Google的Ranking Factor有100多个，其中有很多对Recommendation Engine设计中也很有帮助。
Overall Ranking Algorithm
- 24% Trust/Authority of the Host Domain
- 22% Link Popularity of the Specific Page
- 20% Anchor Text of External Links
- 15% On-Page Keyword Usage
- 7% Traffic and Click-Through Data
- 6% Social Graph Metrics
- 5% Registration and Hosting Data
48%: Links will decline in importance, but remain powerful, as newer signals rise from usage data, social graph data & other sources to replace them.
37%: Links will continue to be a major part of Google’s ranking algorithm, but dramatic fluctuations will occur in how links are counted and which links matter.
Top 5 Ranking Factors
1.Keyword Focused Anchor Text from External Links 外部链接的锚文本
73% very high importance
2.External Link Popularity (quantity/quality of external links) 原始链接的流行度
71% very high importance
3.Diversity of Link Sources (links from many unique root domains) 链接域的多样性
67% very high importance
4.Keyword Use Anywhere in the Title Tag Title标签中关键字的使用
66% very high importance
5.Trustworthiness of the Domain Based on Link Distance from Trusted Domains (e.g. TrustRank, Domain mozTrust, etc.) 域的可信度
66% very high importance
Top 5 Negative Ranking Factors
1. Cloaking with Malicious/Manipulative Intent 恶意伪装
68% very high importance
2. Link Acquisition from Known Link Brokers/Sellers 从链接中介购买链接
56% high importance
3. Links from the Page to Web Spam Sites/Pages 群发的垃圾链接
51% moderate importance
4. Cloaking by User Agent 基于User Agent的伪装
51% moderate importance
5. Frequent Server Downtime & Site Inaccessibility 频繁的宕机
51% moderate importance
Full Ranking Factors: http://www.seomoz.org/article/search-ranking-factors#ranking-factors
http://www.example.net.cn/google-ranking-factors.html
Complete Rankings Data
The following ranking factors were rated by our panel of 72 SEO experts. Their feedback is aggregated and averaged into the percentage scores below. For each, we’ve calculated the degree to which the experts felt this factor was important for achieving high rankings as well as the degree of variance in opinion, estimated using the standard deviation of the contributors’ answers. Thus, factors that are high in importance and low in contention are those where experts agree the most that the factor is critical to rankings.
On-Page (Keyword-Specific) Ranking Factors
-
Keyword Use Anywhere in the Title Tag
66% very high importance8% moderate consensus -
Keyword Use as the First Word(s) of the Title Tag
63% high importance11.3% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the Root Domain Name (e.g. keyword.com)
60% high importance11.2% light consensus -
Keyword Use Anywhere in the H1 Headline Tag
49% moderate importance10.2% light consensus -
Keyword Use in Internal Link Anchor Text on the Page
47% moderate importance13% moderate contention -
Keyword Use in External Link Anchor Text on the Page
46% moderate importance13.6% moderate contention -
Keyword Use as the First Word(s) in the H1 Tag
45% moderate importance11.7% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the First 50-100 Words in HTML on the Page
45% moderate importance9.9% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the Subdomain Name (e.g. keyword.seomoz.org)
42% low importance9% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the Page Name URL (e.g. seomoz.org/folder/keyword.html)
38% low importance9.1% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the Page Folder URL (e.g. seomoz.org/keyword/page.html)
37% low importance8.6% light consensus -
Keyword Use in other Headline Tags (<h2> – <h6>)
35% low importance8% light consensus -
Keyword Use in Image Alt Text
33% minimal importance8.7% light consensus -
Keyword Use / Number of Repetitions in the HTML Text on the Page
33% minimal importance10.3% light consensus -
Keyword Use in Image Names Included on the Page (e.g. keyword.jpg)
33% minimal importance8.6% light consensus -
Keyword Use in <b> or <strong> Tags
26% minimal importance7.6% moderate consensus -
Keyword Density Formula (# of Keyword Uses ÷ Total # of Terms on the Page)
25% minimal importance9.8% light consensus -
Keyword Use in List Items <li> on the Page
23% very minimal importance9.5% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the Page’s Query Parameters (e.g. seomoz.org/page.html?keyword)
22% very minimal importance7.6% moderate consensus -
Keyword Use in <i> or <em> Tags
21% very minimal importance8.4% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the Meta Description Tag
19% very minimal importance9.9% light consensus -
Keyword Use in the Page’s File Extension (e.g. seomoz.org/page.keyword)
12% very minimal importance8.3% light consensus -
Keyword Use in Comment Tags in the HTML
6% very minimal importance5.7% moderate consensus -
Keyword Use in the Meta Keywords Tag
5% very minimal importance5.5% moderate consensus
On-Page (Non-Keyword) Ranking Factors
-
Existence of Substantive, Unique Content on the Page
65% very high importance9.2% moderate consensus -
Recency (freshness) of Page Creation
50% moderate importance10.5% moderate consensus -
Use of Links on the Page that Point to Other URLs on this Domain
41% low importance12.6% moderate contention -
Historical Content Changes (how often the page content has been updated)
39% low importance10.9% moderate consensus -
Use of External-Pointing Links on the Page
37% low importance13.3% moderate contention -
Query Parameters in the URL vs. Static URL Format
33% minimal importance11.8% moderate consensus -
Ratio of Code to Text in HTML
25% minimal importance11% moderate consensus -
Existence of a Meta Description Tag
22% very minimal importance11% moderate consensus -
HTML Validation to W3C Standards
16% very minimal importance9.3% moderate consensus -
Use of Flash Elements (or other plug-in content)
13% very minimal importance10.1% moderate consensus -
Use of Advertising on the Page
11% very minimal importance8.6% moderate consensus -
Use of Google AdSense (specifically) on the Page
8% very minimal importance7.3% moderate consensus
Comments on On-Page (Non-Keyword) Ranking Factors:
- Russell Jones – If Google only ranked the “tried and true”, their results would be old and outdated. Recency is a valuable asset when links are hard to come by.
- Tom Critchlow – Factors like recency (freshness) and content changes are difficult factors to pin down. A fresh page is a real asset if trying to rank for fresh queries and when QDF hits in but other times having an established page can be more of a benefit so sometimes you need one and sometimes you need the other.
- Peter Meyers – Anecdotally, it feels like freshness is more important than ever. I’m amazed how often a blog post ranks within the first day, holding a top-10 position before finally settling a few spots (or even pages) lower.
- Carlos Del Rio – HTML Validation is not necessary, but running validation is an easy way to catch broken code that can trap spiders. If you are not linking out at all you are sending a signal that you are not part of the Internet as a whole. Creating topical association is very important to maintaining a strong position.
- Ian Lurie – Ratio of code to text and HTML Validation don’t have direct impacts, but by focusing on these factors you create semantically correct markup and fast-loading, content-rich pages, which has a huge impact. The description tag and static/non-static URLs won’t impact rankings. But they do impact click-through on your listing once you see it. So I’m not suggesting you ignore your description tag or use messy URLs. But when you change them, expect more clicks for the rankings you have, not better rankings.
Page-Specific Link Popularity Ranking Factors
-
Keyword-Focused Anchor Text from External Links
73% very high importance6.4% moderate consensus -
External Link Popularity (quantity/quality of external links)
71% very high importance9.2% moderate consensus -
Diversity of Link Sources (links from many unique root domains)
67% very high importance8.5% moderate consensus -
Page-Specific TrustRank (whether the individual page has earned links from trusted sources)
65% very high importance8.7% moderate consensus -
Iterative Algorithm-Based, Global Link Popularity (PageRank)
63% high importance8.8% moderate consensus -
Topic-Specificity/Focus of External Link Sources (whether external links to this page come from topically relevant pages/sites)
58% high importance10.6% moderate consensus -
Keyword-Focused Anchor Text from Internal Links
55% high importance9.9% moderate consensus -
Location in Information Architecture of the Site (where the page sits in relation to the site’s structural hierarchy)
51% moderate importance10.7% moderate consensus -
Internal Link Popularity (counting only links from other pages on the root domain)
51% moderate importance9.1% moderate consensus -
Quantity & Quality of Nofollowed Links to the Page
25% minimal importance10.8% moderate consensus -
Percent of Followed vs. Nofollowed Links that Point to the Page
17% very minimal importance11.4% moderate consensus
Comments on Page-Specific Link Popularity Ranking Factors:
-
Jon Myers – SEO ranking for me is won in the external factors today. It is the old 80%/20% rule and time needs to be invested in the getting your linkage right as this is where you will win. Make sure you are focusing the keyword anchor text and directing to the relevant pages. The focus has to be towards a quality and quantity mix and also don’t get all your links from one type of source, make sure you have a blend as this I believe counts well for you as well.
Use PR rank to determine high ranking links but make sure they are relevant is always a good starting point to refine the links and clean out the bad ones and refocus the anchor text on the good ones as I tend to find that more often than not about 85% of external links will have brand keywords as anchors, so you could be missing some great opportunities. Never forget though ones the bots are there make sure the internal linkage is good as it counts for a lot!
-
Russell Jones – The Link is King. All Hail the Link.
-
Hamlet Batista – Sub-optimized pages with many incoming links outrank easily their well optimized but poorly linked counterparts.
-
Todd Malicoat – Links are to SEO's what Snowflakes are to Eskimos. Off page factors were the most significant change in search relevancy that lead Google to become the 800 lbs. gorilla that they are. Focus on this area, and understanding the difference between different links and their relationship to search result sets, and you will understand the crux of good SEO. Understand how to place a value on link equity of a site, and you have a very powerful skill in evaluating competition in a search result.
-
Jane Copland – I certainly don’t put much merit in the idea that the number of followed vs. nofollowed links pointing at a page plays a part in Google’s traditional web search results anymore. Think of all the really high-quality social links from sites like Twitter that carry nofollow tags: it would be completely ridiculous to regard a high number of nofollowed links as a detrimental trust metric.
Site-Wide Link-Based Ranking Factors
-
Trustworthiness of the Domain Based on Link Distance from Trusted Domains (e.g. TrustRank, Domain mozTrust, etc.)
66% very high importance9.5% light consensus -
Global Link Popularity of the Domain Based on an Iterative Link Algorithm (e.g. PageRank on the domain graph, Domain mozRank, etc.)
64% high importance11% light consensus -
Link Diversity of the Domain (based on number/variety of unique root domains linking to pages on this domain)
64% high importance9.5% light consensus -
Links from Hubs/Authorities in a Given Topic-Specific Neighborhood (as per the “Hilltop” algorithm)
64% high importance10.9% light consensus -
Temporal Growth/Shrinkage of Links to the Domain (the quantity/quality of links earned over time and the temporal distribution)
52% moderate importance9.5% light consensus -
Links from Domains with Restricted Access TLD Extensions (e.g. .edu, .gov, .mil, .ac.uk, etc.)
47% moderate importance13.8% moderate contention -
Percent of Followed vs. Nofollowed Links that Point to the Domain
21% very minimal importance11% light consensus
Comments on Site-Wide Link-Based Ranking Factors:
-
Carlos Del Rio – There’s likely to be a tipping point with Nofollowed links vs. Followed links to the domain where it’s not a factor unless the tipping point is reached where there are too many Nofollowed links. Then it has a Negative impact.
-
Will Critchlow – Temporal growth of links above and beyond the value of the links themselves tends to only have a positive impact on QDF-type queries in my experience.
-
Aidan Beanland – Google have stated in the past that .edu, .mil and .ac TLD extensions do not inherently pass any more value than others, but that alternative factors may make this seem to be the case.
-
Ann Smarty – Domain strength is a highly important factor (still). We keep seeing pages with 0 strength of their own hosted on reputable domains ranked very high for very competitive words.
-
Lisa D Myers – I do think the distance between trusted domains and you could have an impact, the bots are becoming more intelligent with their reading and will take associations of domains with them as they go to compare to the next site it links to. Using LSI (Latent Symantic Indexing) was just the start for the search engines, I belive the algorithm is now so much more sophisticated and has the power to read not only latent symantic between content on a page but between sites. My mind boggles when I think about the process, it’s a bit like when you were little and tried to imagine the end of the universe! Again it comes down to content, if you generate highly valuable and relevant content the brilliant links will come to you. I know, I know, it’s such a cliche, but unfortunately true. If links are the currency of the web, content is the bank!
Site-Wide (non-link based) Ranking Factors
-
Site Architecture of the Domain (whether intelligent, useful hierarchies are employed)
52% moderate importance13% moderate contention -
Use of External Links to Reputable, Trustworthy Sites/Pages
37% low importance10.8% moderate consensus -
Length of Domain Registration
37% low importance14.3% moderate contention -
Domain Registration History (how long it’s been registered to the same party, number of times renewed, etc.)
36% low importance12.3% moderate contention -
Server/Hosting Uptime
32% minimal importance11.4% moderate consensus -
Hosting Information (what other domains are hosted on the server/c-block of IP addresses)
31% minimal importance10.4% moderate consensus -
Domain Registration Ownership Change (whether the domain has changed hands according to registration records)
31% minimal importance11.3% moderate consensus -
Inclusion of Feeds from the Domain in Google News
31% minimal importance14.9% moderate contention -
Use of XML Sitemap(s)
29% minimal importance12.3% moderate contention -
Domain Ownership (who registered the domain and their history)
25% minimal importance12.1% moderate contention -
Domain Registration with Google Local
24% very minimal importance12.7% moderate contention -
Domain “Mentions” (text citations of the domain name/address even in the absence of direct links)
24% very minimal importance9.8% moderate consensus -
Inclusion of Feeds from the Domain in Google Blog Search
24% very minimal importance12.8% moderate contention -
Citations/References of the Domain in the Yahoo! Directory (beyond the value of the link alone)
24% very minimal importance12.2% moderate contention -
Citations/References of the Domain in DMOZ.org (beyond the value of the link alone)
23% very minimal importance11.5% moderate consensus -
Citations/References of the Domain in Wikipedia (beyond the value of the link alone)
22% very minimal importance12.4% moderate contention -
Use of Feeds on the Domain
21% very minimal importance10.8% moderate consensus -
Citations/References of the Domain in the Librarian’s Internet Index - Lii.org (beyond the value of the link alone)
21% very minimal importance12.4% moderate contention -
Domain Registration with Google Webmaster Tools
18% very minimal importance11.8% moderate consensus -
Activation of Google’s “Enhanced Image Search” (aka image labeler)
17% very minimal importance10.3% moderate consensus -
Use of Security Certificate on the Domain (for HTTPS transactions)
14% very minimal importance8.5% moderate consensus -
Validity of Mailing Address/Phone Numbers/Records from Domain Registration
13% very minimal importance8.3% moderate consensus -
Citations/References of the Domain in Google Knol Articles (beyond the value of the link alone)
13% very minimal importance9.2% moderate consensus -
Use of a Google Search Appliance on the Domain
6% very minimal importance7.4% moderate consensus -
Use of Google AdSense on the Domain
5% very minimal importance6.1% moderate consensus -
Use of Google AdWords for Ads Pointing to the Domain
5% very minimal importance5.8% moderate consensus -
Alexa Rank of the Domain (independent of actual traffic)
5% very minimal importance5.8% moderate consensus -
Compete.com Rank of the Domain (independent of actual traffic)
5% very minimal importance6.1% moderate consensus -
Use of Google’s Hosted Web Apps (not App Engine) on the Domain
3% very minimal importance4.9% strong consensus
Comments on Site-Wide (non-link based) Ranking Factors:
-
Adam Audette – Many of these factors aren”t directly related to how Google will score a domain for ranking, BUT these all have a huge factor on the SEO of the site. For that reason it was slightly difficult to pull them out one by one. I believe DMOZ is still very juicy. Hint: Google still uses the directory. Double hint: search for “clothing” sometime and see what 2 of the top 10 results are. That’s significant, especially because there’s no ability to get a link on the ranking category page at DMOZ (which feeds Google’s). Citations/mentions/quality directories are certainly tracked and factored in, along with Google’s domain detective work. XML sitemaps can help with crawl fluidity but aren’t a scoring factor per se.
-
Marshall Simmonds – Search engines either don’t care to, are unable, or aren’t good at organic comprehensive crawls of large sites (those in the millions of pages) due to size and depth of content. This means it’s critical to the success of enterprise level sites to implement XML sitemaps whereas smaller sites may not see the benefit as much.
-
Wil Reynolds – Alexa and compete rankings would be of very little value given the prevalence of Google analytics and the Google toolbar. They can get much more accurate data from their own properties.
-
Richard Baxter – Recent changes to Domain Registration Ownership, especially if the domain has been allowed to expire, impact the results extremely negatively.
-
Ian Lurie – Use of Adsense/Google Apps/Google Search or other search engine-owned tools, though, won’t impact results at all. If your site is so hurting, SEO-wise, that you have to point an Adwords ad at it to get crawled, you’ve got bigger problems.
Social Media/Social Graph Based Ranking Factors
-
Delicious Data About the Domain or Page
21% very minimal importance11.9% light consensus -
StumbleUpon Data About the Domain or Page
19% very minimal importance12.3% moderate contention -
Twitter Data About the Domain or Page
17% very minimal importance10.7% light consensus -
LinkedIn Data About the Domain or Page
15% very minimal importance11% light consensus -
Facebook Data About the Domain or Page
12% very minimal importance9.1% moderate consensus -
MySpace Data About the Domain or Page
11% very minimal importance8.4% moderate consensus
Comments on Social Media/Social Graph Based Ranking Factors:
-
Marty Weintraub – Twitter data isn’t a factor yet, but it’s probably coming.
-
Hamlet Batista – Matt Cutts explained in a video that Google doesn’t care how many twitter followers you have. Their algorithms only care about the links.
-
Dan Thies – Put me down for “no way, never” on all these.
-
Todd Malicoat – Social bookmarking is a quality indicator. Brand mentions are a quality indicator. If I was a search engine engineer, I would likely rank brand mentions based on social media conversations from third parties that were easiest to derive valid data from.
-
Ian McAnerin – I’m inclined to believe that in this case "sometimes a link is just a link", to paraphrase Freud.
Usage Data Ranking Factors
-
Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to the Exact Page/URL
42% low importance11.4% light consensus -
Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to Pages on this Domain
39% low importance11.3% light consensus -
Search Queries for the Domain Name or Associated Brand
36% low importance12.3% moderate contention -
Use of Query Refinement Post-Click on a Search Result
32% minimal importance11.2% light consensus -
Average “Time on Page” Duration
26% minimal importance12% light consensus -
Data from Google’s SearchWiki Voting, Ratings, Comments
19% very minimal importance9.1% moderate consensus -
References/Links to the Domain in Gmail Emails
9% very minimal importance7.7% moderate consensus
Comments on Usage Data Ranking Factors:
-
Jessica Bowman – While usability are factors likely in the formula, I haven’t seen much to indicate this is impacting rankings - especially for larger authoritative websites. Companies do need to focus on these because they will likely become a bigger impact in the next year.
-
Andy Beal – While Google may well be experimenting with including these factors in their algorithm, I’ve seen no evidence to support wide-spread usage.
-
Adam Audette – CTR on a search result is a large cumulative factor, and brings in page load time as well, which is something we're very focused on at present.
-
Carlos Del Rio – Brand and domain additives to search terms have become especially important since the Vince change.
-
Ian Lurie – None of these factors have a significant impact YET. But they're coming on. If you think Google’s ignoring all that toolbar data and Searchwiki info, you're mental.
Negative Ranking Factors
-
Cloaking with Malicious/Manipulative Intent
68% very high importance10.7% light consensus -
Link Acquisition from Known Link Brokers/Sellers
56% high importance13.1% moderate contention -
Links from the Page to Web Spam Sites/Pages
51% moderate importance12.1% moderate contention -
Cloaking by User Agent
51% moderate importance15.2% moderate contention -
Frequent Server Downtime & Site Inaccessibility
51% moderate importance12.3% moderate contention -
Hiding Text with same/similar colored text/background
49% moderate importance15.3% moderate contention -
Links from the Domain to Web Spam Sites/Pages
48% moderate importance13.1% moderate contention -
Excessive Repetition of the Same Anchor Text in a High Percentage/Quantity of External Links to the Site/Page
46% moderate importance11% light consensus -
Cloaking by IP Address
46% moderate importance15.3% moderate contention -
Hiding Text with CSS by Offsetting the Pixel display outside the visible page area
44% low importance14.8% moderate contention -
Excessive Number of Dynamic Parameters in the URL
43% low importance13.5% moderate contention -
Excessive Links from Sites Hosted on the Same IP Address C-Block
41% low importance10.5% light consensus -
Link Acquisition from Manipulative Bait-and-Switch Campaigns (301’ing microsites, etc.)
41% low importance12.9% moderate contention -
Keyword Stuffing in the On-Page Text
41% low importance11.3% light consensus -
Hiding Text with CSS
display:none;Styling40% low importance14.2% moderate contention -
Keyword Stuffing in the <title> Tag
39% low importance11.2% light consensus -
Keyword Stuffing in the URL
37% low importance9.9% light consensus -
Link Acquisition from Manipulative Widget/Badge Campaigns
37% low importance12.8% moderate contention -
Cloaking by JavaScript/Rich Media Support Detection
37% low importance15.4% moderate contention -
Cloaking by Cookie Detection
36% low importance16.3% moderate contention -
Link Acquisition from Low Quality Paid Directories
36% low importance12.2% moderate contention -
Excessive Links from Sites Owned by the Same Registrant
36% low importance12.4% moderate contention -
Links to the Page from Web Spam Sites/Pages
36% low importance13.1% moderate contention -
Links to the Domain from Web Spam Sites/Pages
34% minimal importance14% moderate contention -
Link Acquisition from Manipulative Viral Campaigns
33% minimal importance12.9% moderate contention -
Cloaking with Positive User Experience Intent
33% minimal importance12.8% moderate contention -
Over-Optimization of Internal Link Anchor Text
32% minimal importance11.2% light consensus -
Use of “Poison” Keywords in Anchor Text of External Links (e.g. student credit cards, buy viagra, porn terms, etc.)
32% minimal importance11.9% light consensus -
Link Acquisition from Buying Old Domains & Redirecting
32% minimal importance13.2% moderate contention -
Excessively Long URL
30% minimal importance13% moderate contention -
Use of Keyword-Rich Anchor Text Internal Links in Footers
27% minimal importance10.2% moderate consensus -
Keyword Stuffing in the Meta Description Tag
26% minimal importance11.2% light consensus -
Link Acquisition from Buying Old Domains and Adding Links
24% very minimal importance10.2% light consensus -
Overuse of Nofollow on Internal Links for “PageRank Sculpting”
24% very minimal importance10.9% light consensus -
Forum Link Building (Signatures, Link Drops, etc.)
22% very minimal importance12.8% moderate contention -
Excessively Long Title Tag
21% very minimal importance9.1% light consensus -
Keyword Stuffing in the Meta Keywords Tag
15% very minimal importance10.9% light consensus
Comments on Negative Ranking Factors:
-
Andy Beard –
Excessive Repetition of the Same Anchor Text in a High Percentage/Quantity of External Links to the Site/Page:
- It would depend on how they are acquired for long-term benefit
- If you create a WP theme with Buy Viagra in the footer, don’t expect to be flavor of the month with human reviewers
Hiding Text with CSS
display:none;Styling:- Is it part of a navigation system that allows the user to eventually display the content?
- If you hide a whole bunch of keywords, or keyword stuffed links, it could be a significant factor
Over-Optimization of Internal Link Anchor Text:
A perfectly optimized link points to content that is a perfect landing page for the keyword, and Google isn’t going to give you a penalty for something they expect you to do, tell the truth with your links.
Use of Keyword-Rich Anchor Text Internal Links in Footers:
- With CSS you could have the header in the footer or the footer in the header
- does 100+ links in that part of the visible page make sense for users?
Link Acquisition from Buying Old Domains & Redirecting:
If redirecting and hosting the old content on the new domain, this can be achieved successfully.
-
Debra Mastaler – A lot of the comments you hear about widgets/301’ing microsites/buying old domains etc affecting you negatively is a result of overblown scare tactics perpetuated by a handful of people. There are a lot of legitimate uses for these tactics and when done well and as part of an overall marketing plan, they are successful.
-
Tom Critchlow – A lot of these factors depend on intent. For example, cloaking by user agent can be fine so long as the intent is pure and many large sites get away with it and have done for years. Also, a fair number of the link factors (such as manipulative bait and switch campaigns) are more likely to have 0 value than negative value. We’ve seen Google preferring to de-value spammy techniques/links rather than apply penalties for them where possible.
-
Carlo Del Rio – I have yet to see a net negative from buying old domains, but it often doesn’t make any positive ranking either. Currently manipulative link acquisition is the biggest threat in causing negative results. Crossing repetitive anchor text and high velocity acquisition is like playing with matches—eventually you get burned.
-
Peter Meyers – It seems like the negative impact of link farms is very niche-specific. In some cases, Google really cracks down (real estate, for example), but in smaller niches I still see people running blatant link farms and getting away with it. I’m not sure the penalty has really made its way into the core algorithm.
Factors Negatively Affecting the Value of an External Link
-
Domain Banned from Google’s Index for Web Spam
70% very high importance10.8% moderate consensus -
Domain’s Rankings Penalized in Google for Web Spam
65% very high importance10.9% light consensus -
Link is Determined to be “Paid” Rather than Editorially Given
63% high importance12.5% moderate contention -
Domain Contains Links to a Significant Amount of Web Spam
52% moderate importance11.3% light consensus -
Domain Has Not Earned Trusted Links
41% low importance11.8% light consensus
Comments on Factors Negatively Affecting the Value of an External Link:
-
Adam Audette – All killers. The last one is a grey area...but a major factor. If a link is determined to be paid, it will normally be filtered out from the site's link graph. But there are occasions when a serious penalty will occur from too many paid links.
-
Chris Bennet – I don’t know what measures Google has taken to algorithmically spot low quality paid/rented links but it would be very easy to build a tool that could spot 80-90% of the crap without breaking a sweat.
-
Hamlet Batista – Links from banned sites are pretty much worthless.
-
Todd Malicoat – Most links won’t hurt you, but if you put significant effort into obtaining a link that won’t help you, you’ve negatively impacted your bottom line. Make sure you are hunting for links that matter.
-
Ian McAnerin – Links are not a rankings factor – trust and topic are. Links just represent this. If you can show that the link has little/no trust or is unfocused, then it will not be worth much. If you can show it has neither trust nor accurately indicates the topic, then there is no reason to count it.
Geo-Targeting Factors:
-
Country Code TLD of the Root Domain (e.g. .co.uk, .de, .fr, .com.au, etc.)
69% very high importance7.9% moderate consensus -
Language of the Content Used on the Site
63% high importance9.3% light consensus -
Links from Other Domains Targeted to the Country/Region
60% high importance10.3% light consensus -
Geographic Location of the Host IP Address of the Domain
57% high importance12%.0 moderate contention -
Manual Review/Targeting by Google Engineers and/or Quality Raters
53% moderate importance14.6% strong contention -
Geo-Targeting Preference Set Inside Google Webmaster Tools
52% moderate importance11.4% light consensus -
Registration of the Site with Google Local in the Country/Region
45% moderate importance10.3% light consensus -
Address in On-Page Text Content
41% low importance11.8% light consensus -
Address Associated with the Registration of the Domain
35% low importance12.3% moderate contention -
Geographic Location of Visitors to the Site (the country/region from which many/most visitors arrive)
30% minimal importance10.2% light consensus -
Geo-Tagging of Pages via Meta Data (e.g. Dublin Core Meta Data Initiative)
24% very minimal importance10.8% light consensus
Comments on Geo-Targeting Factors
-
Joost de Valk – Ranking in different countries has different requirements. For some countries, f.i., Google cannot reliably determine server location based on IP, and some languages are so alike to Google’s algorithm that weird stuff sometimes happens (Dutch pages ranking in German results, f.i.)
-
Russell Jones – Any opportunity you have to tell Google explicitly what region for which your site is designed — do it. Make their job as easy as possible.
-
Wil Reynolds – The address associated with the registration of a domain wouldn’t make sense to have too large of an impact as this would severely hurt sites that are registered in one country yet have content for multiple countries on their site
-
Aidan Beanland – In my experience Google still relies mainly on the ccTLD, IP location of host and Webmaster Tools regional target. Secondary cues are given less importance than in other search engines.
Language of the site can act as an automatic geo-filter, as only queries in that language would match content from that country. However, this can (and does) cause confusion when the same language is spoken in multiple countries, or the same words are used across multiple languages.
-
Kristjan Mar Haukson – Address Associated with the registration of the domain we have worked with large companies with their address given in one country but targeting another and this has not played any role that we have seen.
5万+
到【灌水乐园】发言
Comments on On-Page (Keyword-Specific) Ranking Factors:
Andy Beal – Keyword use in external link anchor text is one of the top SEO factors overall. I’ve seen sites rank for competitive keywords—without even mentioning the keyword on-page—simply because of external link text.
Andy Beard – Keyword Use in the Meta Keywords Tag – ignore them unless using a blogging platform which can use the same keywords as tags. Google ignores them.
Christine Churchill – Taking the time to create a good title tag has the biggest payoff of any on-page criteria. Just do it!
Duncan Morris – It’s worth pointing out that even though having keywords in the meta description doesn’t impact rankings they can play a significant role in the sites click through rate from the SERPs.
Peter Wailes – Domain name keyword usage gains most of its strength through what anchor text people are then likely to link to you with, not so much from inherent value, which is lower in my opinion.