Loading ...How many factors go into figuring a site’s natural rankings? Is it 70, an easily ‘masterable’ number as proffered by the uberdouche / wannabe / toad SEO Champion? Is it 230 that Matt Cutts occassionally rattles off when aforementioned SEOs claim to know them all?
And more importantly, what are they? Inbound links, internal links, content, placement of content, color of content, etc. and which are the most important?
Anyone who claims that they can tell you everything is full of shit and should be kickbanned from your office, hung up on over your phone or blocked via IM or email. The vast majority of it comes down to inbound links, good content and readability – the latter two being surprisingly overlooked, especially by sites who have plenty of the former. But what are some ‘X Factor’ type elements that Google should also take into account? Here are two ‘ups’ and four ‘dings’ that Matt Cutts should consider adding to the equation.
- Digg buries: Given the crap that manages to find its way to the top of the Digg lists and how easily genuinely good or true information gets thrown down the memory hole, I think anything that gets heavily dinged by top Diggbats ought to get at least a hat tip. Now that we know an ‘autobury’ function exists at the site, we’ve got a way to get past the truly profane crap and keep our eye on the good content that gets rejected by the heavy hitters. Up up and away.
- Not being Amazon.com: I’m not saying that Amazon should be punished for its success. Not in the slightest. In fact, that they need to be borne in mind as a competitor whether you’re selling books or KY jelly speaks volumes about how awesome they are and how overcoming them can be such a big freaking deal. I think that if you get a page to rank above an Amazon.com result, you should be rewarded for overcoming a mountain and get a extra few positions. And a pony. Upsky.
- Twitter follow / following ratio: Sites attached to twitter accounts with larger than, say, a 25:1 follower-to-following relation are clearly tools who can spend time posting deals, but probably can’t build an RSS feed. They’re trying too hard, and have to die. Ding.
- Shoemoney peddles a site’s wares: I love you, man, as I love all raw & distilled forms of capitalism…but there’s some serious spam attached to your name and your lessons, and someone has to step up to it. May as well be Google. Ring-a-ding-ding.
- Ratio of per-post sociable sharing options to actual content: If you’re offering thirty ways to share your ten-word posts, pages or products, you’ve missed the boat somewhere. Dingaroo.
- You rap about SEO unless you’re m0serious: It was awesome the first time it was done. If you’re a part of anything that’s trying to imitate it, not only should Google ding you and your clients’ sites, your legs should be broken. Ding with me, ding for the years…
I'm kind of a cross between Led Zepplin and these guys:
- Range Blog Post – Long tail for natural search
- Media Co’s Want More Favorable Google Algorithm
- SEW Column – Sharing & SEO
Tags: SEO News Share on Twitter
More where that came from - get Search Engine Snark feeds!Subscribe to Search Engine Snark by Email
