Debate, on-site usage has little impact on google rankings

[aygabtu]

One of my sites gets about 2000 unique visitors a day. 7.7% bounce rate. 40+ minutes avg time on site. Yet, I am still ranked 7-9th in one of my keywords, while some above me are next to worthless.

To me, that is proof that google doesn't care about content and usage numbers based off their own analytics, otherwise I wouldn't be behind several of these sites.

[yukon]

40+ minutes?

What is it a video or game site?

Maybe slow readers, lol (just playing)?

[aygabtu]

Nope, it is a game helper site. Calculators to make in game purchase decisions. It goes across several games that people play, so when they start they may have several to update. They also analyze other aspects of the game, so it isn't a quick pop-in and out type of site or user.

[MikeFriedman]

Originally Posted by yukon

40+ minutes?

What is it a video or game site?

Maybe slow readers, lol (just playing)?

It's obviously a porn site.

[packerfan]

I was just thinking about this yesterday actually. If Google truly only cares about giving users the best result possible for their search, then a 100% bounce rate should be ideal.

If I go to a site to learn about "how to brush a dog" and the page answers my question, I should leave it and move on.

If a user lands on my page through search, then goes to multiple pages on the site, it should signal to Google that the original page didn't answer the query.

Anyway... you can see why it's difficult if not impossible for Google to use things like bounce rate or time on site in search rankings effectively.

[RevSEO]

Is on-site optimization the be-all and end-all to SEO? No way....

But the basic on-site optimization is important, beyond that people
spend WAY too much time on it.

Consider on-site optimization the engine to your car, and backlinks
are the fuel. If you don't have all the pieces to the engine its not
going to work. Just like if you don't have the fuel (backlinks) you
aren't gonna get anywhere.

[aygabtu]

Originally Posted by packerfan

I was just thinking about this yesterday actually. If Google truly only cares about giving users the best result possible for their search, then a 100% bounce rate should be ideal.

If I go to a site to learn about "how to brush a dog" and the page answers my question, I should leave it and move on.

If a user lands on my page through search, then goes to multiple pages on the site, it should signal to Google that the original page didn't answer the query.

Anyway... you can see why it's difficult if not impossible for Google to use things like bounce rate or time on site in search rankings effectively.

Yeah, but if users are staying, on average, over 40 minutes on a site, with 25 average page views, that site has to be doing something right.

Sure it's hard for google to compare between surfers that come to a site, find the answer immediately and leave and surfers coming to a site and seeing that it is crap and leaving. But you have to rationalize, the longer someone stays on a site, the better the site is especially when you view a months worth of data. Basically, if you find something you like, even if you have the answer, you are more likely to stay a while or more importantly, come back.

[awddude]

40+ minutes is really high. SEO / Usability are independent as you have proved. It's impossible for Google to discredit a site because users navigate away quickly. Some sites a meant to do that.

Rather Google probably accounts bounce-rate / time on site as just a tiny part of the overall rankings.

[aygabtu]

Curious if the exact opposite happens with google. My CTR for ads on that site is really bad. I think google makes more money on users that are click happy, jumping from site to site, so financially google would not like sites with low CTR which, in my experience, are the ones that people stay on longer.