What is Google Really Looking For? Pt4

One Month Later....

Something happened to changed everything. Between 3:40am Monday 27th July and 11:40 Tuesday 28th July, something apparently impossible happened.

Google claims that all their rankings are calculated algorithmically and while there have been claims by SEOs that Google occasionally adjust SERPs manually, Google have constantly denied these claims.

The graph above below shows Vodaphone.co.uk appearing from nowhere in position 3, climbing as high as 2 during the night. Vodaphone.co.uk is a misspelling of Vodafone.co.uk, with no algorithmic right to be anywhere near the top 500, certainly not position #2 for a query like “Mobile Phones”.

This was spotted on the morning of Monday 28th July by a member of our International Account Management team. We had been monitoring this update now for a whole month, and by now nothing would surprise us, however this made no sense (see below)



Our SEO team agreed that this was a ranking impossibility and made no sense whatsoever. There was no 301 trickery and no major backlink footprint:

* http://www.vodaphone.co.uk (190 backlinks)
* http://online.vodafone.co.uk (1,810 backlinks)
* Sitting on a domain http://www.vodafone.co.uk (69,945 backlinks)

And sure enough it was replaced by the correct site (online.vodafone.co.uk) around about noon later that day.

Could this be human error on the part of a search quality engineer? After all both these sites look pretty similar... Could this be a user behavioural consideration on the part of Google? Possibly, although why would Google favour type-in (possibly) in this way, sure that would favour commonly misspelt domains, impacting quality results.

At any rate, after seeing this I started to feel that Matt’s comments made more sense. Perhaps this wasn’t an update, at least in the traditional sense. Given that this impacted such a small number of queries, it would be feasible (at the very least) for this entire update to be handled manually.

The Million Dollar Question:

Q: If the rankings were manually adjusted, what’s the way forward for SEO?

A: While some sites appear to have been given a ranking boost we know that they are not held in absolute position, the boost appears to be relative to the previous position, meaning that a manually boosted site can be displaced by solid SEO activity.

Note: We generally use this data set to analyse precisely what component factors make a successful campaign run optimally, both in terms of cost and time, understanding the what signals Google is looking for enables us to overcome almost any kind of ranking correction.
Food for thought

I'd urge you take this evidence and take into account Matt Cutts' comments on this subject,

• Perhaps this wasn't an update as Mr Cutts himself suggested?
• Could such a small amount of changes be performed manually?
• How else could Google not only pin-point with such precision the handful of big brands that deserved a boost, but also boost them each appropriately?

What is Google Really Looking For? Pt3

I guess the question still remains:-

Is brand building the new link building?

Stickyeyes has been recording vast quantities (1000+ Gb) of data across a range of major SERPs, including link structures, on page factors and ranking correlations for all competitors across all the vertical markets which Stickyeyes™ operate in.

Utilising this data and publically available data (see below), Stickyeyes™ made two key comparisons based on averages; by comparing key factors of sites before and after the adjustment.

Analysis 1 - We compared the averages across hundreds of keywords ,measuring the key metrics for each top ten, before and after the update.

Analysis 2 – We compared the big winners against the big losers following the adjustment.

Results of the Analysis:-

Analysis 1: New Top 10s (averages)

• Alexa Ranking: 53% improvement
• Domain age: 6% increase
• Brand Search Volume: 36% increase
• Google News: 302% increase
• Total # backlinks: 44% decrease
• % brand links: 14% increase
• % targeted anchor text: 3% decrease

Analysis 2: Big Winners (averages)
• Alexa Ranking: 79% improvement
• Domain age: 78% increase
• Brand Search Volume: 6,574% increase
• Google News: 282% increase
• Total # backlinks: 63% increase
• % brand links: 63% increase
• % targeted anchor text: 25% decrease

This analysis demonstrates some strong patterns across a number of key areas. However some findings could be symptomatic of something else, rather than actual driving factors behind the statistics provided – Stickyeyes conducted isolated tests in order to gain more accurate findings.
These findings raised more questions of course, but some interesting answers.

Q: Is Google factoring in brand search volume?
A: Not in isolation - Instigated by the 6,547% increase in brand search volume in analysis 2, we tested brand search volume as a ranking factor in isolation. Stickyeyes can confirm that brand search volume is not a factor (at least not in isolation).

Conclusion: Smaller newcomers who offer value are still able to out-perform large established brands providing they deploy a balanced campaign addressing a sufficiently broad range of quality signals and the financial backing to see a long term campaign through to victory.

Q: Is Google moving away from a link based algorithm?
A: No - We know that Google is considering other factors to determine relevancy including user behaviour, and have a number of social signals, however Google is still fundamentally a link based algorithm. We’ve seen a significant decrease in total back links, which appears to be the result of Google discounting low quality link and rightly penalised the spammers.

Conclusion: Ensure your link building is deployed naturally, acquire links on quality sites preferably within a legitimate editorial context, quality is essential, as is a mix of news-worthy PR, high quality on-site content and communities. Communities and other social factors are particularly important in many verticals.

Q: Is Google up-weighting non-keyword anchor text (link text)
A: Not directly - while the evidence implies this, it’s more likely to be symptomatic of the up-weighting of the proximity text in or around the link, another relevancy factor, or the contextual theme of the link. If this assumption were correct, it may explain the 63% brand link increase as well as the 25% reduction in targeted anchor text in our Vince Winners vs. Losers analysis detailed above.

Conclusion: It’s now more important than ever to ensure your link building is deployed naturally and with on-topic, newsworthy content in the mix.

One Month Later...

Something happened to changed everything. Between 3:40am Monday 27th July and 11:40 Tuesday 28th July, something apparently impossible happened.... (coming soon....)

What is Google Really Looking For? Pt2

Following on the the previous part covering the impact of Vince in the Poker market..

So.... Why wouldn’t Matt Cutts want to call this an update...?

Looking at “Betting” on Google.co.uk

Strangely, the impact on the “Betting” SERP occurs 2 days later.

• Betfred.com is displaced by media goliath Skybet.com sometime in the early hours of Sunday morning.
• Betfair.com is given a boost to third place, be it fleeting.
• High street bookmaker Williamhill.com displaces both Skybet.com and Betfair.com on Sunday morning 28th June.
• On Monday 29th June Williamhill.com and Skybet.com are both displaced by Ladbrokes.com
• Bet365.com also joins the party “above the fold” on Monday 29th June settling in fourth place behind the two major UK high street brands and a global media giant.
  

Summary of Betting Observations

While the impact occurs slightly later than the “poker” example, we see a similar pattern of displacement, apparently by brand weight, leaving William Hill and Ladbrokes to battle for dominance. Note: by contrast, the “Online Betting” SERP remained unchanged.

Why would this “change” only affect a relatively small number of queries? Why would “Poker” and “Betting” be affected and not “Online Poker” or “Online Betting”.

Some working in SEO at this point, who didn’t have the right strategy, are likely to feel like calling it a day and booking a holiday... which leads me seamlessly onto another vertical to compare and contrast....

“Holidays” on Google.co.uk
It was reassuring to see a similar pattern mirrored across other verticals. The travel sector saw, once again, only major terms impacted, see “Holidays” SERPs

• Otbeach.com kicks things off on the 26th, on the same day as two of the previous examples.
• Later that day, UK travel giant Firstchoice.co.uk is pushed up into first position.
• Thomson.co.uk displaces Firstchoice.co.uk the following day.
• Thomascook.com appears sometime before 3:34 Monday 29th June, displacing otbeach.com, travelsupermarket.com and teletextholidays.co.uk
  

Further changes continued to occur for almost 2 months across all the “big” single generic keywords, confirming the official Google party line.

What is clear here is that broadly, known brands to benefited, clearly many deserved to be there, but how was Google able to determine who should rank where?

What is Google Really Looking For? Pt1

Here's Part 1 of a multi-part article first in iGaming Business Magazine, iGB Affiliate and Econsultancy. I thought I best add it to my otherwise defunct blog, since it still ranks for my name. ;)

‘Vince’ - an apparent additional weighting towards larger brands which only impacted a few generic keywords. The impact in the UK began some time after office hours on Friday 26th June 2009 – Matt Cutts had this to say about vince

Google’s Matt Cutts Delivers the Party Line

Taking what Google’s Matt Cutts disclosed in the above video, when asked the question: “Can you verify that Google is putting more weight on brands?” Matt’s response included three key points:-

“I wouldn’t call this an update, but there has been a change... It affects a relatively small number of queries...most people haven’t even noticed it.”

This official response raises three questions:-

• Why does Matt not want to call this an update?
• Why would this “change” only affect a relatively small number of queries?
• How could this largely go unnoticed?
  

Let’s first review the visible symptoms of the change, which Matt insists is not an update.
Tracking the Ranking Changes.

“Poker” on Google.co.uk
Let’s first review the visible symptoms of the change, which Matt insists is not an update, starting with how the adjustment impacted the “Poker” SERP.



he chart above shows the moving and shaking around the time of the Poker ranking adjustments.

• Pkr.com moves into first place sometime before 8:31 on Saturday June 27th.
• Partypoker.com enjoys a few hours in the #1 spot as the Party brand temporarily displaces gaming giants 888.com and their new found natural search threat Pkr.com.
• Two days following the initiation of the ranking adjustment, 888.com finds its self on the ropes with Pkr.com posing a significant threat to 888.com’s dominance in Google.co.uk and by Wednesday July 30th Pkr.com are the new leader of the pack.
• Wikipedia’s poker listing is repeatedly displaced, forcing the encyclopaedic reference standard down below the fold.

Summary of Observations

We can see that the adjustment to this SERP began in the early hours of Friday 26th June and continued through to Monday 29th June. Online brand equity appears to be playing a role, however the parameters behind the adjustment remain diverse. We'll look at the analysis from our data set tomorrow. For now, note that by contrast, the “Online Poker” SERP was not impacted outside of normal flux.