1.
Does Google Still Need Links?
Off-Site Ranking Factors for 2017

2.
MozCon, September 2016
@THCapper

3.
http://dis.tl/RandTipping
@THCapper

4.
http://dis.tl/RandTipping
@THCapper

5.
PageRank & links were a proxy
for user behaviour
@THCapper

6.
Google doesn’t need a proxy anymore
@THCapper

7.
Google is a browser
@THCapper

8.
Google is an ISP
@THCapper

9.
Google is, of course,
a dominant search engine
@THCapper

10.
& links have become a dirty signal
@THCapper

11.
(Rand says) Build links that might
genuinely drive high quality traffic
@THCapper

12.
Today, taking this further
@THCapper

13.
I’m going to try to present both sides of
this argument
@THCapper

14.
& I have some data to share with you
@THCapper

15.
Don’t tweet this:
@THCapper

16.
Do tweet this:
@THCapper

17.
Over the next 30 minutes:
@THCapper

18.
Has it already happened?
What could replace links?
What should you do next?

19.
What could replace links?

20.
What would you do?
@THCapper

21.
Machine learning

22.
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/LarryCTR

23.
Brand

24.
What if you could find a
way to measure brand?
We all struggle with this.
@THCapper

25.
This is elementary for Google.
@THCapper

26.
All of the above & much more besides

27.
@THCapperhttp://dis.tl/CuttsPorn

28.
All of these factors correlate
with each other, and links
@THCapper

29.
Has it already happened?
What could replace links?
What should you do next?

30.
Has it already happened?

31.
What does Google say?

32.
@THCapper
https://youtu.be/l8VnZCcl9J4

33.
@THCapper
“And I can tell you what they are.
It is content. And it’s links pointing to your site.”
Andrey Lipattsev, Search Quality Senior Strategist, Google
https://youtu.be/l8VnZCcl9J4

34.
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
● Google: No

35.
End of talk?

36.
Counterclaim:
Google is routinely wrong technically
correct about how Google works
@THCapper

37.
Classic examples:
● HTTPS migrations pre-2016
● 302s are as good as 301s
● Subdomains are as good as sub-folders
● CCTLDs are as good as .com
@THCapper

38.
@THCapper
http://bit.ly/GaryDA

39.
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
● Google: No

40.
Correlations

41.
Lots of people have found correlations
@THCapper

42.
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MozCorrelations

43.
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MozCorrelations

44.
We all know that correlation
does not imply causation
@THCapper

45.
But causation & coincidence
are not the only possibilities
@THCapper

46.
We’ve all enjoyed this
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/TylerVigen

47.
And this
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/TylerVigen

48.
@THCapper

49.
But how do these happen?
@THCapper

50.
Potential Mechanisms
1. Complete coincidence - Nicholas Cage and drownings are in fact unrelated
(!)
@THCapper

51.
Potential Mechanisms
1. Complete coincidence - Nicholas Cage and drownings are in fact unrelated
(!)
2. Linearity - both cheese consumption and bedsheet-related deaths are
trending linearly, and thus loosely correlated
@THCapper

52.
Potential Mechanisms
1. Complete coincidence - Nicholas Cage and drownings are in fact unrelated
(!)
2. Linearity - both cheese consumption and bedsheet-related deaths are
trending linearly , and thus loosely correlated
@THCapper

53.
Potential Mechanisms
1. Complete coincidence - Nicholas Cage and drownings are in fact unrelated
(!)
2. Linearity - both cheese consumption and bedsheet-related deaths are
trending linearly, and thus loosely correlated
3. Reverse causation - it is in fact drownings that cause Nicholas Cage films,
not vice versa
@THCapper

54.
Potential Mechanisms
1. Complete coincidence - Nicholas Cage and drownings are in fact unrelated
(!)
2. Linearity - both cheese consumption and bedsheet-related deaths are
trending linearly, and thus loosely correlated
3. Reverse causation - it is in fact drownings that cause Nicholas Cage films,
not vice versa
4. Joint causation - both cheese consumption and deaths in bedsheets are
related to increasing affluence (& effluence)
@THCapper

55.
Affluence causes:
● Cheese consumption
● Bedsheet deaths
@THCapper

56.
Brand awareness causes:
● Links
● Rankings?
@THCapper

57.
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
● Google: No
● Correlation Studies: Inconclusive

58.
So how does brand awareness compare?
@THCapper

59.
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MozCorrelations

60.
@THCapper
Moz Study My Study
17,600 queries from KWP 4,900 queries from STAT

61.
@THCapper
Moz Study My Study
17,600 queries from KWP 4,900 queries from STAT
Top 50 results Top 10 results

62.
@THCapper
Moz Study My Study
17,600 queries from KWP 4,900 queries from STAT
Top 50 results Top 10 results
Desktop only (?) Desktop & Smartphone

63.
@THCapper
Moz Study My Study
17,600 queries from KWP 4,900 queries from STAT
Top 50 results Top 10 results
Desktop only (?) Desktop & Smartphone
Mean Spearman correlations Mean Spearman correlations

64.
Quantifying Brand Awareness
@THCapper

65.
Branded Search Volume
@THCapper

66.
@THCapper

67.
@THCapper

68.
Therefore:
If you care about DA, you should care
about Branded Search Volume
@THCapper

69.
& here’s another interesting thing
@THCapper

70.
For my main data set, both variables are
incredibly statistically significant
@THCapper

71.
@THCapper
DA significance:
99.99999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999%

72.
Log(branded search volume) significance:
99.99999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999%
@THCapper

73.
For some clients, including both in the
same model knocks DA out of statistical
significance
@THCapper

74.
What does this mean?
@THCapper

75.
Branded Search Volume explains most
of what can be explained with DA
@THCapper

76.
The reverse is not true.
@THCapper

77.
(Yes I will be publishing this data)
@THCapper

78.
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
● Google: No
● Correlation Studies: Inconclusive
● My Data: Yes

79.
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MarcusTober

80.
Counterclaim: This might have been true
in 1998
@THCapper

81.
Qualitatively, what does
ranking flux look like?

82.
Real World Example 1: Flowers

83.
@THCapper
Keyword: Flowers
Market: GB-en
Period: May-Dec 2016
Device: Smartphone

84.
@THCapper

85.
@THCapper
What do we notice?
1. Highly erratic

86.
@THCapper

87.
@THCapper
What do we notice?
1. Highly erratic
2. Interflora collapsed

88.
@THCapper

89.
@THCapper
What do we notice?
1. Highly erratic
2. Interflora collapsed
3. DA 33 site overtakes DA 53 site(s)

90.
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1. On-site
2. Algorithm updates
3. Links

91.
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1. On-site
2. Algorithm updates
3. Links

92.
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/2016algo

93.
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1. On-site
2. Algorithm updates
3. Links

94.
@THCapper
Interflora.co.uk
Flyingflowers.co.uk

95.
@THCapper
Interflora.co.uk
Flyingflowers.co.uk
40 domains
40 domains

96.
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1. On-site
2. Algorithm updates
3. Links

97.
@THCapper

98.
This is not unusual.
@THCapper

99.
Takeaway 1:
Google is continuously iterating
@THCapper

100.
Takeaway 2:
(Users like) Aesthetics & Price
@THCapper

101.
@THCapper

102.
@THCapper

103.
Real World Example 2: Fleximize.com

104.
@THCapper

105.
@THCapper

106.
@THCapper

107.
@THCapper

108.
@THCapper
Content piece gains 168 referring domains

109.
@THCapper
Content piece gains 22 referring domains

110.
@THCapper
Content piece gains 191 referring domains

111.
Takeaway:
Links move the needle ...sometimes?
@THCapper

112.
Question: Are links already redundant?
● Google: No
● Correlation Studies: Inconclusive
● My Data: Yes
● Anecdotal: Mixed
@THCapper

113.
So: Are links dead yet?

114.
There is quantitative and qualitative
evidence to suggest that links are not
always the most important off-site factor.
@THCapper

115.
Bringing all this together

116.
An explanation that is consistent
with all of this
@THCapper

117.
There are now two tiers.
@THCapper

118.
1. At the competitive, data-rich top end,
links mean increasingly little
@THCapper

119.
@THCapper
1. At the competitive, data-rich top end,
links mean increasingly little
2. But, for now, links might be a big part
of what gets you into that shortlist.

120.
Has it already happened?
What could replace links?
What should you do next?

121.
What should you do next?

122.
Win at user testing

123.
User testing for SEO: Places to start
@THCapper

124.
User testing for SEO: Places to start
1. Panda surveys
@THCapper
https://youtu.be/At51X-aZ4Y4

125.
User testing for SEO: Places to start
1. Panda surveys
2. Click-through rate experiments
@THCapper

126.
User testing for SEO: Places to start
1. Panda surveys
2. Click-through rate experiments
3. Plain old CRO - especially focusing on initial bounce
@THCapper

127.
User testing for SEO: Places to start
1. Panda surveys
2. Click-through rate experiments
3. Plain old CRO - especially focusing on initial bounce
4. All of the above: Mobile first
@THCapper

128.
User testing for SEO: Places to start
1. Panda surveys
2. Click-through rate experiments
3. Plain old CRO - especially focusing on initial bounce
4. All of the above: Mobile first
None of this is new!
@THCapper

129.
Win at brand awareness & perception

130.
(Content marketing, anyone?)
@THCapper

131.
(& this has additional benefits
outside of digital)
@THCapper

132.
Google is trying to think like a person
@THCapper

133.
So cut out the middleman:
Optimize for people
@THCapper

134.
If you want to build links, think:

135.
Would Google value this tactic
in a world without links?
@THCapper

136.
Closing thoughts

137.
Has it already happened?
What could replace links?
What should you do next?

138.
Thank You
@THCapper