I've been having a similar conversation with a number of folks from the world of search that's interesting enough as to deserve some transparency and discussion. It centers around the idea of the web's link graph and how it operates to power the rankings of relevant results in the major search engines. If we follow this brief timeline, you'll see what I'm getting at:
- 1993 - 2000: The beginning of the web is marked by an influx of researchers, academics, hobbyists and enthusiasts. Nearly every link created has an editorial, reference purpose behind it. A link is one page telling its viewers that another page has useful, interesting or worthwhile information about a specific topic.
- 2001 - 2005: As the web commercializes at an accelerated pace and PageRank becomes a familiar concept, links drift further away from editorial votes and more towards self-interested endorsements, often with financial motivations.
- 2006 - 2010: The web's link graph swings further away from editorial references towards ever-more commercial interests. Meanwhile, the social web rises with the popularity of sites like StumbleUpon, Digg, Reddit, Facebook, Twitter & LinkedIn. These communities often contain a much higher percentage of editorial citations, particularly those that contain smaller communities inside them (LinkedIn groups, pockets of Twitter users and Facebook friends)
During chats with some folks from Bing, Google & the SEO world, it became clear that nearly everyone is aware of this ecosystem and thinking more about how to leverage it to make search better. Bing & Google obviously made back-to-back deals to get the Twitter firehose late last year. Google's been trying hard to get Facebook data without success (and Bing may have it, thanks to their investment in Facebook in 2007). Both engines could certain extract citation data from other web communities that publicly publish (Delicious, Reddit, Digg, LinkedIn, StumbleUpon, StackOverflow and as of today, Quora) and extrapolate reference material.
The problem for the engines is that links on websites have a high probability (probably not 50%, but maybe as high as 20%) of existing specifically to influence their rankings. While some of those influence-targeted links certainly do point to great content that's relevant and high quality, the engines would prefer to return to a web of "pure" recommendations. The social web might offer more of that type of web environment. Sure, we all tweet/share/post links to our own websites, but those are easy for engines to detect and treat as "internal" references. The "external" endorsements, however, are often much more genuine than what exists on the open web's link graph.
If you're in the field of SEO, I think this means social media marketing is a no brainer. And if people aren't recommending and endorsing your site editorially in their Twitter feeds, Facebook updates, LinkedIn groups, answers on Q+A sites, and when socially bookmarking, tagging and voting, I'd be thinking hard about how to change that.
p.s. I still think the social graph overall is still a very small portion of the engines' ranking algorithms, but I think Bing & Google are both racing towards innovation on this front as fast as they can. SEOs should, IMO, follow suit.
Rand, an interesting post which I feel compelled to respond to in the current climate, particularly with reference to ecommerce sites post MayDay (or JuneDay, as thats when us folks in the UK got slapped).
Social signals - and particularly the "porting" of the linkgraph to the social-sphere I feel is already upon us, and is of a much higher importance than I feel you give it credit for in your post.
I have been working almost exclusively on these changes for the last two weeks following a huge dropoff in long tail traffic, not just to our site, but to our entire vertical. Social indicators now appear to be much more relevant to google in its serps, perhaps as much as a 1:1 ratio with'traditional' links.
Sites that have historically not ranked at all, with less that 10% of the link strength of our primary site are now ranking alongside us, and there also appears to be a much more pronounced slant towards (unique, real) content than there was before.
Therefore - for ecommerce sites at least, the future is now. Things have changed with MayDay - we now need to work more on social signals, and real content, than was necessary before.
MOGmartin
thats quite interesting, that since MayDay that weaker sites have been pushed up...I have two clients, whereby I have created a specific page, heavily optimised on page as well as plenty of links from different places, whereby Google simply will not index those pages for the search terms optimised. First time I have been unable to get a page indexed within a couple of weeks.
My difficulty is trying to convince clients that the social graph is important..why they need to engage, and why they need to create fresh content regularly and post it to various places.
When one SEO explains that its all about link spam (dirt cheap services) and im trying to suggest link bait and engagement (higher cost and customer involvement) - they all seem to want the spam!
clients need eductation as to what it's all about. hopefully with a lower prioritization on overall link count, it will be easier in future.
mind you, as in in-house'er I dont have customers...
This is a great example of why having passion for what we do is so critical to our success.
I think people are starting to recognize remarkable when they see it, because that takes much more time and skill to produce.
One thing that really stuck with me from SMX, oddly enough, was the statement made by Matt Cutts about his search to find a site that would explain how to take images from scenes within a video and he was ending up on sites that didn't provide a good answer.
The thing about that is, I've been doing quite a bit of that lately and I could have explained it quite easily and provided a process that would solve that question in 10 minutes. But, the other strange thing is that I haven't done it yet (I'm extremely busy, but the fact is I have really wanted to do it).
Then I think about what will happen if I do it, and what impression that gives him (does it make me appear to be someone who's trying to kiss his ass for a link or for something I don't deserve). I think this is a serious issue and one that the blogging community should really embrace and discuss, because if people are willing to do things like this and really create posts for people and not for the search engines - the search engines should respond and rank accordingly - as opposed to some of the crap thats on page 1.
I'm not saying that I'd want a link from Matt Cutt's blog in return (ok I wouldn't be pissed if I got one ;) , or that I'd want him to tweet it, or do anything in return. I think what I'd want is to simply know that the content would benefit him and I could share information in this manner (of course I can, but why don't I feel comfortable doing it) and there is a high value in doing so for the person who has expressed the need.
This issue will likely migrate into the ongoing debate of tweeting in hopes someone will respond with the information we need, vs. doing a search for the answer and hoping that Google (or our favorite SE will provide a result). I think there's an opportunity in creating content based on the tweets / trends / etc to some degree, but when those needs shift so fast it seems that there is only a narrow chance to get it done before someone else with a powerful domain comes along and takes your spot in the results as soon as you start getting any meaningful traffic from it.
I agree that eHow does have some decent content that can help in a bind, but its benefiting eHow and not the person who created it. The point I'm making here is that it's not eHow that I want to give credit to, because even though it's a page of content on their server, its the author of the content that I want to give attribution to when I show my appreciation.
So, in terms of Social networks and the value of the data that they contain, I think it's of marginal value simply due to the fact that most of it is casual conversation and socializing. Sure, there is value in understanding that but there is much more value in each individual being able to share on their own domain and get credit for the things that they do.
I'm excited about more and more people understanding this and how it can apply to their passion. Not everyone will want to setup a blog, it's almost a personal discovery and in my opinion, probably one of the best decisions I've ever made. Hopefully, those who do have blogs will understand that producing great content and doing so with the hope that it will draw links (rewards for great content) will lead the SE's to give these a higher authority than the aggregation sites and content farms that make ranking really tough for beginners and even veterans who post great stuff.
In summary, this comes back completely to the value of links and why they are so critical to our success - and should be earned - and when they are should make a difference - and when we get them to be aware of their meaning - and help others learn of this in ways that we can present the information (hence this was a comment and not a post - on purpose) - and we can improve the quality and efforts of those who want to produce great stuff.
I substantially agree with what said both by you Rand and the other mozzers in their comments.
As far as Social Graph is going to be implemented in the Google and Bing algos, to be actively present in the Social Media.
But, I'd like to propose another reason why it can be essential to SEO the Social Presence: the serps brandization.
Infact, as stated also in past posts here in SEOmoz, Branded searches are becoming even more important than before. And, on a business level, especially FB and Twitter are strong brand marketing tools.
I'd not be surprised if Google and Bing will (if not already) look into correlations between social graph, links share, tweet/retweets and brands, creating a method to assign a weight to the semantics surrounding the URLs (shortened or not).
Yes people are tweeting. sharing and posting links like never before and the no. of times a link is shared and by how many people and to top that from how many high profile accounts who are an authority on that field have shared that link may become one of the metrics which shall pass the link juice to that URL in future in my opinion.
Though how all this will work out in future to ascertain the importance and ranking for organic search shall depend on how Google and Bing incorporate it in their algorithms. But the social graph surely cannot be ignored by the SEOs.
As the real time search is picking up the sites which are having the latest content and are giving information on the current topics discussed on the social media shall surely get preference. So, again we come back to the main factor influencing the SEO of any site - unique, qualitative , informative content but now the content has to be latest, fresh, and it should be availabe as fast as possible on the site. So content is king again.
The latest post on the Google blog also gives the same indication https://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2010/06/quality-links-to-your-site.html
Thanks for the share of this valuable info Rand. I will say I like it better when you include pics and diagrams ;~)
Tony
I submit that a mention in respected publication and a Yelp review, and some Tweets are all a form of editorial citation and social proof (hat tip Rand for recommending the book "Influence".)
How could the search algos possibly ignore the rise of user reviews (micro editorial citations) in their quest for relevancy? They cannot. The location aware smartphone is changing search paradigm right before our eyes just as the Internet shifted us away from the desktop.
I'm a new convert to the philosophy that sites without social proof of value and relavancy are headed for obscurity. Not sure how we are going to go there but go we must.
I couldn't agree more.
The case is actually similar, if not the same, to how local search optimization works--how citation can be a new form of linking(a resurrected form of linking IMHO).
It basically makes sense to actually measure the amount of trust using social relationships. Though it may still sound very subjective at this point, there are a lot of measurable and concrete factors out there that can turn to signals.
All seem agree on the point that social graph is surely going to be implemented and play a major role of importance in the algos.
I have observed that on twitter many people put important text in [ ] (square brackets) does this text in the brackets have an influence on the real time search result rankings?
Anyone?
I totally agree with what you're saying here Rand, I think you only need to take a look at the PR of Twitter accounts and this backs the theory up. My work account (which I rarely even Tweet from) is a PR5 but it is followed by some universities and other organisations.
My personal Twitter account is followed by regular Joes in the SEO world and I do Tweet regularly from it; it's a PR4.
Neither Twitter page is linked from anywhere particularly authoratitive (other than a few good followers on the work account) but both have good pageranks, which shows Google thinks they have something worth sharing with the rest of the world.
Personally, in my SEO work, I've never once bought a link and I've only ever swapped one link in my life. I don't use directories and I don't spam. I just engage in social media, communuities and groups. It works wonders on my SERP placements.
It appears to me that Editorial Citation on the Web is making a little rebound, or at least is not in as great of decline as in recent years. Not specifically from a pure volume and quantity view, but from a trust and authoritative stand point. More people and communities are striving to put out more content and less noise. Other people and social communities are taking notice of these hubs and so are the engines. This may be as much of a result of their being more platforms like LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, Posterous, WordPress and other Content Platforms that allow non-HTML adepts to put out "Findable" and "Shareable" quality content as it is due to their being less scrapper/low-quality sites and web awareness to easily spot and avoid these sites.
Overall I am excited about the direction that the web is heading with the great tools and platforms that are being developed to enable higher levels of citations. Whither in the form of links, votes, Sphinns, Diggs, ratings or reviews, there is just about something for everyone.
It was as early as two summers ago that I noticed that status updates in Twitter were being indexed in Google. I had written updates that contained longtail terms not difficult to rank for, and when I performed a search in Google it was my Twitter status that was displaying in on the first page of Google. I played around with this with links and plain text and was plannig to do more research but I got busy with client sites, and never got to consider if it was having an affect on the actual website. I am not sure how this is working now , and it is great to see that there is more open discussion on the topic. I completely agree that this is something I shouldl start to add to our overall web marketing strategy.
I also noted that adding company links when answering questions on LinkedIn brought alot of brand visibility in Google, I even developed branding strategies for clients around LinkedIn answers with great referral results, I am curious how these links would be rated towards a website...if at all?
It seems very plausible that the social link graph is increasingly included in the ranking algorithm.
One important point in your posts is that this shift seems to be limited in time though (just like the other three phases).
As always, both quantity of social media links and the quality of the linking profiles will count. But when some social media profiles are starting to heavily influence the rankings, odds are that they will be offered high enough sums of money to sell links or accounts. And when that starts to happen, the search engines have to look for new, genuine citations. Poor anti-spammers...
Short post with some huge implications. It makes a lot of sense for the engines to start weighing direct citations in discovering and ranking new content; I think it's pretty clear that they are already doing this.
The process by which traditional links emerge pointing to worthy content seems like it is too slow to keep up with the speed at which the engines are now ranking fresh content. I would hazard a guess that Caffeine probably incorporates some sort of social media authority metric.
I have notice a guy who have made 'how much is worth' some website application and as usual there is some alexa, compete, quanycast diagrams plastered in adsense... northing 'special' except the fact that he came itho google alerts to my inbox and every webmaster check out what people say about my website.
The only interesting thing is how that page got any google attention... well simply that webmaster twitts thousednds and thousends links to own pages with website profile pages... few minutes after bot twitted my website profile page, not twitt but linked page showed up into web alert.
Yeah - certainly not suggesting the social web is spam free, but I would say that reputation and trust on Twitter, Facebook, etc. are more consistent. A great website might link out to some sketchy material, but Facebook status messages almost never contain spam (when they're from real people) and Twitter users who spam even a little often find their followers and listings dwindle rapidly.
I think the engines must be excited about the potential to crowdsource "authenticity." The big hurdle in my mind is whether social sharing will ever broaden enough to reach the deep, boring but often useful content among the web's billions of resource documents.
I agree that looking on the current favourites of places like Digg and StumbleUpon, it does not look like a near future possibility for any serious content to go anywhere near the top.
And with marketers already utilising social to generate RT and status updates on a quit a big scale, with promotions and give-aways. (I love when they make you change your picture in support of some cause)
Search engines will have to disregard certain phrases, pointing to marketing activities, as duplicate content concept is not going to work as a filter with most people retweeting with no changes to set up tweet.
I wonder if they will be rating how a link is retweeted in Twitter, or Shared in Facebook. Lets say a link to a site or page appears 100 times in a status via 100 unique member, would those links be more or less valuable than a link that may have started in one or two members status, and spread virally
totally not spam free... as matter of fact i analyzed an XSS attack on facebook that used social engineering to force users to share a page with everyone... i fell for it because i wanted to see how they had tricked out their FBML code :( oops...
Theoretically, the total amount of spam on the social web should be in direct proportion to the social web's influence on search ranking algorithms. That explains why we have yet to see high volumes of social spam.
In the future, I suspect the social web will be leveraged by clever SEOs in ways we can't even imagine right now. Some of those techniques will be championed here...others will be condemned.
I know of a reputable review site that has a twitter account and just posts a bunch of junk tweets all day long, which since we are on their site, it includes our name occasionally. You would think they would get the memo, they are wasting their time...
Wow. That was my one new thing to learn today. Even if there is more to be discovered, I think that one kernel of insight will trump anything else that occurs today.
While I knew that there was an awful lot of content cropping up in the social web, I didn't realize that the quality and editorial nature of those links were exceeding that of the open web.
Thank you for that one awesome swipe of the brush on the online marketing canvas.
With most of the wired world being real time info-hungry, I think any network matching those qualifications, it now mostly being social media, will carry the potential to be an influence on links, their visibility and the methods behind getting them out there. I'll be curious to see after several years all of this to see any studies on the correlations being discussed.