Are Social Signals a factor for Search Engine Rankings in 2016?

41 replies
  • SEO
  • |
Will social signals be giving weight to google rankings as we now begin our journey into 2016? Will these social signal factors still apply to search engine optimization? As well, which ones do you believe will carry the most weight? Twitter? Facebook? Google? or a combination of the above? I am looking for some rock solid answers here. Anyone willing to dive in and give it a shot?
#2016 #engine #factor #rankings #search #search engine opimization #signals #social #social signals
  • Profile picture of the author cbpayne
    Given that social signals are so easy to spam, if you were Google how much weight would you give to them?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10455986].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
      Originally Posted by cbpayne View Post

      Given that social signals are so easy to spam, if you were Google how much weight would you give to them?
      I would like to state that social signals do give some weight to search engine rankings and here is why. I started out with html in 1994 and moved onto web development in 1995 with web crawler, the search engine, not the crawler, than lycos, alta vista, yahoo and so on, now google, So for the last 20 plus years I have been involved in search engine rankings. So if you are stating that social signals do not hold weight because they are easy to spam, so are backlinks and anything anyone else can write. Whether it is python, perl, cold fusion, php, js or something a simple script kiddie from India can even write. Ha Ha! So lets crack on with why social signals do hold weight.
      Signature
      Robert Corby
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10461772].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Stefan Shields
    It surely can't hurt to be active with Google +

    At the end of the day you are almost certainly better off having a social presence than not.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10461880].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
    Do backlinks count towards search engine ranking? Absolutely. You have nofollow and dofollow links, and according to Matt Cutts, whom I believe knows jack about SEO, or if he does, he ain't telling it to you, both nofollow and dofollow hold a bit of weight. So, aren't social signals also backlinks? Yes, and again you have mostly nofollow, but there are plenty of dofollow links also. And also when you are using social signals as backlinks you are getting authority links from real people if you are not using addmefast or botnet or other kind of spam, but only the real deal. Absolutely it does hold authority. Don't you agree? I believe this is a solid source to build link authority.

    If you want to dive into real search engine optimization, that many folks just don't have a clue about, let me know, I would love to discuss that, In fact I think I will I will post a new thread on it, wait, maybe not, than I might actually gain competition. HA HA!

    Back to the Social Signals, If you do not think they give weight, you are much mistaking my friend, they do, if they are solid quality links from social networks. They are backlinks! Nofollow and Dofollow.
    Signature
    Robert Corby
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10461897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      They can be a factor if Google chooses to do something about it. Currently they are not.

      Lets repeat that: there's no evidence that Google treats "social signals" as ranking factor. There's not even evidence that Google could see most of the stuff that's proposed as "social signals". You know, likes and thumb ups (on properties that aren't their own).

      Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

      I would like to state that social signals do give some weight to search engine rankings and here is why.
      You didn't really get to the "why" part. Backlinks being easy to spam is not a reason for Google to use something completely different for a ranking signal. So why do you say what you say?

      Backlinks are also something that Google has been dealing with for a decade. They've spend millions building the spam algorithms they have. Facebook, for example, doesn't have much incentive to fight "spamming social signals" ie. gathering a bunch of likes to a page that doesn't deserve them.

      Google would have to essentially build their own algorithms to determine what can they rely on. And they would not have direct access to this data either. Facebook changes their APIs quite often which would be another major issue if you depended on it.

      Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

      Do backlinks count towards search engine ranking? Absolutely. You have nofollow and dofollow links, and according to Matt Cutts, whom I believe knows jack about SEO, or if he does, he ain't telling it to you, both nofollow and dofollow hold a bit of weight.
      I'm not sure if "weight" was the word they use. But you're right in the sense that Google goes through all the links and probably does something with them. They may also devalue whole sites regardless of their "followed" status.

      Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

      So, aren't social signals also backlinks?
      Not necessarily. That's part of the confusion that often surrounds the "social signals" discussion. Some "social signals" proponents are explicitly talking about something other than those weak backlinks. I'm pretty sure that cbpayne was referring to this use of the word.

      I prefer to call the links just backlinks, and deserve "social signals" for the "other stuff" that's not even a link you can look at. At least with links there's a fairly well-known mechanism for them to affect search engine results.

      Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

      Yes, and again you have mostly nofollow, but there are plenty of dofollow links also. And also when you are using social signals as backlinks you are getting authority links from real people
      That's not what "authority" means in SEO circles. Authority comes from the linking page having a strong backlink profile. Facebook's or Twitter's front page certainly would have that, but none of the links buried in the profile feeds or business pages counts for that reason alone.

      You can't build link authority if the linking page has none, if the links are buried somewhere deep within the site or hidden behind a login, or if the link doesn't pass any value.

      Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

      Back to the Social Signals, If you do not think they give weight, you are much mistaking my friend, they do, if they are solid quality links from social networks. They are backlinks! Nofollow and Dofollow.
      They're backlinks, sure. Unfortunately they're usually pretty worthless for SEO for several reasons.
      Signature
      Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
      Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

      What's your excuse?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10462953].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
        Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

        They're backlinks, sure. Unfortunately they're usually pretty worthless for SEO for several reasons.
        I would have to disagree here. Do we not see social media sites in search engines? and in very popular niches? To me the word social signal means ping. and backlinks are a way to ping your website. I am not sure on this number, but I think around 60% of website owners are running static sites and the other 40% are running an atom feed or rss. So to me social signal and baclink building is pinging, PR does not really in my opinion carry any weight, unless you run a static site. Then we get into the world of offline vs online site building. Most sites at the top are PR1.

        I started with BBS in 1984 and moved into search engine optimization in 1994 with web crawler and every other search engine that made its way until google took its foot in the place of the search engine wars. and it is possible to be #1 with 0 backlinks and just your social media accounts used for branding your name, hey, which are backlinks, ooops, for a solid popular keyword phrase, but than we will get into algorithm design.

        Have you tested any of your sites with using only social media networking as a linking method? I have. Or are you dedicated Matt Cutts believer?
        Signature
        Robert Corby
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10466599].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
          Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

          I would have to disagree here. Do we not see social media sites in search engines? and in very popular niches? To me the word social signal means ping. and backlinks are a way to ping your website.
          So you disagree with something, and bring two completely different concepts to the table? Social media pages rank because they're just the same old HTML formatted content than any other page. That has nothing to do with social signals.

          I'm sure this has been pointed out several times already, but the weak backlinks (that I refuse to call social signals) aren't really helping much with SEO. They're nofollow, on weak pages, and often pretty hard to even crawl.

          Pinging doesn't help anyone to rank, it's pointless. And no, social signals (the likes and +1s) do not have anything to do with the action they call pinging. It's pretty hard to even understand what exactly do you mean by that word. Are you talking about speeding up the indexation of backlinks or money sites?

          Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

          PR does not really in my opinion carry any weight, unless you run a static site. Then we get into the world of offline vs online site building. Most sites at the top are PR1.
          The bit about static sites is completely wrong, and having a feed is not what differentiates between static and dynamic site. Other than that I guess it depends on what you mean by PR, and "at the top". The way you write is pretty vague, and it's hard to even be sure if you know anything about this topic. I've got no idea why the word "offline" is in that sentence I quoted, because it makes absolutely no sense from SEO point of view.

          PR is still an important part of the algorithm, Google just doesn't update the publicly visible scores any more. Also, strong backlink profile (ie. high PR as we called it back in the day) doesn't directly translate to ranking. It's one of the factors.

          I'd disagree that most of the top-ranking sites on popular keywords would have front pages that are the equivalent of PR1. But sure, I agree that almost anything can rank if there's not much competition.

          Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

          Or are you dedicated Matt Cutts believer?
          Thanks for this old and tired taunt. It's pretty hilarious that you quote Cutts immediately after that.

          Originally Posted by yukon

          Like Mike said, moz has a goal to sell you a social product. That's the exact reason moz pushes fake metrics (DA/PA) is to get you hooked into buying their products.
          I didn't realize Moz was touting this BS that prominently. They've been talking about correlations in some other pieces which is reasonable, but this just isn't.
          Signature
          Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
          Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

          What's your excuse?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10471924].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author hipeopo02
            People cling to social signals because they don't know how to backlink/create PBNs.


            It's like that poster that said she "hopes backlinking is dead"


            What I hear is "I hope this thing that I don't know how to do is dead so that another thing replaces that I have a shot at doing"




            Here's what I hope:


            People stay this stupid about SEO because competition won't EVER be a problem for me.
            Signature
            A crappy product or service by people that disappear from the forum for a long period of time to make it look like they were working on something so when they come back you will want to click on their crappy product or service link

            CLICK HERE! LOL
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10472534].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

            I didn't realize Moz was touting this BS that prominently. They've been talking about correlations in some other pieces which is reasonable, but this just isn't.

            There's no correlation.

            Social nofollow links do not rank self hosted money pages.

            Having 10K Likes or Tweets doesn't mean a page will rank on Google SERPs just like ranking a page on Google SERPs doesn't mean it will generate 10K Likes or Tweets.
            Signature
            Hi
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10472799].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    So far, there is zero actual evidence that anyone has shared that proves social signals have any weight in rankings.

    Google has stated they do not use social signals in their algorithm, and even if you do not want to believe them, just think about it from a logical standpoint.

    If they used social signals as a ranking factor, what happens if Facebook or Twitter blocks them from that data? All of a sudden their rankings would get thrown out of whack with no warning. They literally would be setting themselves up to be extorted. Facebook could say, "Okay. You want access to that data and you need it for your algorithm? Great. Pay us $XXXX per year and we will provide it. Otherwise, we shut you out of it tomorrow."

    And if you don't think that Facebook or Twitter would ever block them, then you have not been paying attention. Twitter has done it before. The relationship between Facebook and Google is not exactly friendly.
    Signature
    SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
    Get a FREE Quote.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10466602].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      Great. Pay us per year and we will provide it. Otherwise, we shut you out of it tomorrow."
      I love it! But then again there is a quality factor vs shit.
      Signature
      Robert Corby
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10466615].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
    Quote me if I am wrong. Did not Matt Cutts state " Facebook and Twitter posts are treated like any other web pages for search." His exact words. So would he not be referring to individual pieces of content on those social sites? And do we not see these in search results?
    Signature
    Robert Corby
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10466822].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

      Quote me if I am wrong. Did not Matt Cutts state " Facebook and Twitter posts are treated like any other web pages for search." His exact words. So would he not be referring to individual pieces of content on those social sites? And do we not see these in search results?
      Yes he did say that.

      Social signals are things like Facebook Likes, Twitter Retweets, Pinterest pins, and Google +1's. They have no bearing on rankings.

      Now if you have a Facebook page with a link that Google can crawl and read, then sure it is treated like any other link would be treated. Those are links, not "social signals".
      Signature
      SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
      Get a FREE Quote.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10466836].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Just let the dreamers think they're ranking pages with nofollow social links & hope they're your competition.

    BTW, OP is banned.
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10466866].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author ishara444
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10467070].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author abede
      [DELETED]
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10471066].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      Just let the dreamers think they're ranking pages with nofollow social links & hope they're your competition.
      Really, tell me what this is?

      Signature
      Robert Corby
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476483].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

        Really, tell me what this is?








        It's a Twitter page.

        So what, how many money pages does that Twitter page rank? None.

        That has nothing to do with ranking a self hosted money page.
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476505].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          It's a Twitter page.
          It is not a twitter page, it is a tweet. And yes tweets are pages, so if this tweet became more popular, wouldn't those be social signals? And wouldn't that drive more traffic? Isn't traffic a ranking factor?

          https://twitter.com/algorithmiclabs/...85199295590400
          Signature
          Robert Corby
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476515].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author yukon
            Banned
            Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

            It is not a twitter page, it is a popular tweet.

            https://twitter.com/algorithmiclabs/...85199295590400



            Are you sober?

            It's the Twitter domain.
            Signature
            Hi
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476518].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
              Originally Posted by yukon View Post

              Are you sober?
              Here I will leave this for you as well, just to ping you.

              Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

              Show me the self-owned webpage you are ranking for anything even moderately competitive based on social signals alone.
              Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

              would love to #1 socialjuicepros.com for buy usa google plus ones in google. And have 960 other keyword phrases based on social signals alone as well. goanimators.com professional animated video services do you need more? buy stumbleupon votes socialjuicepros.com as well as all daptpiff services first page, need more? Oh, as well, Buy LinkedIn Connections, that one is a money maker. Can't forget that one. And you? Have you tested with social media marketing only? The results above, the only backlinks are from social media accounts and WOT crawlers. Those are only two of the sites I wish to share. I have other markets as well that are a lot harder and are based on social media marketing only as well. I believe in algorithmic design which I have been studying since the BBS days somewhere around 1984ish. I never build backlinks, I have my theory on those. I design a site with my secret sauce and absolutely no link building. Only through social media these days. 2004 was easy, all you needed was wordpress and no links, just the correct internal wiring. Today I use only social media. I don't construct static sites. So every method is different for every individual as each market and keyword phrase is different in its own. So there really is no argue on how one does things, as each algorithmic measure needs to be unique in its own. Don't you miss the cloaker forums? They had some really cool stuff back then on google algorithms. I wish they never shut down. Oh well.

              PS: I still have a copy of the Spider Story from Jill on cloaker forums if you would like a copy. When was that 2002 or 2003?
              Lets move on: I am well aware a like my have absolutely no meaning or even a ping to the search engines. But I bet you a share does, and isn't a share a social signal?

              Yeah it looks like webarchive only goes back to 2004 even though it was created in 2001. That sucks.
              https://web.archive.org/web/20040824...akerforum.com/
              Signature
              Robert Corby
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476570].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author yukon
                Banned
                Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

                Here I will leave this for you as well, just to ping you.



                Lets move on: I am well aware a like my have absolutely no meaning or even a ping to the search engines. But I bet you a share does, and isn't a share a social signal?

                Yeah it looks like webarchive only goes back to 2004 even though it was created in 2001. That sucks.
                https://web.archive.org/web/20040824...akerforum.com/



                These social threads on the SEO forum always end this way, someone thinks nofollow social links rank a money page but they never have proof. The reason they don't have proof is because nofollow isn't ranking anything, period.
                Signature
                Hi
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476585].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
                  Originally Posted by yukon View Post

                  These social threads on the SEO forum always end this way, someone thinks nofollow social links rank a money page but they never have proof. The reason they don't have proof is because nofollow isn't ranking anything, period.
                  Lets get into something. I absolutely do not agree with Matt Cutts. He is a bible of his own world. Search Engine Optimization with online studies is a pure myth. Too many people believe everything they read and here. Maybe I do not belong on warrior forums because I am unlike you, I am not a warrior. I am a self educated algorithmic designer and engineer in the world of search engines, starting with the first search engine after BBS days in 1994 with web crawler. Now Matt Cutts does state it takes into factors dofollow and nofollow and a balance between them. No, I am not a backlink guy because I do not develop static sites in which backlinks are needed for pinging and spidering, never had a need to build backlinks. And for me Matt Cutts is a newbie and he does not even understand what the F#%^ is going on. He spends more time on youtube than I would say as a developer. Now How often do you see me here on warrior forums? Not often. I came back after years just to answer a question I found on a search results page. After this post I will be gone again. You can always find me at ghostcracker.com if you need me. Now You make your money it seems to stand here on this forum. I make my money at the top of search engines. And I am at the top of search engines. And if you research my sites I listed above. The pages have not 1 single backlink and one social media post and based on social signals from that post alone. And I am #1. I do not believe you have studied these factors. You have only either taken the biblical Matt Cutts point of views or spend your time on this forum marketing and reading. Have you ever developed or tried to simulate a google search engine? I have not. But I have learned since day 1 web crawler went live and have been here since in and out of so many markets, so many times of failing before I found my niches and what works for rankings. And I can tell you this as a fact. Since day one of google beta launch. Not one thing has changed to rank a website through algorithmics. Not one. So I can design any site with not one backlink not one social share, not one like and rank it in the top 10 pages for any keyword phrase including online poker in 17 minutes from starting point: purchase of new and clean URL. My record is 13 minutes on a highly competitive phrase which is now called search engine optimization. Do you remember the old phrase before it changed? Today it take me on average 17 minutes to get from purchase of a new clean URL to top 10 pages in google for a highly competitive keyword phrase and in the count of billions, not millions for that phrase of indexed URLs.

                  Though now with how many users online and all of India, F#%! They are destroying the web in every market. Back to the subject at hand. Once the algorithmic design of a website is able to control a spider, then the fun begins. We want to feed that spider dont we. And guess what feeds it the best. Social Media. nofollow ok. fine. Ping Ping Ping. Do you remember technorati in the old days. Shit, you could ping all day long, which you shouldn't do. Shit do you remember feedburner before google bought them out. Now that was the ultimate signal wasn't it? I would love to hear about your studies developments rankings, your most difficult market that you are in the #1 position for in google. I will share and compare. Ooooppps. I might becoming a warrior after all. Show me something in the SERPs that you do not market here on warrior forum. As you see I market nothing here. Only in Google, and it seems yahoo and bing as well, but I don't focus in that arena. Just google.

                  Now I am going to hit you where it hurts. Going back to the search engine result pages. If you had a single website in a highly competitive market. You would not be spending your time on a forum marketing, now would you? What would you be doing? You would be moving your sites files and db around day after day moving away from your competitors d dos attacks. Wouldn't you. As a #1 position can generate you 12k USD per day, #2 - 9k , #3 - 6k, #4 - 1k and after that nothing, not a penny. You would know this, wouldn't you. So where are you? I will tell you, marketing on warrior forum because you cant make the SERPs.
                  Signature
                  Robert Corby
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476599].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
            Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

            It is not a twitter page, it is a popular tweet.

            https://twitter.com/algorithmiclabs/...85199295590400
            If by popular you mean it has been shared and retweeted a lot on Twitter, that means it is ranking because of internal LINKS on Twitter, not because it was shared and retweeted.

            Show me the self-owned webpage you are ranking for anything even moderately competitive based on social signals alone.
            Signature
            SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
            Get a FREE Quote.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476519].message }}
            • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
              Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

              Show me the self-owned webpage you are ranking for anything even moderately competitive based on social signals alone.
              would love to #1 socialjuicepros.com for buy usa google plus ones in google. And have 960 other keyword phrases based on social signals alone as well. goanimators.com professional animated video services do you need more? buy stumbleupon votes socialjuicepros.com as well as all daptpiff services first page, need more? Oh, as well, Buy LinkedIn Connections, that one is a money maker. Can't forget that one. And you? Have you tested with social media marketing only? The results above, the only backlinks are from social media accounts and WOT crawlers. Those are only two of the sites I wish to share. I have other markets as well that are a lot harder and are based on social media marketing only as well. I believe in algorithmic design which I have been studying since the BBS days somewhere around 1984ish. I never build backlinks, I have my theory on those. I design a site with my secret sauce and absolutely no link building. Only through social media these days. 2004 was easy, all you needed was wordpress and no links, just the correct internal wiring. Today I use only social media. I don't construct static sites. So every method is different for every individual as each market and keyword phrase is different in its own. So there really is no argue on how one does things, as each algorithmic measure needs to be unique in its own. Don't you miss the cloaker forums? They had some really cool stuff back then on google algorithms. I wish they never shut down. Oh well.

              PS: I still have a copy of the Spider Story from Jill on cloaker forums if you would like a copy. When was that 2002 or 2003?
              Signature
              Robert Corby
              {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476528].message }}
              • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
                Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

                would love to #1 socialjuicepros.com for buy usa google plus ones in google. And have 960 other keyword phrases based on social signals alone as well. goanimators.com professional animated video services do you need more? buy stumbleupon votes socialjuicepros.com as well as all daptpiff services first page, need more? Oh, as well, Buy LinkedIn Connections, that one is a money maker. Can't forget that one. And you? Have you tested with social media marketing only? The results above, the only backlinks are from social media accounts and WOT crawlers. Those are only two of the sites I wish to share. I have other markets as well that are a lot harder and are based on social media marketing only as well. I believe in algorithmic design which I have been studying since the BBS days somewhere around 1984ish. I never build backlinks, I have my theory on those. I design a site with my secret sauce and absolutely no link building. Only through social media these days. 2004 was easy, all you needed was wordpress and no links, just the correct internal wiring. Today I use only social media. I don't construct static sites. So every method is different for every individual as each market and keyword phrase is different in its own. So there really is no argue on how one does things, as each algorithmic measure needs to be unique in its own. Don't you miss the cloaker forums? They had some really cool stuff back then on google algorithms. I wish they never shut down. Oh well.

                PS: I still have a copy of the Spider Story from Jill on cloaker forums if you would like a copy. When was that 2002 or 2003?
                Three things.

                First, I said something that is at least moderately competitive. "buy usa google plus ones" is searched 10 times a month. Nobody is trying to rank for that. You could rank just about any site #1 for that with a few internal links and little else. It is not competitive at all.

                "Professional animated video services" doesn't get searched at all.

                "Buy LinkedIn Connections" is the only one that gets searched at all, with about 600 searches a month, but you are nowhere on page one for that.

                Second, socialjuicepros.com has plenty of backlinks and they are not all from social accounts. You may have not built all of them, but they are there.

                Third, yes I have tested social signals of all kinds. Tweets, retweets, Facebook likes and shares... none of them do squat for actual rankings in markets that are competitive.

                And I'll add in a fourth. I have also been around since BBS days. I helped run a couple. That doesn't mean squat.
                Signature
                SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
                Get a FREE Quote.
                {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476685].message }}
                • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
                  Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

                  And I'll add in a fourth. I have also been around since BBS days. I helped run a couple. That doesn't mean squat.
                  Then why are you on the forums daily marketiing? Why not the search engines? And you completely miss the point. You just don't get it. Show me your work. I will show my play online poker site with no links and only social media. Page 1. Show and tell, I have mine. Where is yours? And if you have been around since the BBS days as well. You know who I am. Don't you. What was the keyword before the term search engine optimization? And who was #1 on the dominant search engine in 1996 - 2001 back then? Answer this?
                  Signature
                  Robert Corby
                  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10477095].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nithinrockzabc
    Well i believe there is some effect for social media on serp. I did have experience.. one of my kw was ranking in the 13 th positon after getting few social media shareS ( shit has gone viral) my position slowly mvd to 3rd. I think it was the social media shares which have done the trick.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10473837].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      Originally Posted by yukon View Post

      There's no correlation.

      Social nofollow links do not rank self hosted money pages.
      Yes there is. You're talking about causation, and I very strongly agree that "social signals" aren't ranking anything.

      I'm not sure if I really need to explain what correlation means. You know, something that gets shares also gets backlinks because of those shares, and because of other means of marketing. "Social signals" didn't really affect anything directly, they just happened at the same time.

      Originally Posted by nithinrockzabc View Post

      Well i believe there is some effect for social media on serp. I did have experience.. one of my kw was ranking in the 13 th positon after getting few social media shareS ( shit has gone viral) my position slowly mvd to 3rd. I think it was the social media shares which have done the trick.
      I think it's the "gone viral" part. Did you monitor your backlinks during this time period, and after it?
      Signature
      Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
      Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

      What's your excuse?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10475250].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by nettiapina View Post

        Yes there is. You're talking about causation, and I very strongly agree that "social signals" aren't ranking anything.

        I'm not sure if I really need to explain what correlation means. You know, something that gets shares also gets backlinks because of those shares, and because of other means of marketing. "Social signals" didn't really affect anything directly, they just happened at the same time.



        I think it's the "gone viral" part. Did you monitor your backlinks during this time period, and after it?





        I guess the dictionary is wrong.

        A mutual relationship or connection between two or more things.
        ...or in the real world there's no relationship between social & ranking self hosted money pages on Google SERPs.

        Nofollow links are nofollow links regardless how bad someone wants it to be SEO (it's not).
        Signature
        Hi
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476510].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
          Originally Posted by yukon View Post

          ...or in the real world there's no relationship between social & ranking self hosted money pages on Google SERPs.
          Except that there is according to some studies. They both go up at the same time often enough to show a positive correlation. Moz isn't the only company/group that has reported something like this as far as I can remember.

          But as I said it doesn't mean that the social media activity is directly ranking anything at all.
          Signature
          Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
          Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

          What's your excuse?
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10477296].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author giovanni_carlo
    I think they will since we are in the age of social media even baby boomers are in social media already.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10475606].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author dgeramemo
    They may consider but I am little confused about the way search engine will collect information. I mean they need to collect all information about social signals, for example If engine want to track likes then it need to collect liked by information, liked by location to actually interpret a valid social signal. It will have to closely integrate with third party APIs to get this info.

    If it doesn't collect this kind of info then a new spam practice may begin and it will have to come with a new penguin type algorithm.
    Signature

    Deepak Gera
    www.memocup.com

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10475622].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Campbell24
    Social Signals are great but what you want to realize more than anything is that there are 2 DIFFERENT TYPES OF SOCIAL SIGNALS THAT PLAY A BIG FACTOR:

    -Social Fortresses
    -Mass Social Signal Blasts

    Mass social signal blasts are done when you sign up for a service like Drip Revolution where they just blast your links all around on random social profiles giving you a LARGE QUANTITY of different social signals from random profiles that may not have large authority on an individual basis.

    Social Fotresses are pages that you build specifically for your website on Facebook , Twitter, etc. and then you post links back to your website on them all the time(just like large authority sites do naturally) and then you can build tier 2 juice links at these fortresses.
    Signature
    FREE SEO CONSULTATION/ADVICE (from a 7-figure earner)

    I will answer your SEO questions 100% for free.

    Just ask me whatever you want!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476000].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      Originally Posted by dgeramemo View Post

      It will have to closely integrate with third party APIs to get this info.

      If it doesn't collect this kind of info then a new spam practice may begin and it will have to come with a new penguin type algorithm.
      Witch is why I've been saying three things: it's unlikely that something like this would happen unnoticed, it's unlikely that this would extend to more than handful of services, and this would be something that Google would like us to know about. They're hardly the company that doesn't advertise their accomplishments, and this would be both a herculean effort and a major policy change.

      Originally Posted by Campbell24 View Post

      Social Signals are great
      No, they aren't. Please read the thread.

      Originally Posted by Campbell24 View Post

      -Social Fortresses
      -Mass Social Signal Blasts
      Did you come up with these on the spot? Because this distinction makes as little sense as these hyped up category names. And these things are both equally worthless for SEO.

      Originally Posted by Campbell24 View Post

      Social Fotresses are pages that you build specifically for your website on Facebook , Twitter, etc. and then you post links back to your website on them all the time(just like large authority sites do naturally) and then you can build tier 2 juice links at these fortresses.
      So you're basically talking about the feed/profile pages that provide nofollow links. Yeah, it's nothing impressive if you describe it in a honest manner. One of my Twitter profile pages is/was PR5, but that's pointless when it doesn't channel any juice.
      Signature
      Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
      Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

      What's your excuse?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476059].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author PassiveIncomes
    Originally Posted by algorithmiclabs View Post

    Will social signals be giving weight to google rankings as we now begin our journey into 2016? Will these social signal factors still apply to search engine optimization? As well, which ones do you believe will carry the most weight? Twitter? Facebook? Google? or a combination of the above? I am looking for some rock solid answers here. Anyone willing to dive in and give it a shot?
    YES, I use facedominator, twtdominator to get free social signals, hootsuite, buffer to automate some posts.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476079].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author yukon
    Banned
    Signature
    Hi
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476526].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author RobertCorby
    Now I will prove my debate before closing with my work and site.

    Google Rankings:

    Position: #1
    Keyword Phrase:
    Buy USA Google Plus Ones
    Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/google-plus-ones/

    Position: #2

    Keyword Phrase: Buy StumbleUpon Votes
    Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/stumbleupon-votes/

    Position: #2
    Keyword Phrase: Buy DatPiff Ratings
    Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/datpiff-downloads/

    Position: #5
    Keyword Phrase: Buy DatPiff Streams
    Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/datpiff-downloads/

    Position: #2
    Keyword Phrase: Purchase LinkedIn Connections
    Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/linkedin-connections/

    and 100s of other keyword combination phrases for this site. This site has no backlinks besides the typical crawlers like WOT and that sort if crap. These pages have one single facebook post each and one twitter tweet, one google plus post and one linkedin post each. Now, a social signal can be a like or a follow, or whatever, but a share is also a signal. What do signals do? Why do they call them signals? Think about that. It is a ping. each time it pings, dofollow, nofollow, does not matter.

    NOW! I am sure you all that have been involved in this wonderful debate about social signals. So I assume that you understand the code to put into google search to pull your results on this particular study. This is the only site I am willing to share. I have others in a far more competitive market, but I simply don't know who you.

    Yukon: Just to give you some validation this is my site. I built a page just for you. Ha Ha Ha

    http://socialjuicepros.com/yukon/


    Signature
    Robert Corby
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476671].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
      Originally Posted by RobertCorby View Post

      Now I will prove my debate before closing with my work and site.

      Google Rankings:

      Position: #1
      Keyword Phrase:
      Buy USA Google Plus Ones
      Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/google-plus-ones/

      Position: #2

      Keyword Phrase: Buy StumbleUpon Votes
      [COLOR=DarkRed][COLOR=Black]Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/stumbleupon-votes/

      Position: #2
      Keyword Phrase: Buy DatPiff Ratings
      Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/datpiff-downloads/

      Position: #5
      Keyword Phrase: Buy DatPiff Streams
      Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/datpiff-downloads/

      Position: #2
      Keyword Phrase: Purchase LinkedIn Connections
      Page URL: socialjuicepros.com/linkedin-connections/
      Again, these keywords are not competitive. You could rank just fine with or without social signals.

      Signature
      SEO, AdWords Management, Social Media Marketing, and more.
      Get a FREE Quote.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10476690].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned


      I'm not wasting my time reading a wall of text because you're clearly here to spam your social service & pass it off as SEO (it's not SEO).

      Like I said, typical self promotion social fail on the SEO forum. Same nonsense, different Warrior Forum thread.
      Signature
      Hi
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10477061].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
    Sigh. I'm not going to read that wall of text, at least right now. The lack of understanding that post #23 showcases is so major that it's just impossible to talk about SEO with this guy. How can you even mix all these distinct concepts in to this huge lump and not notice how you're not making any sense? He's figuratively tripping over his feet and face planting in every paragraph in this thread. How can this individual make a claim that he's been ages in this industry, yet he can't write coherently about the most basic concepts?

    And dude, again. That's not what "ping" means. Learn the basic frigging vocabulary at least.

    All this talk about being around since day 0 is quite absurd when the thread is about social signals, something that's just a few years old as a phenomenon or SEO gimmick. And how young do you even think that average industry forum dwellers are? Thirty-somethings started their careers in '90s or early 00's, and they've seen the rise of Google from an interesting startup to a web behemoth if they've been paying any attention.

    BTW, that Google screenshot is dubious. I seem to get a lot more total search results (102 million), and that particular tweet is nowhere to be seen. Country selection on? Personalization? Dunno, but I don't buy that. My #1 page is full of usual suspects like big-name blogs that I've actually heard of. If I choose my home country (but not the language) the SERP is so messed up that I could rank with a loud fart. Or a tweet, they're pretty much equal in effectiveness. So you know, not very impressive.
    Signature
    Links in signature will not help your SEO. Not on this site, and not on any other forum.
    Who told me this? An ex Google web spam engineer.

    What's your excuse?
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10477232].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author patadeperro
    Oh my god, for all this social media "advocates" Can you explain to me how social signals affect ranking for a term such as porn please? or webcam shows? please....... pro tip they dont, it is forbiden in social media the adult world, there is the proof that you dont need social signals to rank
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10477312].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Tweets are not pages, no more than a YT video is a page...
      but I digress.

      Once again, most of you are not paying attention to what
      is going on in the internet world. I can't believe you people
      do not read the tech pages...

      I further digress....

      Google cannot see a lot of stuff, as mentioned above.
      They are in mobile apps and other things, like
      scripts....

      Google would like to get their hands on that stuff,
      only because social could be relevant to a search.

      Google has been making agreements and
      partnering with things like FB to get inside this
      data.

      They can't put it in searches if they don't have access
      to it.

      However, just because a tweet or your fb profile
      could show up in SERPS, does not mean in
      any way, shape, or form, that this data helps
      rank a third party page.

      Google has always been able, to some extent, to
      show social stuff. But very shallow. Now they
      want to beef it up even more.

      But again, it just makes stuff you do on social more
      readily available to google. Nothing more, nothing less.

      FB, twitter, etc. would be fools to not partner with
      google, and vice versa.

      These threads show up in google. Now exactly
      how helpful is it to the sig links? A big FAT ZERO!

      BINGO!

      Paul
      Signature

      If you were disappointed in your results today, lower your standards tomorrow.

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10477771].message }}

Trending Topics