
Google +1's Correlation with Higher Search Rankings - giorgiofontana
http://moz.com/blog/google-plus-correlations
======
Matt_Cutts
Just trying to decide the politest way to debunk the idea that more Google +1s
lead to higher Google web rankings. Let's start with correlation != causation:
[http://xkcd.com/552/](http://xkcd.com/552/)

But it would probably be better to point to this 2011 post (also from
SEOMoz/Moz) from two years ago in which a similar claim was made about
Facebook shares: [http://moz.com/blog/does-google-use-facebook-shares-to-
influ...](http://moz.com/blog/does-google-use-facebook-shares-to-influence-
search-rankings) . From that blog post from two years ago: "One of the most
interesting findings from our 2011 Ranking Factors analysis was the high
correlation between Facebook shares and Google US search position."

This all came to a head at the SMX Advanced search conference in 2011 where
Rand Fishkin presented his claims. I did a polite debunk of the idea that
Google used Facebook shares in our web ranking at the conference, leading to
this section in the 2011 blog post: "Rand pointed out that Google does have
some access to Facebook data overall and set up a small-scale test to
determine if Google would index content that was solely shared on Facebook. To
date, that page has not been indexed, despite having quite a few shares (64
according to the OpenGraph)."

If you make compelling content, people will link to it, like it, share it on
Facebook, +1 it, etc. But that doesn't mean that Google is using those signals
in our ranking.

Rather than chasing +1s of content, your time is much better spent making
great content.

~~~
cyrusshepard
Cyrus here (the author)

Thanks Matt, I think we both agree that Google doesn't use +1's directly in
your algorithm. But are you implying there are no SEO benefits to posting
popular content on Google+? Google does use PageRank and anchor text, 2 things
present in Google+ posts that aren't passed as easily in Facebook and Twitter.
It seems to me that a popular post on Google+, shared and linked to by well
known authorities, is just like earning a high authority editorial link - and
this is a bit different than most other social media platforms.

Now, if you tell me you treat Google+ differently in a way that blocks link
juice, blocks anchor text and doesn't pass link equity, then I think I would
have to rethink my thesis. Regardless, I think we're both on the same page
here. The goal is not to accumulate a massive amounts of +1's (and I'll amend
my post to make that clear) but to share high quality content on Google+ and
build your influence through this channel, and this can lead to real world
success.

My argument is that Google+ as a platform passes actual SEO value, and I don't
think this is a bad thing or something that needs to be debunked. Feel free to
disagree if I'm way off base here.

~~~
mbesto
> _Thanks Matt, I think we both agree that Google doesn 't use +1's directly
> in your algorithm._

> _Now, if you tell me you treat Google+ differently in a way that blocks link
> juice, blocks anchor text and doesn 't pass link equity, then I think I
> would have to rethink my thesis._

> _My argument is that Google+ as a platform passes actual SEO value, and I
> don 't think this is a bad thing or something that needs to be debunked._

Huh? You first say it doesn't pass directly in the algorithm ("blocks link
juice, anchor text, and equity"), but then argue that it does ("passes
value")? What part of the argument am I missing here?

If you're arguing that overall exposure to content goes up because social
media sharing, then I'd be inclined to agree. Overall exposure then translates
to better SEO because links are being used more often outside of non-seo-
algorithmic social media (for example in blogs), hence the correlation.

~~~
cyrusshepard
+1s and Google+ posts are two separate things.

A Google+ post passes SEO benefits (through linking) independent of the number
of +1s it has. So although Google doesn't use +1s directly, it does use the
link signals found naturally in the Google+ post itself. Because these link
signals are by design blocked by Facebook and Twitter, this makes Google+ a
superior platform from an SEO perspective.

~~~
markadoi84
Perhaps I have missed something here, however does this mean that a Google+
post that has zero +1s will pass the same amount of link juice as one that has
fifty +1s? I guess this would be dependent upon the author that posted it, so
let's assume these two posts are both by you, Cyrus Shepard.

------
andylei
1\. the correlation is 0.3. that's not a high number.

2\. the correlation for facebook likes is 0.27. that's lower, but not by much.

3\. its possible the causality runs the other direction: high quality results
get more +1s

~~~
Matt_Cutts
Yup, I love that the correlation for "Facebook shares, like, comments" (though
those are three different things) is listed as 0.03 less, even though I've
pointed out multiple times that Facebook doesn't exactly make it easy for
Google to crawl Facebook to see that data.

Your point #3 is critical: high quality things get more +1s (and tweets, and
Facebook likes or comments or shares).

~~~
Ryan_Jones
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't anything under .5 considered extremely weak
correlation?

~~~
ignostic
The short answer is, "no, but it depends." If sample size is large and the
sample is representative of what it claims to show, .5 is very significant
correlation.

The .3 correlation with a large sample size means _something_ is happening. I
agree with what Matt is saying: that content that gets +1s also gets links and
mentions and everything else that Google might use to calculate rankings.

------
buro9
2 things:

1) I think most people suspected this, and it's not amazing.

2) Is this not an abuse of their monopoly position in search? In that, to
obtain a better placement or even just retain existing placement, you would
have to participate in Google+

~~~
dalore
Do they really have a monopoly in search? Have they bought/created all the
patents that stop other companies from implementing online search engines?

I don't think there is a monopoly in search, look we have duckduckgo for
instance.

Since it's their search and their google+ why aren't they allowed to use one
as metrics for the other?

~~~
lmm
They have more than 90% of the market. The fact that alternatives exist
doesn't make them not a monopoly when hardly anyone is using those
alternatives. See windows in the late '90s.

~~~
saosebastiao
Actually, by definition, you are wrong. And you are wrong about 90% of the
market as well.

[http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2289560/Googles-
Search-...](http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2289560/Googles-Search-
Market-Share-Shoots-Back-to-67)

~~~
wisty
IIRC, Google tends to have more "real" searches. A lot of Bing and Yahoo
searches probably have the query string "Facebook" because people have it as
the default engine, or are already on a Yahoo / MS property (like their web
mail). A lot of these people will then type "Google" into the Bing / Yahoo
search box, when they need to find something.

~~~
mason240
A lot of Google searches come from the same place: having google as the
default search engine and then typing in "facebook" rather than "facebook.com"

------
muxxa
> Add Google authorship information to your online content

I can't find the reference, but I remember reading here on HN that someone
investigating a large drop in traffic to pages with #1 organic rankings traced
it back to the profile photo that got added to pages with authorship
attribution. There didn't seem to be a traffic drop on pages with #2 or #3
etc., so the author came to the conclusion that the profile thumbnail was
causing their listing to be mistaken for an ad.

Anyone remember that article?

~~~
Matt_Cutts
I do remember that article, and here's my debunking of that claim:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5793803](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5793803)

The short version is that the site was affected by Google's Penguin webspam
algorithm. It had nothing whatsoever to do with authorship.

------
ignostic
I have found enormously high correlations - as high as 99% in some industries
- between links and brand-name searches in Google. I've also found enormously
high correlations for non-commercial phrase rankings and social shares. I have
used Google finance for public companies in the same industries and found
correlations between sales and links to a site. I suspect you can compare
almost any popularity metric and find huge correlations with other popularity
metrics.

Equating correlation with cause is one of the main problems I see in the
modern SEO industry. Many SEOs are so obsessed with links, for example, that
they have lost sight of the importance of building content, awareness, and
products that real people will care about. I can't wait to see SEOs wasting
their time spamming links on G+ and buying +1s after skimming this post.

------
nkuttler
This post highlights some of the reasons why I don't like Google+, and dislike
it even more than facebook.

> Posts are crawled and indexed almost immediately

I used to use RSS feeds for quick indexing. Well, I guess we all know how that
turned out when G wanted more users for G+.

> Add Google authorship information to your online content

The technique for this really disgusted me the first time I read about it. The
easy method is basically linkbaiting to G+, not to mention that no other
provider of authorship info is supported. Why do we have microdata again?

> Make your content easy to share on Google+ with relevant social sharing
> buttons

Yes, no, thanks. More intel and links for G.

> Completely fill out your Google+ profile with relevant and engaging
> information

Yeah, because people should rather publish good content on G+ than their own
sites.

> Make your posts public

Of course, you only get all the benefits if your stuff is public on G+ and
generates more traffic for them.

All in all I have to say well done Google. Good for you anyway. And good for
people who want to hire a social media.. err.. ninja. Not so good for people
who want to publish their own content on their own sites or even other social
sites.

------
wyck
This makes sense in areas where Google+ is popular, but in North America
Google+ is a empty outside online marketers and tech communities, so how can
they possible rely on it as a metric.

~~~
VLM
Wouldn't those two groups be the most heavy users / most interested in search
results?

~~~
VLM
Not understanding why I got downvoted other than a lack of explanation.

A lot of easy "tech" work honestly consists of using google to find answers
for people who refuse to use google for themselves. It never fails to amaze
me. I was born knowing how to change the battery in a 2nd gen Prius keychain
remote? LOL no I merely use a google search because you're too lazy to do it
for yourself (or learned hopelessness where they're intentionally outsourcing
the labor to me and I'm being the sucker)

I would imagine someone who's annual review consists of how well they've SEO'd
their page will be enormously more interested in how well they're doing SEO
than a kid writing an essay or a possible future customer, or really anyone
else at all. Money is a powerful motivator.

------
lifeisstillgood
I think that Google is not magically adding their +1's to PageRank whilst not
doing the same for Facebook likes etc. But rather that google plus has been
designed by Googlers for Google's engine. As such a post on a plus account
will attract percentage-wise far more +1s (same way a facebook post will get
more likes).

And so if you compare two posts, one on facebook, one on plus.google, and they
both have the same number of backlinks (likes/+1s) then the plus post will be
better SEO friendly and so outrank.

The fact it out ranks _so much_ suggests that something screwy is going on -
either there is a lot of cash left on the table for SEO-friendly pages, or
that something like being on the google root domain helps in ways that have
not been corrected for.

I would doubt if Google is out and out cheating. But a lawsuit would force
them to say how facebook could up its pages...

Edit: I know I'm not supposed to but really - why the down votes? I would be
very surprised if Google is trying to kill the golden goose.

------
donnie_Strompf
"Rather than chasing +1s of content, your time is much better spent making
great content."

I don't get it... Are +1s not good enough of an indication that content is
good? If Google is not looking at social signals how can they justify good
from bad content? Natural links are just as easy to manipulate Google with as
unnatural. Instead of anchoring an exact match we use a brand.

Without social it makes it way too easy to game the system which some of our
competitors are doing and getting away with after penguin, panda, and all the
other updates.

We've been finding companies that rank for "ABC" and all they do is build a
bunch of blogs ("abc1.com""abc2.com""abcGreen.com""abcBlue.com" etc..) and
keep building them on "free platforms" like wordpress/blogger/weebly and the
other hundred sites.. Create a bunch of crap links for Google to index and
rank. All google needs to see is a "natural link profile", some onsite SEO and
viola.

Lately we've been finding some articles that suggest changing published dates
of pages/posts to get them reindexed with freshness. Some are consistently
gaming Google, and the ones of us who are creating good content and get some
+1s (by sharing it in relevant communities otherwise how will it be found) are
going to lose to cheaters. Perhaps it's not as easy to game specific SERPs
nationally. However, locally its a piece of cake. Just try looking for a
locksmith, the way it's set up now the cheaters are still on top.

My question to Matt Cutts is: if you were an internet marketer and you created
good content that got a great amount of real interaction, and that awesome
content you created is not getting any SERP love because of others who are
cheating the system, what would you do? How long would you wait? and what if
nothing changes after the next algorithm change?

------
ghc
Does this mean I have to put a +1 button on my site if I don't want it to come
after all the sites that do have +1 buttons (unless I'm a canonical source
like Wikipedia)? If so, it seems like a gross abuse of power on Google's part.

I would imagine Facebook could file an anti-trust suit over this.

~~~
dalore
I read it as having your site +1'd not having a button (but the button makes
it easier for people to +1 your site).

------
christyk
Thanks for all the info, so Matt says Google is not considering G+ as ranking
factor, I don' believe this. All social media engagement have a correlation
with rankings. I think now a days correlation value of Google+ is
increased(this is why they index everything ASAP).

Guys Need help:

We recently faced a situation where we replaced the Facebook like button with
Share button from our internet marketing blog(company site/blog).

Still I personally feel ‘Like’ was getting more engagement than share button,
what will you advice for me. Implementing both Like & Share button is a good
idea? I believe since our site only deals with particular industry i.e.
Internet Marketing, less people will be sharing the blogs. We feel Facebook
share is much valuable than Like, but we are confused here.

Please advice.

------
JDDunn9
It's hard to think of what the lurking variable could be here if you want to
make the argument that this is purely correlation and not causation. With
Facebook likes, that could also indicate overall traffic levels or other
popularity-based metrics, because everyone uses Facebook. Only the tech/news
industry really uses Google+ though. So considering how few pages have a lot
of +1's, this is a very high correlation. e.g. If +1's were just an indicator
of # of unique linking domains, you'd expect that correlation to be much
higher than +1's, since almost all sites have links but few have +1's.

------
singlesource
Ever noticed the only people building links and discussing links are SEO’s?
(Hi Matt, love your work).

Expecting google to say yes or no on SEO issues is like asking your
girlfriends father how to get into her pants. Unlikely to happen.

G+ is a crucial tool for connecting all Google properties together and staying
relevant in a mobile world.

Check out this post from Ed Dale. [http://www.eddale.co/apple/a-pig-just-flew-
buy-and-hes-belti...](http://www.eddale.co/apple/a-pig-just-flew-buy-and-hes-
belting-out-hollywood-nights)

Then tell me it's not good business sense to give us all a gentle nudge
towards G+.

------
alanh
Ah, this may help explain why so many sites have +1 buttons while they get so
little use (often on the order of 1% of the Facebook Like activity).

So Google uses its search monopoly in such a way as to incentivize site
operators to advertise its social network (in the form of those buttons),
which encourages growth of its social network — and as a separate issue,
allows them to track people, be they Google users or not, across more of the
Web.

No anti-trust issues here, move along... </sarcasm>

------
skriticos2
I have fired a quick Google search for "Google correlate". This site came up
second which is high considering the first result was a product by Google
called correlate I found this way that makes search data correlations.
Interesting.

[http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/comic](http://www.google.com/trends/correlate/comic)

------
AznHisoka
I think it makes sense that Google +1s is used in high search rankings. It's
the one social signal they can audit to see if people are cheating on it. They
own the whole Google+ social graph and can easily detect if it's being gamed.

Or it can just be that the more +1's you get, the more links you get, which
boosts the rankings. So it may just be an indirect correlation.

~~~
wslh
No, I don't think so. Humbly, my best articles are the one with less +1s while
the ones with relatively high +1s are related to my success or luck promoting
them.

Also I don't see a correlation in my blogs between more retweets and more
Google's +1s. It is most probable because my blogs don't have many visitors
and didn't cross the charm, but I expect search engines like Google to
leverage the long tail instead of smashing it.

~~~
James_Duval
I tend to see negative correlation between shares on any social media platform
x and any social media platform y. The audiences just differ so much that
anything that'll grab the Twitter crowd will tend to put off the StumbleUpon
crowd, and so on.

There's some crossover between a very few platforms, e.g. posts which get a
lot of InShares will also likely get Tweeted a lot. It's quite rare, though,
in my experience.

------
springboardseo
How could Google possibly choose not to use +1's if they use Facebook and
Twitter data as ranking signals?

Reference:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhwPC-5Ub4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhwPC-5Ub4)

------
dynamic99
Isn't this obvious? Google _made_ +1s (and Google+).

~~~
lifeisstillgood
Well, no. Unless Google is shooting itself in the foot, then either the
research is wrong or pages that attract +1's are hosted and linked to in more
SEO friendly ways.

Google is really unlikely to be blatantly and obviously fixing its rankings.
That is the golden goose. _everything_ goes away when that is shown to be true
in public.

~~~
Ryan_Jones
it's really quite simple. The pages that get more +1s and likes and comments
and whatever metric you want are the ones that are good. The ones that are
good also get more links and other signals that are used in algorithms. The
hidden middle-factor here is "quality."

That, or simply: "the pages that have more +1s have them because they ranked
and got more traffic. e.g. nobody's +1ing pages that they can't find."

~~~
andreascarpetta
What about purchased +1s ? [https://www.seoclerks.com/categories/buy-google-
plus-one](https://www.seoclerks.com/categories/buy-google-plus-one)

------
igl00
i doubt matt will ever respond right to the question

------
humanspecies
Someone at moz is getting a raise for getting this POS spam on here.

