100 factors that affect Ranking

[pollescu]

I was re-reading this morning, Google's guidelines for webmasters and SEO's. I noticed this phrase: "Google's order of results is automatically determined by more than 100 factors"

Now, I have always wondered why we are always complaining or at least get frustrated when after a hard optimizing job we are still under a site with no backlinks, a PR of 1, and a terrible html code. So I thought we may be playing the wrong cards!!!! What are these 100+ factors?? So I decided to start a little list and maybe you experts can help me out!!!

Google's 100+ Factors
- Page Rank
- Backlinks
- Content
- FRESH Content
- Keywords
- Meta Tags (at least the TITLE tag)
- Clean Code or Validated Code (not sure)


What else?? I'm missing about 93 factors!!! Please help me out!!! Any guesses???[/quote]

[bhartzer]

Add LocalRank to the list--it's a big factor, even more-so than PageRank.

FRESH content is no longer a factor (it increases your chance of being crawled, but it does NOT improve your rankings).

Add Proximity to the list.

Also add Keyword Prominence to the list.

[pollescu]

bhartzer:
Thanks for your help. Could you define LocalRank?? How can I know my local rank???
and.. about proximity, do you mean Server Proximity?? to what?? to the datacenter, the query is being done in???

I'm trying to add a brief definition on every term of the list, but come on guys, you're the experts, help me out!!! please!!!

This is the new list:

Google's 100+ Factors
- Page Rank (Google's democratic ranking system)
- Number of Backlinks (Pages that link to yours)
- Quality of Backlinks (PR's of links to your page)
- Content
- FRESH Content
- Keywords Prominence (important targeted keywords in your pages)
- Title Meta Tag (containing your keywords
- Clean Code or Validated Code (robot-friendly code)
- Local Rank ¿?
- Server Proximity (distance to the server ¿?)

I'm still 90 factors away!!!! LOL


Pollescu[/b]

[cbp]

FRESH Content

Not a factor in ranking.

There may be a 100 factors, but keywords in anchor text of links carries by far the most weight.

CBP

[sjk]

Originally Posted by cbp

but keywords in anchor text of links carries by far the most weight.

That's what I'm starting to get the hang of now... :)



pollescu: I'm guessing that local rank means how many local (or determined to be local by the Algo) are linking back to you. Like if you reside in Michigan (as do I) and you are in the Contracting business. Please, anyone correct me if I'm wrong but I'm thinking maybe that this variable in the Algo is measuring how many contractors (related group) in michigan (or area) are linking to you with anchor text as the key to both group and area. Does that make sense?

To illustrate what I'm talking about, here is an example: Contractors in Michigan

[sjk]

I think the amount of indexed pages counts too. I'm not sure if one would categorize that under "content" or not... I think of "content" as text content on each page.


Indexed pages:
site:yourdomain.com -- # of HTML pages google has indexed I think makes a difference.

[wednesday]

Factors - negative factors = serps
Simple google logic?

Martin

[eferg]

You'll find some info on Google's 100 factors here:
http://www.vaughns-1-pagers.com/inte...ng-factors.htm

Ed

[MathsIsFun]

Great link, eferg !

Good to see all the guess work, experience (and some facts) all in the one spot.

[sjk]

That's great, thanks a lot Ed!!!

[eferg]

You guys are welcome. I'm glad to see a site where someone is at least trying to take a scientific approach to SEO as opposed to the general and unsupported comments often found in forums.

For my own efforts (I'm not an SEO, just a guy with a little ecommerce site), I made up the following formula. It's only a simple model to guide my efforts - nobody really knows what the Google algo is or how much weight they assign to each factor.

SE Position = (On Page Relevance X Link Popularity X Site Quality Factors)

Negative On-Page Relevance: Keyword overuse or underuse, hidden text, duplicate content.
Positive On-Page Relevance: Words and phrases supporting your keywords. Natural text structure. 150-350 words, 3-5% keyword density. Use of related words.

Negative Link Popularity: Number of links from link farms, "graybar" sites, and sites unrelated to your theme. Using link schemes.
Positive Link Popularity: Number of links from high PR sites, authority sites with your theme, and links with anchor text = your keywords and variations of your keywords.

Negative Site Quality Factors: Doorway pages. Unable to spider site (frames, Flash, etc). High code-to-text ratio. Banned IP block. Porno language. Dynamic pages.
Positive Site Quality Factors: Age of site. Age of inbound links. Valid HTML. Number of pages. Outbound links to authority sites.

It's just a very general model I use. Feel free to throw rocks or add to it.

Ed

[pvmex-davidp]

That's just the sort of info I was looking for, thank you very much.

[JKomp]

This should be a sticky or something!

[cyrillejubert]

I am artist. When I started my website, I did not know anything about html.
Even so, I got rather good rankings for my keywords...

After 18 months what do I know
I hate links, and associates programs
but ... I have a toplist on my website.. that works ;-))

I write articles in forums and that works too

I renew and enhance my pages from time to time, it helps a lot

My pages are full of text, with all my keywords.. trying to focus on one on each page. I noticed that more people were typing the word "Jack Russell" with a fault.. so I created a special page for the dummies with "jack Russel" and it works

So now go and admire a great artist website ;-))

http://thedogmuseum.com

[pollescu]

eferg:
Thanks!!!! That was exactly what I was looking for!!!

Let me add a comment. I know lots of experts believe that keywords are the #1 factor to get nice results, but I think it's not the only one to consider.

I'm an engineer and I believe optimizing any equation means maximizing or minimizing it. In this case I'm trying to maximize google's algo to get better placement. And this means maximizing each and every factor. Maybe keywords in anchor text get me to the first page of results, but I need the other 99 factors to climb the most difficul part (from 10 to 1). So I believe the list that eferg posted is a GREAT resource whenever you've tried the basics and still can get to number 1.

In very competitive keywords, all your competitors have worked out and optimized their keywords, so knowing these other factors can help you out!!! I don't remember where I got this graph, but what I'm saying is that keywords in anchor text may do almost all the job, but not to the top.


Thanks again eferg !!!

[TrafficProducer]

100 things that effect your Google Rank/listing...

Maybe it's not what you know, SEO techniques etc. but who you know "Larry Page" etc...

No.1 on the list must be money, surely?

[Conficio]

Hi there,
here is a thought. At the end of the day there are two factors to the Google algorithm.

• A basic weight fo reach page (PageRank)
• The relevance of the page in relation to the keywords

There is a third factor to it, which is competition. You are ranked, meaning you have to beat the competition in either of the two factors above.

So if you want to be number one, analyse what they do and copy it. May be do it on a test basis with different schemes to different pages. Because your competition might do things they believe are relevant but are not. See what works and copy what works to the other pages. In aggregate you do the combination of what your competition does, so you should bubble to the top soon as you match everyone in their game plus add the tricks of the others.

K<o>

[wednesday]

Originally Posted by Conficio

There is a third factor to it, which is competition. You are ranked, meaning you have to beat the competition in either of the two factors above.

So if you want to be number one, analyse what they do and copy it. May be do it on a test basis with different schemes to different pages. Because your competition might do things they believe are relevant but are not. See what works and copy what works to the other pages. In aggregate you do the combination of what your competition does, so you should bubble to the top soon as you match everyone in their game plus add the tricks of the others.
K<o>

If you just follow your competitors first you'll always be two steps behind them and second you can repeat their mistakes. I often find myself wearing this hat. This way you will never be #1. This refers to any business not necessary online. Educate yourself and skip the mistakes they've made. This is of main importance in the evolutionizing SEO world. Put creativity in action, something that nobody on your market have done yet. Here comes to my mind a Bill G favorite formula - copy and rationalize. Well this is a very wide topic, and I don't want to fall in theory, what's more I can't prove this with my work. But I think it's more important to do the right things rather than doing the things right.

I agree with Conficio that competition is a factor of extreme importance. But out of the package the most 'useful' product/site/information gets the award.

Martin

[Conficio]

Hi Martin,
thanks for the reply. I understand where you are coming from. I'm not sure if I made my point clear enough.

I mean, copy the techniques of your competition in the aggregate, not just copying one competitor's techniques.

For example, if competitor A does use techniques a1 and a2, competitor B uses a1 and b1 and b2 and competitor C uses a1 and b2 and c1 and you employ a1, a2, b1, b2 and c1 comparably well and as extensive as your competition you should be the king of the hill.

This works, because you match every single competitor in all his/her deployed techniques and beat him/her in at least one technique. Only if one competitor does follow the same strategy, do you have to be creative yourself. I think B. Gates, who you quoted does understand this very well. And if you show his persistence, you will not mind being one step behind someone's new technique.

Creativity is unfortunately overrated.

K<o>
P.S.: I suggested to test each strategy, in order to make sure it has an effect. This should also ensure you understand it and it does not get you into hot water (is a mistake). It also saves you efforts that you are pursuing for no gain.

[DrTandem1]

Originally Posted by pollescu

Now, I have always wondered why we are always complaining or at least get frustrated when after a hard optimizing job we are still under a site with no backlinks, a PR of 1, and a terrible html code.

Simply cramming keywords and playing with density of keyword placement and file names is not SEO. Well, it is, but that is not what gets results in the long term. I can show you examples of sites that have absolutely no optimization and are at the top of Google and Yahoo simply because they have tons of IBLs.

I don't know the "magic" formula for Google and it's a waste of time trying to find it as it is always in flux. The focus should be on the visitor. Since they all use different computers, browsers and connections, you need to find the best way to have compatibilty with the majority of them. Your best chance for that is using code that validates.

That code needs to perform in the following areas:
-Content
-Load speed
-Navigation

It doesn't matter, if you find the silver bullet to pierce Google and become #1. If your site sucks, the visitor won't stay more than a few seconds.

[apisdesign]

I think this post is definitely an interesting one but I also feel it is mostly academic.

Someone (I can't remember who) raised the point that there are only a handful of major factors in determining the rank order of pages within Google's results. I agree with this. The other 100+ factors are far less significant.

It's kind of like the search engines themselves; there are hundreds (if not thousands) of them, but only a handful of them really count. The other mass of search engines accounts for less than 1% of all searches conducted on the web.

Keep that in mind when deciding how to best allocate your time spent "optimizing" your site and your clients' sites.

That's my $0.02.

[arpecop]

bad writen php scrips - slow acess
bad hosting company - slow access
hosting company with adult clients (banned)
many outgoing links

[jrdorkin]

Thanks for the link eferg! Very useful

[userfiendly]

Eferg, that link is awesome! Thanks!

[nipplecharms1]

Originally Posted by MathsIsFun

Great link, eferg !

Good to see all the guess work, experience (and some facts) all in the one spot.

Hey, your math site is great!!!! thanks.

Michael

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by pollescu

I was re-reading this morning, Google's guidelines for webmasters and SEO's. I noticed this phrase: "Google's order of results is automatically determined by more than 100 factors"

Now, I have always wondered why we are always complaining or at least get frustrated when after a hard optimizing job we are still under a site with no backlinks, a PR of 1, and a terrible html code. So I thought we may be playing the wrong cards!!!! What are these 100+ factors?? So I decided to start a little list and maybe you experts can help me out!!!

Google's 100+ Factors
- Page Rank
- Backlinks
- Content
- FRESH Content
- Keywords
- Meta Tags (at least the TITLE tag)
- Clean Code or Validated Code (not sure)


What else?? I'm missing about 93 factors!!! Please help me out!!! Any guesses???

1. Title tags are not meta tags.
2. Google has more than 200 factors.

So you have a long way to go.

[bigturkey]

Hey how'd this thread get resurrected?

I just discovered the link that eferg posted above over 2 years ago... (Google Ranking Factors - SEO Checklist)

It rocks! Especially the discussion notes at the bottom of the page.

Thanks Eferg!

[Webnauts]

Originally Posted by bigturkey

Hey how'd this thread get resurrected?

I just discovered the link that eferg posted above over 2 years ago... (Google Ranking Factors - SEO Checklist)

It rocks! Especially the discussion notes at the bottom of the page.

Thanks Eferg!

But I have doubts that the SEO Checklist is up-to-date.

[Frocked]

It does say it has been updated: "Updated Feb. 27, 2007" but unsure if that refers to the whole piece.

[mothproof]

Originally Posted by DrTandem1

Simply cramming keywords and playing with density of keyword placement and file names is not SEO. Well, it is, but that is not what gets results in the long term. I can show you examples of sites that have absolutely no optimization and are at the top of Google and Yahoo simply because they have tons of IBLs.

I don't know the "magic" formula for Google and it's a waste of time trying to find it as it is always in flux. The focus should be on the visitor. Since they all use different computers, browsers and connections, you need to find the best way to have compatibilty with the majority of them. Your best chance for that is using code that validates.

That code needs to perform in the following areas:
-Content
-Load speed
-Navigation

It doesn't matter, if you find the silver bullet to pierce Google and become #1. If your site sucks, the visitor won't stay more than a few seconds.

kinda like saying actual human visitors are the great equalizer when it comes to SEO-ing.

[incrediblehelp]

This link may help:

V7N Search Marketing News » Blog Archive » Google Now Checking 200+ Signals To Determine Ranking?

[Insurance Phoenix]

Originally Posted by cbp

Not a factor in ranking.

There may be a 100 factors, but keywords in anchor text of links carries by far the most weight.

CBP

Insurance Phoenix Inbound links and anchor text. My site is only 4 months old and it worked for me. You don't need to get cute or fancy. That's it.
[Edited by Mod Webnauts]

[kgun]

Originally Posted by wednesday

But I think it's more important to do the right things rather than doing the things right.

Good and add,

"The top of laziness is to make everything (so) correct (as possible) from the beginning".

Originally Posted by wednesday

I agree with Conficio that competition is a factor of extreme importance. But out of the package the most 'useful' product/site/information gets the award.

Competition is also about the tail and SERP penetration.

[kgun]

Originally Posted by Conficio

Hi Martin,
thanks for the reply. I understand where you are coming from. I'm not sure if I made my point clear enough.

I mean, copy the techniques of your competition in the aggregate, not just copying one competitor's techniques.

For example, if competitor A does use techniques a1 and a2, competitor B uses a1 and b1 and b2 and competitor C uses a1 and b2 and c1 and you employ a1, a2, b1, b2 and c1 comparably well and as extensive as your competition you should be the king of the hill.

This works, because you match every single competitor in all his/her deployed techniques and beat him/her in at least one technique. Only if one competitor does follow the same strategy, do you have to be creative yourself. I think B. Gates, who you quoted does understand this very well. And if you show his persistence, you will not mind being one step behind someone's new technique.

Creativity is unfortunately overrated.

K<o>
P.S.: I suggested to test each strategy, in order to make sure it has an effect. This should also ensure you understand it and it does not get you into hot water (is a mistake). It also saves you efforts that you are pursuing for no gain.

No it is not. Picasso was the best at copying and making the picture unreckognizeable. He was also very creative.

[SITEchrome]

Hello there...!
For a new site just got indexed [organic], for a better placement, which of the following stratagies would you prefer in the selection of KEYWORDS.

1] High search volume + High advertiser competition
2] High search volume + low advertiser competition
3] low/ave search volume + nearly '0' advertiser competition