Studies showing that social sharing does/doesn't affect rankings?
-
I'm currently researching this area in order to show to a client that social shares aren't as valuable for SEO as they might think. Can anyone point me in the direction of the best studies done on this topic?
Thanks in advance!
-
I hear you loud and clear re. studying different query spaces.
Do we know that in those query spaces where social shares correlate it is not actually down to links i.e can we remove the influence of links from the studies?
-
Thanks Josh. Great video. This would match up with what SearchMetrics concluded in their ranking factors study.
I'm astonished by the number of SEOs that assume social shares are a ranking factor. You've only got to look at Moz's survey to see that people still think so despite no-one (that i've seen) having conclusive evidence.
It kind of feels like a share should help rankings so that might explain Moz's study of SEO's. BUT we all know that a share is a hell of a lot easier to get and much easier to manipulate than even links. If Google arent looking at them I guess this explain why.
-
The video will switch you off social media forever - so be warned.
I see social media impact in creating links, and generally driving traffic to websites. Social media when done well with seo in mind can be beneficial. To my knowledge that is not in dispute. I just find it not as costs effective as content creation and technical.
-
Thanks Zoe!
Moz are careful to point out that their social results are correlation and likely to be because of a link between content that is shared heavily also achieving links (the real cause of good rankings).
i know that the recent Buzzsumo report highlights that this is not necessarilly the case but still...
-
Thanks John, I'll take a look at the video. When you say "social media does have an SEO value" do you mean that you believe that shares directly affect rankings? If so what evidence have you used to come to this conclusion?
-
Make them watch this. This video is what I show them. Not 100% correct as social media does have seo value. But it is an absolute rip snorter.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S2NUayn2vP0
Hope this assists.
-
Hi,
I'd say Moz' 2015 ranking factors study is great for this, particularly the correlation section. If you scroll to 'Social and Brand Features', there's a graph showing correlations between rankings and shares, broken down by social platform. I've always found this incredibly insightful and useful!
Also the latest Whiteboard Friday, and related Buzzsumo collaboration study, are slightly on a tangent but both very insightful, they investigate any correlation between social shares & backlinks, and touch on the correlations with rankings.
Edit: of course, correlation isn't causation. You might also want to mention this video from Matt Cutts, in which he explains that social signals, like shares, +1s etc, aren't directly factored into algorithms.
I hope this helps! Interested to see anything others might post here too.
Zoe
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Ranking drop after image compression across website.
Hi all, Just checked my website in Google pagespeed insights and most of our website pages were required to reduce the images file size for better page loading. So I have compressed the images using https://compressor.io/ and https://tinypng.com/ and replaced the images. Then surprisingly ranking dropped even score improved for all pages with image optimisation. What would be the reason? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Can you rank without spending lots of money?
Hello Everyone, This is a general question, and its one I have been thinking about recently because I am working on promoting couple of websites. I want to know if it is still possible to make websites rank consistently without spending lots of money. I am self employed, and 5 or so years ago, I remember I did all my own link building/content for about 6 or so websites that I owned, and I managed to make most of them rank consistently. I am not in the SEO business, and I have not touched any SEO type of work for about 5 years now. And I always did it for my own websites/business. I know this is a fast moving industry, and my general knowledge may be a bit out of date. I kind of get the feeling that the days of when small business owners could make a website rank on a shoe string budget and make a bit of money with an online business may have died or is dying. I am a realist and I know that only a very tiny percentage of websites make really good quality/fresh content that everyone wants to reads. I know a common advise is that you should create a site with such amazing content that everyone talks about you and mentions/links to you without you even to need to do any link building. But in my opinion (I could be wrong), but I feel that this probably happens to less than 0.01 percent of websites. And I also know even third rate websites with blogs or content sites charge to post an article with a link. So this makes me think that nowadays you need a good budget and plenty of time to make a website rank. Am I wrong? In today's internet, do you need to spend money to rank? I genuinely want to know peoples experience and or opinion on this subject. Thanks.
Algorithm Updates | | Ryan.Shahed0 -
Microsites for Local Search / Location Based sites?
Referring to the webinar on SEOMoz about Local Search that was presented by Nifty Marketing (http://www.seomoz.org/webinars/be-where-local-is-going). I have a question my client asked us regarding why we broke out their locations into microsites, and not just used subfolders. So here are the details: The client has one main website in real estate. They have 5 branches. Each branch covers about a 50 mile radius. Each branch also covers a specialized niche in their areas. When we created the main site we incorporated the full list of listings on the main site; We then created a microsite for each branch, who has a page of listings (same as the main site) but included the canonical link back to the main site. The reason we created a microsite for each branch is that the searches for each branch are very specific to their location and we felt that having only a subfolder would take away from the relevancy of the site and it's location. Now, the location sites rank on the first page for their very competitive, location based searches. The client, as we encourage, has had recommendations from others saying this is hurting them, not helping them. My question is this... How can this hurt them when the microsites include a home page specific to the location, a contact page that is optimized with location specific information (maps, text, directions, NAP, call to action, etc.), a page listing area information about communities/events/etc., a page of the location's agents, and of course real estate listings (with canonical back to the main site)? Am I misunderstanding? I understood that if the main site could support the separation of a section into a microsite, this would help local search. Local search is the bread and butter of this client's conversions. AND if you tell me we should go back to having subfolders for each location, won't that seriously hurt our already excellent rankings? The client sees significant visitors from their placement of the location URLs. THANKS!
Algorithm Updates | | gXeSEO
Darlene1 -
If Google doesn’t know we’re hosted in the UK, does that affect our SERPs?
Hi, In November 2011 our eCommerce website dropped from between 3rd and 4th position in the UK SERPs down to 7th and 8th. A year after this happened, we still haven’t moved back up to the original ranking despite all our best efforts and we’re looking for a bit of insight into what could have happened. One of our theories is this, do you think it might be the problem? In October 2011 we moved from a single-site custom built CMS hosted in the UK to a multi-site custom built CMS hosted on a much better server based in the UK. As part of this move we started using CloudFlare to help with security and performance (CloudFlare is a security CDN). Because CloudFlare’s servers are in the US, to the outside world it almost looks like we went from a slow hosting company in the UK to a much quicker hosting company in the US. Could this have affected our rankings? We know that Google takes the server IP address into account as a ranking factor, but as far as we understand it’s because they (rightly) believe that a server closer to the user will perform better. So a UK server will serve up pages quicker to a visitor in the UK than a US server because the data has a shorter distance to travel. However, we’re definitely not experiencing an issue with being recognised as a UK website. We have a .co.uk domain (which is obviously a big indicator) and if you click on “Pages from the UK” in the SERPs we jump up to 3rd place. So Google seems to know we’re a UK site. Is the fact we’re using CloudFlare and hence hiding our real server IP address – is this penalising us in the SERPs? Currently out of the 6 websites above us, 4 are in the US and 2 are in the UK. All of these are massive sites with lots of links, so smaller ranking factors might be more important for us. Obviously the big downside of not using CloudFlare is that our site becomes much less secure and it becomes much slower. Images and some static content is distributed via a local CloudFlare server, which means it should tick Google’s box in terms of providing a quick site for users. CloudFlare say in a blog post that they used to have Google crawl rates and geo-tagging issues in the past when they were just starting out, but in 2010 they started working with “the big search engines” to make sure they treated CloudFlare like a CDN (so special rules that apply to Akamai also apply to CloudFlare). Since they’ve been working with Google, CloudFlare say that their customers will only see a positive SEO impact. So at the moment we’re at a loss about what happened to our ranking. Google say they take IP’s into account for ranking, but by using CloudFlare it looks like we’re in the US. We definitely know we’re not having geo-tagging issues and CloudFlare say they’re working with Google to ensure its customers aren't seeing a negative impact by using CloudFlare, but a niggling part of us still wonders whether it could impact our SEO. Many thanks, James
Algorithm Updates | | OptiBacUK0 -
Half my ranks have gone missing
I have a site that was rankly very highly for gaming walkthrough phrases. I was ranking #3 for the phrase skyward sword walkthrough Then it began to drop, despite me building more links (non spammy links) through guest blogs and emailing people requesting they just link to it from their site. I went in and added more text to the page and it went up a few places but is now gone from the first 5-10 pages. This has also happened to all of my walkthrough related ranks. My other ranks are still there but these accounted for a large portion of my traffic and is very odd. My on-page grade is near if not perfect my page Some insight would be nice
Algorithm Updates | | webfeatseo0 -
Why a terrible website ranks number 1??
Hi, I'm an SEO newbie. A couple of months ago I launched a new E-Commerce website for my client : http://www.corporategiftsshop.co.za The site has over 1000 pages indexed in Google. I've done some link building and on-page SEO for the keyword terms : corporate gifts
Algorithm Updates | | MarnusW
promotional items
promotional gifts Currently the website ranks number 31 for "Corporate Gifts" in Google.co.za What I cannot comprehend, is that the site which ranks number 1 is simply shocking! http://www.corporategifts.co.za/ It is a single, static webpage with all links pointing to another website : http://www.promogifts.co.za It has 1 back link and a page rank of zero, yet it still ranks number 1? Can anyone give me a reason or some insight into this as it has me stumped.. Some of the other sites in the top 5 are also poor, yet they still rank high. Our site has a Page rank of 5 and 67 unique domains which links to it ( according to our webmaster tools ) yet it still only manages a 31 ranking?? Any advise would be greatly appreciated as I need to make sense of this, otherwise hang up my SEO gloves.. Regards, Marnus.1 -
Does the use of an underscore in filenames adversely affect SEO
We have had a page which until recently was ranked first or second by Google UK and also worldwide for the term "Snowbee". It is now no longer in the top 50. I ran a page optimization report on the url and had a very good score. The only criticism was that I had used an atypical character in the url. The only unusual character was an underscore "_" We use the underscore in most file names without apparent problems with search engines. In fact they are automatically created in html files by our ecommerce software, and other pages do not seem to have been so adversely affected. Should we discontinue this practice? It will be difficult but I'm sure we can overcome this if this is the reason why Google has marked us down. I attach images of the SEO Report pages 8fDPi.jpg AdLIn.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | FFTCOUK0 -
301 Redirect has removed search rankings
As per instructions from a SEO , we did a 301 redirect on our url to a new url (www.domain.com to subdomain xxxx.domain.com). But the problem is we lost all the google rankings that the previous url had gained. How can we rollback this situation. Can we retrieve the rankings of the previous url if we remove 301 permenant move redirection ? The new url does not figure in the google search for the keyword that use to fetch the previous url at no 3 in the results Please help ...
Algorithm Updates | | BizSparkSEO0