messages.
 
do you use your personal fb account to post the articles?

No I create a Facebook page, Twitter account, Google+ page and Youtube channel for every site I build. Because I am just building Authority sites and not Micro Niche it's worth doing.

I use Hootsuite to schedule my tweets and messages, so that I don't have to spend a lot of time doing it.
 
yep, social signals work wonders if you don't overdo it. Are you getting natural shares once your posts are on f, G and t or is it just your own shares?

I am getting a good amount of Organic shares. This is easier to do on Google+ and Twitter, because you can use hashtags to comment on popular topics that expose your tweets and posts to a wider audience. Facebook has nothing like that, so getting shares is a lot more difficult.
 
Yes, social signals makes a difference but this depends even on the keyword competition...
You cant rank #1 a website with a high keyword competition that has no other SEO at all :)
 
Do i understand it correct? Social signals are just putting the links on social networks?
And is this sufficient value in social signals even if nobody really come to your web through link or engage in that?
 
I cant quote yet, so I use your picture, thejake: YSBdFjb.png
How reliable is source of this data?
 
edit: sorry for 2doulbe post, pls remove it.

I cant quote yet, so I use your picture, thejake: View attachment 44559
How reliable is source of this data?
 
Last edited:
Do i understand it correct? Social signals are just putting the links on social networks?
And is this sufficient value in social signals even if nobody really come to your web through link or engage in that?

Yes, a social signal is just a link to a webpage on a social media website.

They can be measured through the counters that are commonly seen on a share button.

If you have a facebook share button on a web page with a counter and post 100 messages with the link on facebook, your content would show the number 100. These are social signals, from what I can determine the source is irrelevant, so you can generate them yourself. :)
 
How reliable is source of this data?

The whole report is at http://www.searchmetrics.com/media/documents/ranking-faktoren/download-ranking-factor-study-2013.pdf and I doubt there's any particular flaws in the corpus of data, but calling anything a "ranking factor" that hasn't been confirmed as such by Google in one way or another is at best misleading. It's like thinking you can determine which books at a library are most popular by observing which are the most worn.
 
Thanks guys. Really appreciated to answer my newbie questions. :willy:
 
SEOs who analyze coincidental correlations and are skilled in naive hypothesis optimizations have known this to be true for years and created a market for social signals with many similarities to more traditional SEO service markets.

Ha ha, I was thinking the same thing, but couldn't have worded it as well as you did. Bravo. :)

"Correlation does not imply causation."
 
Back
Top