Does Google+ make a huge difference?
-
I run a website that's been ranked well for good keywords related to our business for some time. It was founded back in 2007 and has been there a while.
Recently a new site has popped up that ranks brilliantly for everything. It's a new site, and the only redeeming factor I can see is that it has an AddThis box showing the Facebook Likes and Google Plus Ones, and they are around 400 Facebook Likes and 80 Google+ (for every page that ranks).
Any other pages on their site which doesn't have any Facebook likes or Google Plus Ones, they don't rank.
Our site doesn't have any likes or pluses. Is this making the difference? I stress that other than this our sites are very similar, other than the fact we've been around over 5 years.
-
Just to follow up on this, today the competitor's site has disappeared from Google.
Again one up for decency! Glad to see things like this being punished.
-
Yes, all I am saying is the numbers are double. I have my own problems with google, so I am the last one to say how it really works, but maybe their ugly links don't fit the spam profile that would get them squashed.
Remember, google is not perfect. They can screw up just as any of us can. There must be hundreds of thousands or even millions of examples where people are looking at results and saying "why is that crap ahead of my site?"
-
I get most of what you say, except that they have put betting in their subheads. When looking at "sportsbet" as a google.com.au search term, I really don't understand why they should be ranked SO far ahead of us.
Regarding the linking domains, again, it's just spam. The links aren't real natural ones, and I don't want to go down that road.
I'm really losing faith/interest, call it what you will, in this game when a site like this is, to me, pretty clearly using dodgy tactics and is having this success
-
You competitor's site does have a lot of likes and a lot of G+ hits.
The numbers of the G+ are very close for each page.
That may mean they just bought 70 G+ hits or maybe they made their visitors hit up all their pages for some benefit.
I've had G+ on my site all this year. We've done almost nothing to get people to like or G+ us - they just do it on their own.
We have just over 1000 likes and 40 G+
So for that site to have 70 G+ on most pages and 100 on the front page, seems very suspicious to me.
It could be they have fooled google. They have also done some great keyword stuffing in the text near the bottom of the front page. Many of our stories only get 5 to 8 G+ hits. I think maybe one page has 12. Google WMT says we don't have enough for them to show any stats. Also, it doesn't appear that we get much - if any - benefit from G+ hits. To begin with, G+ was a liability as all it did was slow down our pages.
They also have bold and put Betting in their subheads.
They also have double the linking domains you have
Looks close to over-optimization, but maybe its not quite enough for the google algorithm to flag it.
So all of that said, I think they are beating you because of their onpage and offpage effort. You have done something similar to them, but they just did it better.
-
I mean the corresponding links to that specific page, which I agree, are spammy.
-
When you say corresponding links, do you mean spam? External links?
-
.02 on quick glance:
It probably has more to do with the fact that they're specifically targeting "sportsbet" on that page and have built corresponding links. Unfortunately, doesn't look like Penguin has got to this one...yet...
Again, this is my opinion after a very brief look.
-
Ok, here are the websites in question.
- My site: http://bit.ly/MvT3gI
- Competitior: http://bit.ly/N5fS0N
Here's an example of a search term that we are nowhere for - "sportsbet", and they are ranked around #4, which is a very good ranking: http://bit.ly/Mjwe4v
The rankings are very similarly good for all his pages which refer to each bookmaker. All have lots of Facebook likes and Google+.
The reason I think he's paid for the social likes is because the sites really aren't the sort to become viral, and get links in a "real" way.
Appreaciate any input into this!
-
Mark,
You can post URLs, however, you might consider using a URL shortener service. If you're willing to share the searches and sites, I'd be happy to offer my .02.
-
Social has/is becoming a increasing factor in rankings and will only become bigger in the future. I would strongly recommend getting into the social aspect. As for the "paying" for likes and such, defiantly stay away from that. Social is not all about trying to get higher in the ranking but about Brand Recognition and Reputation, Communicating with your fan base, customers and clients.
I know businesses that get around 50% of their customers from social networks such as Facebook and twitter. Its defiantly worth getting into and from what I have seen in the past 2 years, it’s no longer an option.
-
Thanks for that. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding putting URLs on here? That's why I haven't put the addresses up yet.
I know the site hasn't got good real social interactions, purely because of the type of site it is. I'm 99% sure that the owner has gotten these likes/pluses through paying people to like/plus the site, or something similar.
I don't want to go along the lines of fighting fire with fire, but if it works as well as it appears to with their site, then it's sure tempting.
-
It’s hard to tell since I can't see and compare both sites that you're talking about but that could very well be a contributing factor. It’s no secret that Google is putting more and more weight on social signals such as likes, followers, and social interactions. It sounds like that site has good social interaction and is getting rewarded in the rankings by Google but I can’t be 100% since I can’t compare the two.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
I have plenty of backlinks but the site does not seem to come up on Google`s first page.
My site has been jumping up and down for many months now. but it never stays on Google first page. I have plenty of back-links, shared content on social media. But what could i be doing wrong? any help will be appreciated. Content is legit. I have recently added some internal links is this might be the cause? Please help .
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | samafaq0 -
Is horizontal hashtag linking between 4 different information text pages with a canonical tag to the URL with no hashtag, a White Hat SEO practice?
Hey guys, I need help. hope it is a simple question : if I have horizontal 4 text pages which you move between through hashtag links, while staying on the same page in user experience, can I canonical tag the URL free of hashtags as the canonical page URL ? is this white hat acceptable practice? and will this help "Adding the Value", search queries, and therefore rank power to the canonical URL in this case? hoping for your answers. Best Regards, and thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Muhammad_Jabali0 -
Google places VS position one ranking above the places.
Hi Guys, Will creating a new Google places listing for a business have any effect their current position one spot for their major geo location keyword? I.e restaurants perth - say they are ranking no 1 above all the places listings if they set up a places listing would they lose that position and merge with all the other places accounts? Or would they have that listing as well as the places listing? I have been advised it could be detrimental to set up the places account if this is the case does anyone know any ways around this issue as the business really needs a places page for google maps etc. Appreciate some guidance Thanks. BC
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Bodie0 -
Google profile
I have a google profile https://plus.google.com/u/0/106631271958142100588/ wich is assigned to the url www.propdental.es but i also write a lot of content for to others url My question is if should i create another profile to the others urls witch are also mine but not associated between them. Or can i use the same profile without the risk of losing ranking on the weakest url, as they all compete for similiar keywords Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Penalised by Google - Should I Redirect to a new domain?
Last month my rankings dropped a couple of pages on Google and am no longer receiving as many visits from Google as I used to. It's coming up to summer which is the time my business naturally picks up yet I can't fix this problem. I have a crazy idea of redirecting my established site onto a new domain in hopes that the penalty would be removed. I have tried removing any manipulative links yet my ranking are not coming back. Anyone had success in redirecting to a new domain?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | penn730 -
EXPERT CHALLENGE: What link building strategies do YOU think will work after the latest 3/29/2012 Google algorithm change?
FOR ALL SEO THOUGHT LEADERS...What link building strategies do YOU think will work after the latest 3/29/2012 Google algorithm change? NOTE: My hope is that the responses left on this thread will ultimately benefit all members of the community and give recognition to the true thought leaders within the SEO space. That being said, my challenge is a 2 part question: With the 80/20 rule in mind, and in light of recent algorithm changes, what would YOU focus most of your SEO budget on if you had to choose? Let's assume you're in a competitive market (ie #1-5 on page 1 has competitors with 20,000+ backlinks - all ranging from AC Rank 7 to 1). How would you split your total monthly SEO budget as a general rule? Ex) 60% link building / 10% onsite SEO / 10% Social Media / 20% content creation? I realize there are many "it depends" factors but please humor us anyways. Link building appears to have become harder and harder as google releases more and more algorithm changes. For link building, the only true white hat way of proactively generating links (that I know of) is creating high quality content that adds value to customers (ie infographics, videos, etc.), guest blogging, and Press Releases. The con to these tactics is that you are waiting for others to find and pick up your content which can take a VERY long time, so ROI is difficult to measure and justify to clients or C-level management. That being said, how are YOU allocating your link building budget? Are all of these proactive link building tactics a waste of time now? I've heard it couldn't hurt to still do some of these, but what are your thoughts and what is / isn't working for you? Here they are: A. Using spun articles edited by US based writers for guest blog content B. 301 Redirects C. Social bookmarking D. Signature links from Blog commenting E. Directory submissions F. Video Submissions G. Article Directory submissions H. Press release directory submissions I. Forum Profile Submissions J. Forum signature links K. RSS Feed submissions L. Link wheels M. Building links (using scrapebox, senukex, etc.) to pages linked to your money site N. Links from privately owned networks (I spoke to an SEO company that claims to have over 4000 unique domains which he uses to boost rankings for his clients) O. Buying Contextual Text Links All Expert opinions are welcomed and appreciated 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | seoeric2 -
How does someone rank page one on google for one domain for over 150 keywords?
A local seo is exclaiming his fantastic track record for a pool company(amonst others) in our local market. Over 150 keywords on page one of google. I checked out a few things using some moz tools and didn't find anything that would suggest that this has come from white hat strategies, tactics or links etc. Interested in how he is doing this and if it is white hat? Thanks, C
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | charlesgrimm0 -
Hi, I found that one of my competitors have zero backlings in google, zero in yahoo but about 50.000 in Bing. How is that possible?
Hi, I found that one of my competitors have zero backlings in google, zero in yahoo but about 50.000 in Bing. How is that possible? I assumed that all search engines would finde the backlinks. Besides that he ranks fair well and better than I do with only a single site and with only one article of content while I have a lot of content and sites. I do not undersdtand why he is ranking better in google, while google assumingly does not see any backlinks of the 50.000 bing is finding. Thx, Dan
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | docschmitti0