(27)
SEMrush, the popular SEO toolset company, have released their 2017 study on Google ranking factors, which they believe matter most to rank well in Google. This is the second year this company has released their data on this, after many other companies have been doing similar studies over the past several years.
SEMrush analyzed 600,000 keywords across all their datasets globally and looked at the first 100 search results for all those keywords. Their study saw these key findings, but keep in mind, some of these factors Google has denied they use as a ranking signal completely, such as web site traffic and web site user behavior metrics such as bounce rates, time on site, etc.
The SEMrush top factors are:
- Direct website traffic is pegged as the top Google ranking factor in this study.
- User behavior signals such as time on site, pages per session and bounce rate.
- Backlink factors are extremely important for rankings.
- Although the anchor text in backlinks are not as important as a ranking factor.
- Each backlink factor does impact each other, so "your positions are unlikely to change if you boost the values for one factor but ignore others," the study says.
- Branded keywords will always return more relevant but less popular websites on the first position
- Domains with HTTPS tend to be in the top of the pack.
- The on-page SEO factors such as the presence of keywords in title, meta description and body of the text proved to be significantly less influential than other factors the study added.
It is interesting how they specifically go after signals that Google has repeatedly claimed not to be ranking signals, don't you think?
You can see the full study over here.
Also make sure to check the SMX East panel I ran named SEO ranking factors coverage just a few weeks ago.
Forum discussion at Twitter.
Comments:
David Farkas
11/14/2017 01:14 pm
Direct traffic the '#1 ranking factor'! Curious how Google would calculate direct traffic? Chrome activity, anayltics? How would a website get direct traffic in the 1st place if they don't rank at all. After all, you can't visit that which you don't know exists. Word of mouth, social media? Hard to believe and I see brand new sites that rank well, all the time.
mike
11/14/2017 01:56 pm
There are a ton of ways you can get direct traffic. Not all of your advertising has to be online. That being said, the majority of websites on the internet are NOT using Google Analytics, so there is no way that Google would have enough data on direct traffic to use it as a ranking factor, much less a significant one.
Pareto CRM
11/14/2017 02:02 pm
Sorry, but this report is total crap. They mix cause & effect. Google giving rank to websites with traffic? Google doesn't have that data at scale, only organic traffic data, but this makes no sense at all. Time on site? Bounce rate? Pages per visit? Seriously? Google has already commented, that in many cases high bounce rate means high quality resource, for example you visited one page with the phone number you needed and called. Or, you visited a website, browsed 30 pages and didn't find what you were looking for - low quality.
Xenia Volynchuk
11/14/2017 02:04 pm
Hey David! Thanks for your comments. The traffic data for our study comes from clickstream, as to Google, we won't make any assumptions on their sources. As to the outcomes, yes, you're right — the ultimate tip for this factor is that investing in brand awareness is crucial. Again, we say that direct visits are #1 factor, but in no way we'd like to say that it is the only factor to work on.
@Michael_Martinez
11/14/2017 02:13 pm
And this is why people should not believe these bullshit "ranking factors" reports.
Peter Parker
11/14/2017 02:46 pm
Not bad to think about, but always remember that correlation != causation every time. So beware of assuming that time on site creates organic traffic. Rather think of both being caused by your site being useful to begin with.
oh please
11/14/2017 03:16 pm
Yup, total crap. It's dumb to come up with "ranking factors" in general, it's even dumber to do it on a total scale and not on a niche/user intention level.
Tadeusz Szewczyk (Tad Chef)
11/14/2017 04:36 pm
Of course Google always tells the truth!
Tadeusz Szewczyk (Tad Chef)
11/14/2017 04:41 pm
Hey David! Google tracks sites in manifold ways. Chrome, GA, Search Console, Google Fonts, DoubleClick tracking cookies etc. It's not hard for them to measure or at least assess traffic. Also direct traffic is direct as the name suggest. Viral sharing (over messengers), email, type-in etc. Nonetheless I don't think it's the most important factor. Correlation is not causation. It certainly is measurable and has some impact IMHO. Keep calm and build links. Also build links for traffic not just Google juice. I also offer link building services for sheer direct traffic. Sincerely, tad
Ronan Walsh
11/14/2017 06:36 pm
Direct traffic isn't necessarily direct, as it's name suggests. It's actually (none) as you'll see in the source medium in analytics. None=unknown meaning these people could of come from anywhere. Email, social, forums, a browser with javascript turned off and even organic. In fact organic makes up a large proportion of direct traffic in a lot of cases Basically this report has proven that the sites who rank the highest also have a lot of traffic and have implemented https.
Christian Noel
11/14/2017 06:55 pm
These kinds of studies are kind of like polls. One of them in a vacuum probably doesn't mean much. However, I think it is best to take all of these and then compare them with your own experiences with your own data and make a determination of impact of the various ranking signals. Personally, I would not want Google anywhere near my stats no matter what the source or model. However, I think the main take away here isn't that the study is crap...because it isn't. My main takeaway is that brand building is at the core of any SEO strategy. The brand experience doesn't start at the site visit post click level. It starts at the SERP and backlining level. It's a brand play. Always.
@Michael_Martinez
11/14/2017 07:22 pm
Why would they need to lie? It's not like the SEO community is any good at reverse engineering their algorithms.
Ṩṗ Choudhary
11/14/2017 08:06 pm
I am still getting confused with this update , need to search more on this update.. but this article was quite helpful for me thanks to seroundtable.com regards https://info.hdmoviedownloader.com
Statisticus
11/14/2017 09:30 pm
If you enlarge "The results of the research at a glance" image... you will probably find the nine blurbs about the numbers to be *less than satisfying*. They are so imprecisely written that they can be interpreted many different ways... sloppy... and because of that lack of precision and care, I suspect that some of the underlying data methods would also not be very satisfying...
GreekStratus
11/14/2017 11:10 pm
Direct traffic is supposed to be users who have your URL and type it in, or have bookmarked or otherwise saved link. But in all my client's Analytics reports, the Organic traffic commonly includes the full URL of the web site, sometimes including the www.websiteurl.com. The client's exact URL is listed as an organic search term. How is this organic?
Satish Pandey
11/15/2017 08:02 am
This is something which force me mention here. I guess traffic on the website is key factor of the ranking which includes a popularity of that website for example Google home page. or in terms of content there is nothing. You tube can include in the same category. What you think about the domain age? is that matters for the ranking? Best Regards
Nicole
11/15/2017 11:28 am
Barry, Did Google actually say that they don't use user metrics or that they don't use the metrics from Google Analytics. Have they ever actually denied using user metrics from Chrome? I assume that that is what they meant but I could be wrong.
Barry Schwartz
11/15/2017 11:32 am
Yes. They denied it dozens of times.
Pareto CRM
11/15/2017 11:37 am
Yep, several times at least since user metrics can be easily manipulated (their own words).
Pareto CRM
11/15/2017 11:38 am
Well, Google has made controversial statements more than once, so yes, they are telling true, but which one is it :)
rjonesx
11/15/2017 03:26 pm
The use of direct traffic as an independent variable in this study is highly problematic. It would be helpful if SEMRush would share the source of this data so we can explore it further, however I see some clear causal direction errors which I would think most of us in the industry would consider obvious... 1. If the data is from GA, we know that Organic Traffic is often mislabeled as Direct Traffic. https://searchengineland.com/60-direct-traffic-actually-seo-195415 2. If the data is Clickstream, we still know that Organic Traffic can be characterized as Direct Traffic. For example, if a user opens an organic listing and later closes the browser, when the browser reopens, that tab will register a new, referrer-less result in both the clickstream data or GA, even though the actual attribution was the original click. These would be examples of confounding variables, but there are plenty more. Any non-referrer passing traffic can get labeled as direct in GA so sufficiently popular site on the web would likely get higher Direct Traffic even though it is actually referrer traffic which indicates a backlink. The list goes on and on. I applaud SEMRush for looking to use new and better techniques to analyze ranking factors data (in this case Random Forest regression) but a healthy dose of skepticism is warranted (if not demanded) in this industry.
Marco at rankify.nl
11/15/2017 09:55 pm
yup, how would they ever recognize Direct traffic? Analytics? Chrome?
Xenia Volynchuk
11/17/2017 10:14 am
Hi Russ! The traffic data we used for this study comes from clickstream. Thanks for understanding our motivation for going beyond the 'classic' research techniques — really appreciate that. As any other study, this one isn't a ready-made solution, but rather some food for thought, that absolutely deserves a healthy dose of scepticism and that one should process properly and see how it can be helpful in each specific case.
Tadeusz Szewczyk (Tad Chef)
11/20/2017 04:56 pm
Well, politics. They have paid for fabricated scientific studies that push their agenda for a decade: https://www.wired.com/story/looks-like-google-bought-favorable-research-to-lobby-with/
@Michael_Martinez
11/20/2017 04:59 pm
Sure, and they have also misled the world about the validity of HTTPS and Net Neutrality and SOPA, but they had political agendae where they were trying to influence laws. When it comes to discussing how their algorithms work with the general public there is no benefit to lying. They are under no obligation to disclose anything. And the only alternative is all the fake bullshit that the SEO community passes around with their correlation studies, search visibility reports, and conspiracy theories. Google is a much more reliable source of information about is algorithms than the SEO community.
Eric Van Buskirk
11/27/2017 06:11 am
Direct traffic is often 1/2 from employees of a website. In addition to G saying flat out they DO NOT do this, it would be the most stupid signal to use to show "votes of confidence."
Richard Race
10/22/2019 02:06 pm
Its well-established information that google employees don't even understand the way that google search works. I would fact check everything they say before concluding that the information is accurate rather than just using the idea: "XYZ is right because google said so."