Skip to main content
Does Google Still Need Links?
Off-Site Ranking Factors for 2017
MozCon, September 2016
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/RandTipping
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/RandTipping
@THCapper
PageRank & links were a proxy
for user behaviour
@THCapper
Google doesn’t need a proxy anymore
@THCapper
Google is a browser
@THCapper
Google is an ISP
@THCapper
Google is, of course,
a dominant search engine
@THCapper
& links have become a dirty signal
@THCapper
(Rand says) Build links that might
genuinely drive high quality traffic
@THCapper
Today, taking this further
@THCapper
I’m going to try to present both sides of
this argument
@THCapper
& I have some data to share with you
@THCapper
Don’t tweet this:
@THCapper
Do tweet this:
@THCapper
Over the next 30 minutes:
@THCapper
Has it already happened?
What could replace links?
What should you do next?
What could replace links?
What would you do?
@THCapper
Machine learning
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/LarryCTR
Brand
What if you could find a
way to measure brand?
We all struggle with this.
@THCapper
This is elementary for Google.
@THCapper
All of the above & much more besides
@THCapperhttp://dis.tl/CuttsPorn
All of these factors correlate
with each other, and links
@THCapper
Has it already happened?
What could replace links?
What should you do next?
Has it already happened?
What does Google say?
@THCapper
https://youtu.be/l8VnZCcl9J4
@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
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
●Google: No
End of talk?
Counterclaim:
Google is routinely wrong technically
correct about how Google works
@THCapper
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
@THCapper
http://bit.ly/GaryDA
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
●Google: No
Correlations
Lots of people have found correlations
@THCapper
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MozCorrelations
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MozCorrelations
We all know that correlation
does not imply causation
@THCapper
But causation & coincidence
are not the only possibilities
@THCapper
We’ve all enjoyed this
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/TylerVigen
And this
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/TylerVigen
@THCapper
But how do these happen?
@THCapper
Potential Mechanisms
1. Complete coincidence - Nicholas Cage and drownings are in fact unrelated
(!)
@THCapper
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
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
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
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
Affluence causes:
●Cheese consumption
●Bedsheet deaths
@THCapper
Brand awareness causes:
●Links
●Rankings?
@THCapper
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
●Google: No
●Correlation Studies: Inconclusive
So how does brand awareness compare?
@THCapper
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MozCorrelations
@THCapper
Moz Study My Study
17,600 queries from KWP 4,900 queries from STAT
@THCapper
Moz Study My Study
17,600 queries from KWP 4,900 queries from STAT
Top 50 results Top 10 results
@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
@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
Quantifying Brand Awareness
@THCapper
Branded Search Volume
@THCapper
@THCapper
@THCapper
Therefore:
If you care about DA, you should care
about Branded Search Volume
@THCapper
& here’s another interesting thing
@THCapper
For my main data set, both variables are
incredibly statistically significant
@THCapper
@THCapper
DA significance:
99.99999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999%
Log(branded search volume) significance:
99.99999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999999999
9999999999999999999999999999%
@THCapper
For some clients, including both in the
same model knocks DA out of statistical
significance
@THCapper
What does this mean?
@THCapper
Branded Search Volume explains most
of what can be explained with DA
@THCapper
The reverse is not true.
@THCapper
(Yes I will be publishing this data)
@THCapper
@THCapper
Question: Are links already redundant?
●Google: No
●Correlation Studies: Inconclusive
●My Data: Yes
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/MarcusTober
Counterclaim: This might have been true
in 1998
@THCapper
Qualitatively, what does
ranking flux look like?
Real World Example 1: Flowers
@THCapper
Keyword: Flowers
Market: GB-en
Period: May-Dec 2016
Device: Smartphone
@THCapper
@THCapper
What do we notice?
1.Highly erratic
@THCapper
@THCapper
What do we notice?
1.Highly erratic
2.Interflora collapsed
@THCapper
@THCapper
What do we notice?
1.Highly erratic
2.Interflora collapsed
3.DA 33 site overtakes DA 53 site(s)
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1.On-site
2.Algorithm updates
3.Links
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1.On-site
2.Algorithm updates
3.Links
@THCapper
http://dis.tl/2016algo
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1.On-site
2.Algorithm updates
3.Links
@THCapper
Interflora.co.uk
Flyingflowers.co.uk
@THCapper
Interflora.co.uk
Flyingflowers.co.uk
40 domains
40 domains
@THCapper
Old-school ranking factors:
1.On-site
2.Algorithm updates
3.Links
@THCapper
This is not unusual.
@THCapper
Takeaway 1:
Google is continuously iterating
@THCapper
Takeaway 2:
(Users like) Aesthetics & Price
@THCapper