For the last several years, we've had various implementations of Google's "sitelinks" feature, the list of pages on a domain that usually appear when a branded or navigational query are performed in the engines. The latest updates to this visual display have brought a total of up to 8 internal links, plus a "more results from domain.com >>" link. With the additional ability of another extra page to take the ranking spot below the sitelinks, this means veritable domination of these queries by the site or brand.
For example, check out a search for SEOmoz at Google:
_
Obviously, this is an enviable position to be in if you're the brand being searched. However, sitelinks aren't universal, nor are they applied in a perfectly rational fashion. There are so many outliers and oddities that pegging down the specific reason for their existence (or lack thereof) is a challenge. Let's walk through a few examples to illustrate the issue.
First off, we'll start with a few basic ones, where we might not predict sitelinks would exist, but where they at least make good sense.
_
Aaron Wall's SEOBook sitelinks for the query "seobook" are a given, but the fact that he also owns the results for the broader and more general query "seo book" (with the space) is an added benefit. It certainly makes you think about creating a business, brand and domain name for highly valuable two or three word combination queries.
Next up is a search for "movie database," which, while not a remarkably popular search phrase is also more general than the result we're delivered.
_
Obviously, IMDB owning the sitelinks on this query is no huge surprise, but it goes to show how the title of your brand can pull in more general queries in a similar fashion to the SEO Book example.
Now, I've got two examples that make a little less sense than the previous ones.
_
Brad Fallon has obviously done a fantastic job branding himself as an "SEO Expert" throughout his online links and mentions. This perfectly illustrates how even if your brand and domain have a separate name, you can still claim sitelinks on related terms if the co-citation is common enough (at least, that's my interpretation). Similarly, a query for "The Times" returns TheTimesOnline.co.uk and shows how Google will consider stopwords like "the" when it's relevant to the query. It also speaks to the power of that brand, since so many newspapers have attempted to position themselves as "The Times" over the last century and a half.
And now for something completely different...
Impressive, no? CNN has become "news" - the keyword and the brand are indistinguishable to Google. Honestly, I believe that this should be one of those "ultimate goals" for every advanced SEO - to take your site to such a level that when your broadest, most popular keyword is queries, your domain is there with sitelinks. This shows domination and ownership to a level that's nearly unbeatable.
How about this?
You don't have to be a big brand to achieve the feat. The keyword search for "Maui Honeymoon Packages" is incredibly broad and has absolutely no brand intent behind it, yet there's unforgettablehoneymoons.com, dominating the search query with sitelinks in tow (full disclosure, a competitor, TheBigDay.com, is an SEOmoz client).
Lastly, I thought I'd mention some outliers that might really warp expectations:
_
GE and eBay are two of the planet's largest brands, yet neither has achieved "sitelinks" status. If you're thinking it might be because they have the stock quote attachment, think again - Microsoft, Yahoo!, News Corp, Honda and thousands more all have both. Why is Google excluding these? Honestly, I don't have a good answer. If I were to guess, I'd say it may have something to do with how these sites use subdomains rather than important internal pages, or that, possibly, they've used the Webmaster Central console to block Google from showing any of their important internal pages as sitelinks, but those are both long shots.
Wrapping up, it's clear that sitelinks are a huge part of dominating branded queries, and a terrific tool for SEOs who know how to wield them. Once again, I'll take a "best guess" and attempt to list some of the factors that might influence your ability to gain sitelinks, but this is not official and no amount of testing can authoritatively predict why they show:
Potential Factors that Create Sitelinks:
- Domain Authority & Trust (based primarily on links, possibly with some aging factors as well)
- Branded Search Query Volume
- Existence of Multiple High PageRank, Highly Searched-for Internal Pages
- Significant Domain Traffic (as measured through toolbar users or other data)
- Popularity of Brand/Domain Mentions on Pages Across the WWW
- Link Growth Trends (if the site receives a regular influx of new links vs. a very spiky, inconsistent link growth pattern)
BTW - Tonight, it was my intention to write another section for the Beginner's Guide, but I accidentally forgot to save the post after writing about 1/2 of it (40 minutes of effort), and was too frustrated to re-start the process. Let this be a friendly reminder to always save your posts!
p.s. I should have also noted that Graywolf did a great post about sitelinks recently.
Interesting post Rand and one that, on further examination, highlights geographical differences in SERPS.
News? Over here that's the BBC (a decision, however algorithmically it was achieved) that I can't really argue with.
eBay & GE? They both get sitelinks on .co.uk.
SEO Expert? A different site links and gets no sitelinks.
Looks like there are still some battles to be fought on this side of the pond!
Completely agree that the most dominating situation is to rank #1 with site links for your most general targetted keyword. OneCall is nowhere near that level. We have nearly all of our [manufacturer] [sku] [subcategory] searches done. We have most of our [manufacturer] [sku] searches completed too. 30 days ago we started on our [manufacturer] [subcategory] searches and we are seeing some progress. Next steps are [subcategory], then [category], then terms like 'home theater', 'hdtv', and if I am ever so lucky to get this term again 'digital camera'.
I feel you need to start at the most granular and work your way towards the most broad only after you have success at each level. Flow the link juice from the granular to the next level and so on and so forth.
Great post . . . keep up the great work!
That's a really good strategy - I agree. Whenever we work with clients, we always start with the lowest hanging fruit first, then move our way up to more advanced techniques and competitive queries.
Thanks Rand . . . here's some link bait for me . . .
https://www.brentdavidpayne.com
I love Seattle (okay not really but I was born in Portland, OR so I can learn to deal with the rain again) and it's only 250 miles from Spokane so the moving expense would be cheap for you. ;-)
"and it's only 250 miles from Spokane so the moving expense would be cheap for you."
Nice. :-)
Excellent idea One Call!
I have a few sites where I could implement this. Thanks for the idea.
Dude! I love you guys! And I need a HD projector 'black friday' deal ;)
LOL!! You (and anyone else reading this) can shoot me an email at David.Payne at the name of the domain where I have my 'day job'. Use the title "SEOmoz Deal" and provide me a list of a few items you are serious about purchasing. I will get you in on our friends and family discount (5% above employee pricing, plus delivery). Lastly, provide a link to your profile on SEOmoz. If you don't have one, sign up for one. Things like this can get easily abused if I don't put a few roadblocks in front of it. ;-)
Note: There are some vendor restrictions so don't expect to be getting certain brands at a discount. As an example of just one brand you'll never get discounted from OneCall.com is Bose. Even the president of our company can't get a discount on Bose. There are other brands that are similiar--though most aren't.
Rand, if this gets a lot of signups for you . . . you owe me. ;-)
Payne
Hello Everyone.
I have seen examples where these sitelinks come then dissappear for no reason. Could this be due to a temporary surge in search trends for keyword or the related site, then when that trend retreats, so does the sitelinks? Sites in question are still in top spot. Anybody else experiance this? Is there anything that can be done to regain those sitelinks?
Well, I'm sure there is a reason. How apparent it is to us is another story.
But this would fit with my theory on the subject. I'm certain this move comes from the user data.
I personally believe that the most weighted factors are clicks to a page and if you will usage of that page.
I think it is time to stop compartmentalizing Google's tools & applications and realize how integrated they could be.
Google's analytics, toolbar, & page history tools tell them which pages are used most, where the search tells them what is click on the most.
If I was serving better SERPs and doing site links thats what I would focus on. Let's not forget the TOS, Google can use all your data for any of their purposes (mainly maximizing revenue through search) they want. Shoot you had better believe they do!
Thus the user votes on which websites get site links by actual clicks and usage of that domain and its pages.
This is what I would weight the most as far as who gets them and who doesn't.
Where things like a well structured website just helps indexing and organizing of the website. I personally think this has less weight and less score than usage.
-Bart
I bet the SEO for sexgetter.com is pretty proud of himself.
Check out Google for big dick... LOL
I don't think ebay is going to lose too much sleep about not having site link status, since they own practically every link on the first 4 pages of results.
Great post Rand. It seems that CNN is also "money".
In this case the SERP is resplendent with photos, including one that shows money really does grow on trees. :)
I'm curious to know what the image results in a SERP like this are predicated on.
I have also wondered about the SERPs that include images. It seems so random.
One of my clients is an actor and when you search on his name, Google will show photos from his site plus his website as the top result. It's very cool, but how and why does it happen?
ETA - I just checked again, and even though the photos do appear on his site, the ones displayed in the SERPs are from other sites. Curiouser.
Another subtle aspect of this is real estate... the space used for the sitelinks is generally larger than a regular listing, so you force all other listings, quite likely competitors, further down the page.
And since I usually see the top site take the spot below them, you're gaining a fair chunk of prime space. Now factor in blended search and you run the potential of dominating not just position-1 but page-1.
SERP Domination - the goal of any real SEO.
Rand... please write more about traffic (ToolBar) and their influence on SERP's...
Excellent Tips Rand, i was wondering what I could do to get sitel inks, I'll test out your advice and let you know what happens.
Does anyone know why certain search terms will have the links while others will not?
As Mr. Rains pointed out."big dick" = sitelinks"home loans" = no sitelinks?
Any theories? Does it have to do with how authoritative G perceives a site and frequency of search?
The exact reasons, like most things dealing with SERPs, have not been released.
I think a general consensus is that it comes down to authority of the site and frequency and no doubt other details of the actual query.
Additionally it also seems to help if the site has a good, logical architecture or structure that allows Google to make an intelligent determination of what to serve up as sitelinks.
Things that make you go, "Hmmm..."
A search to see who owns the key words luxury real estate raised more questions than answers. The owner has a PageRank of 6, probably a result of 2,210 backward links.
How is it possible that more than 95% of those "backward links" are not backward at all?
They are internal links within the website! That is an anomaly that I'm having trouble understanding...
What am I missing?
Does anyone know how close you have to be to take out a competitors site links? For example we are ranking #2 for "Pet Insurance". If we are building links at a faster rate then them, would we first take out their site links, then surpass their ranking later on. Or would we simply pass them all together.
How difficult is it to pass a site with site links? Has anyone done it yet, is it documented anywhere online?
Great post, however I am still struggling with getting sitelinks for my site. How should I proceed? The site does show sitelinks with .dk but not as a brand name.
Hi, this is good info..
I used to get "Sitelinkes" for "BrandName.com" not for "Brand Name"
So.. How to get "Sitelinkes" for "Brand Name" only?
hope you will respond
Thank you.
Hi there! You may be able to find answers to your questions in the Moz Q&A forum. :)
Thanks for the posts about sitelinks. I have been trying to get resource about google sitelinks. I have also experienced a regional search difference for the sitelinks results.
I did try the google search for "javra" aswell.
--
abeen
https://abeen0.blogspot.com
I believe that another factor could be how much people have added your pages in their google bookmarks.
Another good example of where a brand and a generic keyword match is "weather" and "weather.com". And yes, this site has sitelinks for "weather".
Interestingly, "hotel" results in sitelinks for hotels.com, but "hotels" doesn't. Another wrinkle to ponder.
TV is taken, but radio and music are up for grabs.
Our SEO company has done some great things for ourselves and our clients, but we have never achieved something like this. I have a couple websites in mind that I am going to attempt this with. It's truly amazing. I commend SEOmoz for accomplishing this!
Currently,I have no sitelinks for any of my sites...Looking forward to work on my brand :)Very useful post, thanks.
Excellant post explaining one og gogles many mysteries, at least to me. Now if I coul dfigure out how to get the "plus" sign to Google maps for a local listing I would be in business. Any ideas?
It seems MSN is trying this is in a slightly different way, by attaching a sub-SERP. We have several ranking KW there, where they extrapolate our "about us" and "contact us pages". None of the other sites that rank with us have this, and I am guessing this is because they did not name their contact page "contactus.html". :)
BTW Rand, please dont' tell us you were researching potential locations for your honeymoon and it turned into a blog post. If so - that poor girl. :)
This is a sore spot for me, one of my competitors just got them and my site didn't. Many of you big timers talk about these like they are a regular thing, not one of my clients sites has them, they are a luxury thing for the sites that Google feels are more important, I seriously doubt they are sorted out algorithmically. I also feel that UK sites in general are less likely to receive them.
I was reading an Andy Beard article on this very subject (I think!) last week, and there was mention of people getting Sitelinks on PR3 domains.
Also, for Andy's very own Sitelink, he's a got a weird lump of anchor text for one of the links, which also enforced the idea of how back-link anchor text affects things.
I'm actually running a little test — which may take few months to formulate — to see if I can get a Sitelink for a popular search term I'm currently ranking quite well for...
I would love to work out why that sitelink for "American Interests Ottavio" comes up, but finding time to fully research it is a pain.
Now I have sitelinks (despite PR penalty), I am going to play around scuplting the links a little for some pages I want people to visit.
Interesting post, Rand.
Do you have any theories on how Google picks which links make up your SiteLinks ? I've looked into this periodically since we were awarded site links for a search on our brand, and I cannot detect a consistent pattern, either in which links they pick or on how they select the title for those links.
I've seen sites where Google have used the alt text from an image link, even when there's been a plain text link on the same page.
I did have a theory, based on my own site details, that they were looking at length of visit, either in terms of time on site or number of page views, and then determining which pages the people who spent most time on site had in common - e.g. people who visit the sitemap page tend to spend longer on the site than average, so the sitemap becomes a SiteLink.
However, looking at my latest stats and comparing them with the SiteLinks Google has chosen that no longer seems to hold up, so I have no idea how they're picked.
Finally, I'd like to say that I don't think using subdomains has any effect, postitive or negative, on SiteLinks. We use subdomains extensively and one of our smallest, and not-updated-for-quite-some-time, subdomains is the first SiteLink offered.
Rand,
I also have the same question. How does Google pick which links make up your SiteLinks?
From running the 'Strongest Pages' tool in the SEOMoz tools suite, I have noticed that your lead category and popular pages, appear in SiteLinks.
Could it be possible that Google has a special algorithm that takes in the following factors to come up with the SiteLinks listings:
I would say that this is based on query data.
If google sees a bunch for searches for 'brand store location' or 'brand login' then those types of queries push a sitelink. Maybe there is a threshold for the number of searches requesting brand+specific page that push a sitelink live?
Just wonder if anyone have any experience with 301 sitelinks when switching CMS.
Will the sitelinks be dropped from the SERP when switching CMS, or will the 301 make Google update the sitelinks with the new url's?
I don't have experience of this but it might be an idea to just keep using the same url's for the few pages that are your sitelinks.
If it was possible - this is what I would do. In my opinion site links at this point are pretty hard to get, but are obviously due to inbound links to deep internal pages.
So it isn't just the Googles of the world that will be looking for it, but all the other pages that link to you.
301 is effective, but not as effective as just keeping the same URL for these 8 or so pages.
And I don't know of a off the shelf CMS out there - worth its salt anyway - that won't let you create and manage static pages with permanent URLs.
Even if it takes some fiddling.
Keeping the old url's aren't an option. Just wonder if anyone have done 301 redirects with sitelinks, and what the result was. I know about a site that are experimenting with this now, but the result isn't clear yet.
we do seo for a client whose site we recently designed. the url structure changed significantly but we used 301s and we still have the sitelinks.
for this particular site it appears that the title for the sitelinks is being pulled from the h1 heading of the pages.
Thanks... I always wondered how that worked.
Time to work on my brand now :-)
Do we know if the Sitelinks are algorithmic or done by hand?
Seems like too important of a feature to be purely algorithmic but a lot of the evidence seems to point to this (e.g. sites not receiving the sitelinks, bizarre links being selected for the sitelinks, etc.)
It's amazing how Google can handle serps like "news" to one single competitor in the industry. Clearly, their data is very rich and tells them that this is what users are looking for (and if not we will soon find out) but nonetheless it's a bit scary (taking the competitors side :) ). Do you think that Google might be testing with sitelinks and that smaller sites can be subject to editorial review, particularly before receiving their sitelinks for keywords different than their names?
Great post, btw.
Antonio, I guess if you go back to the initial stages of the first war in Iraq, when the Whitehouse press secretary is asked for an update about what's going on and he answers that he's getting his updates from CNN just like everybody else, it makes you realize that this is a pretty important site.
That aside, SERP's like this make you realize just how powerful Google is (not that anyone needed that example to realize this). I don't think they're arbitrarily testing with site links. But rather it's an extension of the value of a Google search versus their competitors, by giving you a summary "click list" so you can pinpoint where you want to go within a highly valued site that posesses a great deal of content.
Very interesting post. Makes it clear that there are definitely different levels of difficulty in attaining sitelinks.
Especially the Maui search. Wow.
I also have a site that has a subdomain listed in the sitelinks (search for dnscoop), so I don't think that is a factor.
I have seen a few interesting examples.
Take a search for the generic 'adventure holidays' -
Sitelinks to The Adventure Company.
Now thats SERP domination.
I've seen a few variations of the 'sitelinks' tab in Webmaster Central.
Also, fwiw, some of these just plain suck. For example a search for 'HSBC Credit Login' returns a sitelink for "Your Account Login" but only for the GM-HSBC cardholders, not all HSBC cardholders. I think this illustrates how important page titles and hitting that 'block' button really are.
<way off topic> When are you going to create a Facebook Fan Page for the Moz??? </way off topic> Hey, we ARE on the subject of branding ;-)
And what do you think of Fan Pages that appear in search listings with a link to your site. Is the facebook domain strong enough to make it a respectable/valuable link or is it like any other page, should have links pointing at it too?
In my industry sector (in the UK) the industry leader has just lost its site links. Hurray!
This is probably due to the fact that its advertising agency (in all its wisdom) has reduced the site to a main holding page and a contact pages, whilst the creatives and client fought to redesign the site. (No 301 redirects or keeping old pages up here!)
It took nearly six months before the dead site links were removed and it is now down to the a normal serps result. Its front page with the words 'site under construction' and contact page are still the only pages up.
As far as I know this company has never been any good at SEO but still managed to get site links.
It only has 50 links pointing to the domian. A couple of these are from authority sites but NONE are too individual pages. Whilst page rank doesnt generally matter, its highest ever has been a page rank of 3.
It has never had more than 15 pages of content and none of these are ever updated.
So what could have caused it to deserve having site links? I can only presume:
a. Age. The domain is about 10 years old. It was one of the first in the industry sector
b. Traffic. They have the largest advertising spend in the industry. Historically they would have had the largest traffic. Now their traffic is quite poor because they do not rank for key words.
c. A couple of average links from authority sites going back some years.
I suspect in this instance that age and historical traffic have a lot to do with this. On no other criteria does this website deserve its site links.
my web site is not getting mych traffic what should i do
pl z give any tips
thanyou