Update to SEOMoz SEO Ranking Factors

SEOs and digital marketers everywhere have been awaiting the update to the SEOMoz ranking factor report since it was last updated in 2007 (it’s on a 2 year update cycle) and SEO has moved on a long way since then particularly with the growth in universal search and social media.

The new v3 Search Engine Ranking report was released in August 2009. I think this is essential reading for anyone involved “hands-on” on digital marketing whether you’re involved in design, content editing or traffic building. I think the new structure and inclusion of many more ranking factors make it a “must read”. I also have more specific advice on Google updates which affect SEO in 2009.

If you’re not familiar with it, it’s still worth downloading the v2 Search Engine Ranking report which I think is simpler and still valid for the main ranking factors, although it misses many of the details.

One of the first changes you will see is that there are more categories of ranking factors shown in the pie chart below with their relative importance assessed.

seo-ranking-factors

SEO Ranking Factors. Source: SEOMoz v3 Search Engine Ranking Factors Report

While this chart isn’t scientific since it’s only an aggregation of the opinions of the hundred reviewers, I think it is helpful since it highlights the range and importance of factors which search engines may take into account when ranking pages.

It shows clearly the importance of the trust of individual domains on which pages are located and external indications of the importance of pages by links from other sites and the hyperlink anchor text contained within them. The 15% figure for On-page keyword usage should help show those less familiar with SEO that on-page optimisation will play a relatively small part in overall SEO success.

How to read the report

In the previous report each ranking factor was assessed out of 5 which was a more intuitive way of assessing the factor. In the new report, I would advise not taking too much notice of the labels very high, high, moderate, low importance.

The contention / agreement figures based on the standard deviation aren’t that useful, perhaps highlighting lack of agreement, I would say any figure over 8% suggests reasonable agreement.

Yes, I would agree with the categorisation of very high and high in most cases, but some factors rated moderated (such as keyword use anywhere in the H1 headline tag) and low importance (use of external pointing links on the page) are well worth implementing in my experience.

The main SEO ranking factors

I have used  the summary below of the main on and off-page SEO factors based on v2 ranking factors report on my training courses for the last couple of years on more general digital marketing training courses as a one page snapshot. I think I will continue doing so since it’s a great summary, but in this document I will highlight some of the interesting new factors to consider.

On-page optimisation:

  • <title> tag = 4.9/5
  • Keyword frequency and density = 3.7/5
  • Keyword in headings = <h1> = 3.1, <h2> = 2.8
  • Keyword in document name = 2.8
  • Meta name description = 2/5
  • Meta name keywords = 1/5

This is useful to highlight the myth of the importance of meta tag which so many generalist marketers seem to cling to… I would rate the meta name factors even lower.

Off-page optimisation:

  • Link anchor text contains keyword = 4.4/5
  • More backlinks (higher PageRank)= 4/5
  • Link Popularity within the Site’s Internal Link Structure=4/5
  • Page assessed as a hub = 3.5/5
  • Page assessed as an authority = 3.5/5
  • Link velocity (rate at which changes) = 3.5/5

So finally onto the new categories and positive ranking factors to consider, I’ll pick out some of the less well-known factors which are new or covered differently from the previous reports.

1. On-page (keyword-specific ranking factors)

Keyword Use in the First 50-100 Words in HTML on the Page

45% moderate importance, 9.9% light consensus

This is well-known to most SEOs, but wasn’t highlighted in the original report

Keyword Use as the First Word(s) of the Title Tag

63% high importance, 11.3% light consensus

Likewise, well-known to most SEOs, but an example of a detail that’s in the new report but not the old.

Keyword Use in other Headline Tags (<h2> – <h6>)

35% low importance, 8% light consensus

This is an example of a factor that I think is underestimated and also produces much more readable copy, so should be recommended on online copywriting courses.

2. On-Page (Non-Keyword) Ranking Factors

Recency (freshness) of Page Creation

50% moderate importance, 10.5% moderate consensus

Google does seem to give a boost to new content which is why individual blog posts perform well before many links are accrued. This is sometimes known as the QDF (Query Deserves Freshness) factor.

Use of External-Pointing Links on the Page

37% low importance, 13.3% moderate contention

I believe editorial linking to other relevant pages on the site and external sites is really worthwhile for usability and SEO although this importance rating doesn’t suggest this.

3. Page-Specific Link Popularity Ranking Factors

I agree with the very high importance of these two factors:

Diversity of Link Sources (links from many unique root domains)

67% very high importance, 8.5% moderate consensus

Page-Specific TrustRank (whether the individual page has earned links from trusted sources)

65% very high importance, 8.7% moderate consensus

4. Site-Wide Link-Based Ranking Factors

Similar to the indidvidal page factors, trust for the site as a whole “domain importance” are key:

Trustworthiness of the Domain Based on Link Distance from Trusted Domains (e.g. TrustRank, Domain mozTrust, etc.)

66% very high importance, 9.5% 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 importance, 11% light consensus

5. Site-Wide (non-link based) Ranking Factors

Most of these are of low importance, but thanks to the importance of internal link anchor text, this IA is still important:

Site Architecture of the Domain (whether intelligent, useful hierarchies are employed)

52% moderate importance, 13% moderate contention

6. Social Media/Social Graph Based Ranking Factors

I think the importance of these is underestimated and all site owners should think about the type of content which will attract bookmarks since these days many new pages are bookmarked or retweeted rather than having links to them. I was also surprised to see Google Bookmarks excluded – I would expect this to be more important since it’s data Google hold from the toolbar which they should be able to assess for gaming.
Examples of ratings:

Delicious Data About the Domain or Page

21% very minimal importance, 11.9% light consensus

StumbleUpon Data About the Domain or Page

19% very minimal importance, 12.3% moderate contention

7. Usage Data Ranking Factors

I and many other SEOs have long believed position relative clickthrough rates are important signals, so showing the importance of writing appealing titles and descriptions. These ratings suggest these are the case:

Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to the Exact Page/URL

42% low importance, 11.4% light consensus

Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to Pages on this Domain

39% low importance, 11.3% light consensus

The use of a generic term in association with the brand is a relatively new factor SEOs have been discussing with the Vince update which it’s good to see included also.

Search Queries for the Domain Name or Associated Brand

36% low importance, 12.3% moderate contention

8. Geo-Targeting Factors:

It’s good to see a separate section on these which is a must read for all marketing internationally.

The top 4 are most important here:

Country Code TLD of the Root Domain (e.g. .co.uk, .de, .fr, .com.au, etc.)

69% very high importance, 7.9% moderate consensus

Language of the Content Used on the Site

63% high importance, 9.3% light consensus

Links from Other Domains Targeted to the Country/Region

60% high importance, 10.3% light consensus

Geographic Location of the Host IP Address of the Domain

57% high importance, 12%.0 moderate contention

This entry was posted in SEO strategy. Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://www.whiteboxseo.co.uk Elliot Zissman

    Useful data from a technical perspective, but in my opinion there is still the question of how to get good links coming in… and the answer to that must surely lie in having great content – your site must be useful, interesting, relevant and unique. A good SEOr must know the above, but must focus on how to get the website owner to publish the right content. Do you agree?

    • http://www.davechaffey.com Dave Chaffey

      Totally agree Elliot,

      With the many negative factors i didn’t discuss in this post, quality links are becoming more important all the time and the only way to get these is through quality content as I discussed in this post on Link building success.

      Also I think social media and bookmarking is under emphasised in the SEOmoz report and effective social media also requires quality content.

      I think the move to integrating SEO / social media as services for agencies and SEO/social media job roles for clients is a reflection of this trend.

      Perhaps I and others should write more on content / “linkbaiting” options!

      Dave

  • Pingback: Trust economies, Facebook demographics and Hitler’s 3 testicles | Customer Engagement Unit

  • http://www.jppmarketing.com Julia Papageorgiou

    Agree with both, great content really has to be the cornerstone not just for organic linkbuilding for SEO but, nowadays, for your website as a whole if you want to keep customers on the site for long enough to convert and to keep them coming back.
    I find that once my clients appreciate the importance of this and shift their focus to creating good content with industry writers or internal people who know their product and ideal clients inside out, they start to create ‘linkbait’ naturally and I just need to guide the optimisation process.
    Have seen great results with content that addresses key client concerns head on or explains and expands on areas of confusion or disagreement within the keyphrase area we are targeting – eg when a query has popped up on high traffic forums that a client can effectively resolve as an expert, we try and jump on it and create a resource around it to point to. If you get one of those right, you are discussed/linked to from highly relevant forums, discussion boards, articles, social networks etc.
    Dave – would love to read more from you on ways to maximise links from great content.

    • http://www.davechaffey.com Dave Chaffey

      Thanks Julia,

      Always useful to have prompts to create posts to help others.

      On maximising links from content, I think getting links is trickier with the advent of Twitter, since many prefer to Tweet rather than blog and link back to source although this gives you one form of links from Twitter.

      Here are some top-of-mind ideas,

      Write articles, create tools, with link-building in mind – who is your target audience not only to read, but also to link to and bookmark
      Be useful – this is why lists to how-to-guides work well in B2B space – this is my preferred approach.
      Be controversial
      Mention, review or generally big-up other companies or people and they may link to you.
      Use a range of techniques, not just articles – SEOMoz has a great list of link-bait ideas, e.g. comprehensive diagrams/charts work for social media
      Viral seeding – seed your article to different sources, or break it down into different parts which are useful for and can be seeded to different audiences

      I’ll turn that into an article next month!

      What do you think Julia – what are your ideas?

  • http://www.jppmarketing.com Julia Papageorgiou

    Dave – I think it will make a great article! I especially agree with the part about big up for other companies, think it helps to point to resources from others, especially when valuable. Also makes you more believable as a source if you are not constantly plugging your own content.
    Have seen very good results with how-to articles and top 10 lists of pointers and yes think nowadays the only problem with these is that they are becoming very popular so more effort is required to make your list unique, innovative and completely original. I think emphasis should be on encouraging feedback, edits or growth of the list from other users.
    I also like the controversy idea – sometimes inviting criticism and negative commentary makes the article so much more interesting as then it really becomes a discussion rather than one-sided view.
    Look forward to reading it!

  • http://www.alancharlesworth.eu Alan Charlesworth

    Hi Dave – excellent aticle [as usual ;-) ]

    Sorry I’m late to the party on this one, but I just received the newsletter in which it is featured. I’ve a couple of points to add.

    First off – and I appreciate why it was not part of your article – but I always lead any SEO talk/seminar/etc on the choice of suitable/relevant keywords. Everything you quite rightly include as ‘on-page’ and some of the ‘off-page’ stuff all revolves around the keywords. It’s no good having ‘your’ choice of keyword in all the ‘right’ places if the target market is searching on other terms.

    Secondly, I am a great supporter of the concept that the search engines try to look at a website as a human does – and so the on-page aspects are common sense. Well … at least they are common sense to me, but then my introduction to the Internet was with a book publisher who was moving online circa 1996.

    This publishing background meant that when using basic html to build a website, it was ‘common sense’ to:

    * Include the subject of the page in the page title tag [the same as we did for a book chapter]
    * Include the subject in the content – how do you write about [for example] ‘super turbo widgets’ without without using the words ‘super turbo widgets’ in the text
    * Include the subject in the tag – it is the ‘headline’ of the page and so tells the reader what the page is about [paper-based publishing again]
    * Include the subject [eg super turbo widgets] in the meta tags as they describe the content of the page to the search engines [at least they used to do, but now-a-days the description tag's role in SERPs should not be ignored]

    OK, so things might have moved on ‘off-site’, but these basic issues remain as a sound foundation for any other ‘advanced’ SEO efforts. I would even argue that some aspects of the off-site SEO will flow ‘naturally’ from getting these basics right. As Julia points out in her response, good content is essential, and good content will ‘naturally’ include the keywords – if it doesn’t, it’s talking about a different subject!

  • Pingback: SEO Ranking Factors

  • http://www.digitalsuccess.co.uk/ Digital Success

    Good overview Dave! Like the pie chart, I think that the break down of the factors was helpful. Although with
    ” tag = 4.9/5
    * Keyword frequency and density = 3.7/5
    * Keyword in headings = = 3.1, = 2.8
    * Keyword in document name = 2.8
    * Meta name description = 2/5
    * Meta name keywords = 1/5″
    I was supprised that the meta description was put as more important than meta keyword, I thought that the description tatg was not used anymore.

    • http://www.davechaffey.com Dave Chaffey

      Hi – the original score out of 5 are nearly 3 years old now and are based on many expert reviews.

      I would personally rate meta keywords as 0 and meta description as 1 – not because it has any ranking benefit in Google – neither of these ever have. Rather the description is in the SERPs so can encourage clickthrough and show the benefits of a site / brand.

  • Pingback: Smart Insights guest blog – Testing page titles & meta descriptions « digitaljuggler

  • Pingback: Testing page titles & meta descriptions | Digital Juggler

  • Pingback: Testing page titles & meta descriptions - Digital Juggler

Feedback Form
Feedback Form