SEO News

Content and sub-domain conflicts

Brands will often house their news and other content on sub-domains. This is not necessarily a bad idea, but it needs to be implemented with the overall search strategy in mind. 

For example, Barclays has an Ask Barclays section which is heavy on content, answering various customer questions. 

This is no bad idea in itself, and clearly has its uses for the site’s visitors, but it is also harming Barclays’ search rankings, as this page often ranks more highly than other pages on the site. 

The chart below shows this conflict between ‘Ask Barclays’ and the main homepage for the term ‘switch banks’, a valuable one to own on Google. 

The homepage was ranking on the top two pages of Google between January and May this year, after this the Ask Barclays pages are forcing it out of the SERPs for much of the time. 

(Click image for larger version)

In another example, from Morrisons, we can see that its content-led sub domain Your Morrisons isn’t necessarily helping here. 

For such a broad term, I think Morrisons would prefer to show visitors its homepage, and it has solved this part of the problem at least, since traffic to your.morrisons.com redirects to morrisons.com. 

However, this doesn’t necessarily solve the SEO issue, and we can see that this sub-domain conflict is affecting the homepage’s rankings for the term. 

(Click image for larger version)

EE

If you were EE, which page would you want to rank for ‘apple iphone’? The main shop page or the help section? 

The shop page seems to have been battling with its help pages for search rankings over the last eight months, though it does rally just in time for the new iPhone launch. 

However, as I write this post, EE is down on page three of Google for the term, with all of its rivals ranking higher. So it has to spend money on PPC for visibility: 

Monarch

It’s a similar story for budget airline Monarch, with its blog content seemingly affecting search rankings. 

Looking at the chart, there’s a lot going on here. The main site did edge into page one for the term ‘sharm el-sheikh city breaks’ for a while but has ended up on page six of Google. This is nowhere for all but the most determined searcher. 

In conclusion…

In all of these examples, the decision to create more content was seemingly taken without considering the effects it may have on search rankings. 

This has led to sites creating sub-domains which cannibalise the search rankings of other pages which are more likely to convert visitors. 

This doesn’t mean that sites shouldn’t create more content. As Editor of a blog which creates value for the business, I can see that there are more pros than cons, if done well. 

However, simply creating more content without fitting it into an overall strategy will not produce the intended benefits.

Google is only going to index one page per search term from any site, so it’s important to decide which page you’d like to rank, and provide clear signals to Google to this effect. 

We do this by using internal links and having hub or dedicated pages for the terms we target and using internal links to send this message to Google. 

For example, if we rank for ‘content marketing guide’ we want to send searchers to a relevant report on the topic, or perthaps to a page showing available training courses.

Other times, if we have no report or training which matches, we’ll try to ensure that the most useful blog post ranks for the term. The key is to have a coordinated strategy so that different teams and departments are not competing for the same search rankings. 

Posted by gfiorelli1

The woman in the gif below just said to Captain Picard that she can show him the definitive and complete list of the 200 Google ranking factors.

Picard, who is a wise man, can do nothing but going away with a facepalm.

Who can blame Captain Picard for his reaction? We all know, in fact, that a complete and ultimate list of the 200 ranking factors does not exist.

If you agree, then why do we still see statistics like these below on 
Buzzsumo?

Let me offer this disclaimer before I continue:

I am not writing this post to attack people like Brian Dean, who, in August, published an update to the “complete list” that Backlinko first presented in 2013. Brian, whom I esteem, created an effective piece of link bait (as the 
318 linking root domains it earned testify).

I am writing this post because those lists are, quite simply, useless and dangerous, and because I hope to help people—especially the newer generations of SEO—understand that a definitive and complete “List” of Google’s ranking factors does not exist. Moreover, some of the factors that appear in those lists:

1. Are myths;
2. Are correlation factors and not causal factors;
3. Are presented just to reach the number of 200.

The origin of the myth

I admit that I did not know how the myth of “200 Google Ranking Factors” was created, but a good SEO pal of mine, 
Giorgio Taverniti, revealed it to me.

The first time Google declared it was using 200 ranking factors was in its 
Press Day on May 10th, 2006 (you may also want to read the live blog Matt Cutts did, as it illuminates many things that happened thereafter). 

Seeing that the correct phrasing was “over 200 ranking factors,” we can say that “200” was an approximated number, perhaps offered to journalists in order to explain how complex Google’s algorithm is. If the audience had been composed of information technologists, Alan Eustace would probably have used another wording.

Another proof of how silly it is to claim to have discovered “the 200 Google ranking factors” is that, in 2010, Matt Cutts himself declared that, yes, Google counts on over 200 rankings factors, but that 
each factor may have up to 50 variations:

Meaning is important

Are you sure you really know what “ranking” and “indexing” mean?

I ask you this because I know many SEOs who use both words as synonyms, when they are two completely different concepts and stages of how a search engine works.

Indexing is one of the four interconnected and interdependent phases of how a search engine works:

1. Crawling
2. Parsing
3. Indexing
4. Search

Indexing is the process of locating and mapping resources around the web that are associated with a word or phrase, and it is something the search engines do, not SEOs, even if SEOs can help their work optimizing a site. 

The index, as was so effectively explained to me by 
Enrico Altavilla, is used to determine what resources to suggest as an answer to a query and the words/phrases composing it, not in what order to suggest them. That is the function of the ranking phase.

Ranking is the final moment of the fourth phase: Search.

Context plays a major role in the Search phase, and almost every step takes into account the user’s and device’s characteristics.

As we can see from the image above,
the Search phase is composed of four distinct stages:

1. Understanding the input given by the user with a query. Hummingbird very likely operates in this moment, because Google, in order to understand better the input, modifies or extends the query and just after moves to the second stage;
2. Retrieving documents from the Index, taking into account commands like “noindex.”
3. Filtering & clustering. Once Google has understood the input and retrieved the corresponding documents from the Index, it applies filters like Panda and others spam filters, but also less considered ones as the Safe-Search filter and the often forgotten Private Search layer (personalization).
4. Ranking. Google applies in this moment the X number of ranking factors, not before. And the ranking factors should be considered and counted for every kind of index Google has:
   • Universal search
   • Image search
   • Local search
   • etc.

We should not forget, then, that content and layout composing the SERPs depend a lot on things like the device used.

The Unbearable Lightness of SEOs

SEOs are talented professionals with a natural tendency to develop a manic-depressive psyche. 

Ok, I have exaggerated a little bit, but—and I am an SEO, too—we live moments of pure joy when we see that our work is making the organic traffic of a site rise up and to the right, but also sudden dark periods of (unconscious?) anxiety when Google announces an update or we see a small traffic drop.

For that reason, we love ranking factor lists.

We need them not just as a potential source of information, but because they reassure us, too.

And we love them
even if they are just a sequence of myths.

Let’s take, for example, ”
Google’s 200 Ranking Factors,“, published by Backlinko, which I use for no other reason than it being the most recent successful list published.

I’ll start with an easy one:

1 – Keyword Density [Ranking Factor 17]

My eyes bleed reading that
although not as important as it once was, keyword density is still something Google uses to determine the topic of a webpage. 

Keyword Density never was a Google’s ranking factor. Never.

If we really want to find keyword density as factor for ranking, we must go back to the 70s and 80s and look at  what Stephen E. Robertson, Karen Spärck Jones, and others described as the 
Okapi BM25 formula.

If keyword density ever had some relevancy as a ranking factor, it was in the Pleistocene era of search engines.

We live in 2014 and Google just had its 16th birthday.

It is still obviously important having the keyword we want to rank for in the text of a web document.

However we also know that it is also possible to make our site ranking for that keyword without having it at all in the page, if Google finds enough consistent and relevant external signals, which associate that keyword to our site.

2 – LSI [Ranking Factors 18/19]

For this example I will cite what Bill Slawski wrote in this 
Inbound.org thread:

Latent Semantic indexing was invented and patented in 1990, before there was a web. 

It was developed to help index small (less than 10,000 documents) databases of documents that didn’t change much (like the Web does). 

There have been a number of companies that started selling LSI Keyword generation tools that promised that they could help identify synonyms and words with the same or similar meaning. 

Where those fail is that the LSI process requires access to the database (of documents) in question to calculate which words are synonyms – and the only people with access to Google’s database to do that kind of analysis (which isn’t possible anyway since Google’s index is much to big and changes much to frequently) is Google.

3 – YouTube [Ranking Factor 76]

Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don’t have time to hunt down but want to read!