More Traffic Leads To Higher Rankings

[morestar]

That click volume is easily manipulated is debatable?

No no, click volume is easily manipulated, but with the volumes of searches being done every day, even though a good portion of those searches (for a small segment of the black hat operations) may be manipulated, I'd say there are more valid clicks that Google can sift through and determine as valid. Just an argument.

What constitutes a "natural" traffic signal?

Well if there aren't any spam signals tripped, then the opposite is true or the lack of a signal is true. No signal should mean all is OK for that metric.

[kgun]

More Traffic Leads To Higher Rankings

Is that statement based on

1. theory?
2. observation?
3. speculation?

If you mean that more traffic is algorithmically related to higher SERP rankings, I highly doubt it. Then some of my bulletin boards that are bombarded with spam bot visits should rank high on the SERPs.

So aside from indirect effects (more semantic linking because of increased traffic) I hghly doubt that more traffic leads to higher SERP ranking. Reduced ad absurdum, it is difficult for a site with zero traffic to get more links.

[morestar]

More clicks = Better Rankings? I think the word I was looking for was clicks, not traffic...but more clicks is more traffic.

I SWEAR this was news a while ago, I just can't find it...

OK I found it, the documentation. I guess it wasn't an article. I was a John's forum. I'm not sure in this case if I'm permitted to link to the information or not, but the idea was a part of the patent and related to search engine click-through & bounce rates as ranking metrics.

Now tell me what you think...

[chrisJumbo]

OK I found it, the documentation. I guess it wasn't an article. I was a John's forum. I'm not sure in this case if I'm permitted to link to the information or not, but the idea was a part of the patent and related to search engine click-through & bounce rates as ranking metrics.

Now tell me what you think...

The link you gave just links back to here.

[morestar]

ok try again...or I can simply paste the part of the patent:

a. Click-Through-Rate (CTR)

Document Scoring Based on Query Analysis (US Patent Application 20120016874)
This patent application looks at the frequency of selection of specific pages for specific queries.
How frequently a certain page is selected in search results over one period of time might be compared to how frequently that page might be selected in search results over a later period.
If the page is selected less, it might be lowered in search results. If it is selected more frequently, it might be increased in rankings.

Source: http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-P...DN/20120016874

--- and ---

b. Bounce Rate

Web Search Result Summarization: Title Selection Algorithms and User Satisfaction
Metrics such as click through rates on search results could be set by the search engines looking at their query logs to tell whether a page was clicked or not within their search results for certain queries, and which ones were clicked. Bounce Rate of being a ranking signal, it is if someone would click on your link in the search results and then they would return back and repeat their query and click on a link of an another web site. For sure there may be more bounce rate metrics search engines can use, like recording user behaviour through their personalized search, IP, cookies, etc.

Source: http://www.kanungo.com/pubs/cikm09-w...marization.pdf

[PhilipDunn]

whose patent?

[morestar]

Assignee: Google INC.

[PhilipDunn]

I know that companies apply for patents for possible future use. But I am surprised. This isn't what I read - that was something many years ago, an SEO's opinion..

[deepsand]

No no, click volume is easily manipulated, but with the volumes of searches being done every day, even though a good portion of those searches (for a small segment of the black hat operations) may be manipulated, I'd say there are more valid clicks that Google can sift through and determine as valid. Just an argument.

Again, Google knows of but a small fraction of the totality of web activity. And, all that need be manipulated is that which is within their view.

Well if there aren't any spam signals tripped, then the opposite is true or the lack of a signal is true. No signal should mean all is OK for that metric.

Circular reasoning. One needs to first know what is "natural" before defining a "spam signal" that identifies the "unnatural."

[deepsand]

Most software process patents, including the two cited along with very many others filed by Google, are worthless by virtue of failing one or more of several basic requirements for being patentable. Here these two fail the following:

• Must be new and novel - The notion that CTR and bounce rate may be useful metrics is very old. The simple fact that such have been long and often discussed stands to attest to such.
• Must be non-obvious to one skilled in the art - same as above.

Even if granted, such patents are unenforceable, as it is not possible to know whether or not another is employing the same processes.

And, that one files for such patents does not speak to the issue of whether or not they are actually being used, or will ever be used, by the filing party.

Why does Google bother with such frivolous filings? Only its upper echelons and patent attorneys know for sure.