Another proof of high audience retention in YT.

13 replies
  • SEO
  • |
keyword -- Money.

Pink Floyd get high ranking in both G and YT because most fans watch the video completely.

money - YouTube
money - Google Search
#audience #high #proof #retention
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

    keyword -- Money.

    Pink Floyd get high ranking in both G and YT because most fans watch the video completely.

    money - YouTube
    money - Google Search
    Originally Posted by Hardi Wijaya View Post

    Some SEO guys don't agree. They say that YT is just preparing to include audience retention in the algo. But what I see is YT is making this factor in effect now.

    This Indonesian music band, Noah gets high rankings in G and YT for music videos that don't give any information about Noah. Religious people generally know who Noah is. No explanation is necessary.

    The list in G: noah - Google Search

    The list in YT: noah - YouTube

    Based on this algo trend, I think in the future people with do SEO video marketing in collaboration with popular music bands
    What you are showing is not proof of anything.

    First of all, Google owns both, so the search algorithm is probably fairly similar. Second, it is just a case of them giving people what they are looking for.

    I highly doubt people are going into YouTube to search for information about Noah, the fictional religious character. There are probably also very few people making videos about him.

    However, I doubt there are many people going into Google search and looking for some band nobody has ever heard of either. There they are probably looking for information about the religious myth.

    The Money example is the same thing. People search for facts and info about money in Google, but are probably highly more likely to be looking for the music video from the legendary Pink Floyd in YouTube.

    It has nothing to do with retention and everything to do with Google trying to give users what they are likely searching for.
    Signature
    New Private Mastermind Group Discussing SEO, Local SEO, Google Ads, Facebook Ads, and more -
    Open for A Limited Time!

    Request to Join
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514063].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Hardi Wijaya
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      What you are showing is not proof of anything.

      First of all, Google owns both, so the search algorithm is probably fairly similar. Second, it is just a case of them giving people what they are looking for.

      I highly doubt people are going into YouTube to search for information about Noah, the fictional religious character. There are probably also very few people making videos about him.

      However, I doubt there are many people going into Google search and looking for some band nobody has ever heard of either. There they are probably looking for information about the religious myth.

      The Money example is the same thing. People search for facts and info about money in Google, but are probably highly more likely to be looking for the music video from the legendary Pink Floyd in YouTube.

      It has nothing to do with retention and everything to do with Google trying to give users what they are likely searching for.
      You've totally misunderstood what I'm giving away.

      High audience retention has major weight on YT search ranking. G will take top videos from YT and show them in its search list. Crux is; G loves the search list in YT.

      Well, keep hanging on to your understanding
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7517057].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I highly doubt people are going into YouTube to search for information about Noah, the fictional religious character. There are probably also very few people making videos about him.

      However, I doubt there are many people going into Google search and looking for some band nobody has ever heard of either. There they are probably looking for information about the religious myth.
      Hi Mike,

      You just offended a least a billion people on this planet by your comments.

      Most people that are familiar with the character "Noah" view him as a real historical figure. He was written about in many books, including the Book of Genesis from the Holy Bible, his name is also mentioned in Ezekiel, Isaiah and Chronicles. He has been written about in documents from Hebrew, Arabic, and ancient Greek culture, and is a prominent historical figure in the Quran.

      While you may refer to him as a "fictional religious character" and the most accurate documents from those times as "myths", the fact is he is a documented historical figure and no more a myth than any other historically documented figure. While you may not share the same religious beliefs as others, that gives no cause to demean or diminish well documented history.

      By that standard we would have to refer to all of history as mythology and any characters mention as fictional. Do we now refer to World War II as a "myth", and to Churchill, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hirohito as "fictional characters"? :confused:

      Please, have a little respect for documented history!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7517842].message }}
      • Originally Posted by dburk View Post

        Hi Mike,

        You just offended a least a billion people on this planet by your comments.

        Most people that are familiar with the character "Noah" view him as a real historical figure. He was written about in many books, including the Book of Genesis from the Holy Bible, his name is also mentioned in Ezekiel, Isaiah and Chronicles. He has been written about in documents from Hebrew, Arabic, and ancient Greek culture, and is a prominent historical figure in the Quran.

        While you may refer to him as a "fictional religious character" and the most accurate documents from those times as "myths", the fact is he is a documented historical figure and no more a myth than any other historically documented figure. While you may not share the same religious beliefs as others, that gives no cause to demean or diminish well documented history.

        By that standard we would have to refer to all of history as mythology and any characters mention as fictional. Do we now refer to World War II as a "myth", and to Churchill, Roosevelt, Mussolini, Stalin, and Hirohito as "fictional characters"? :confused:

        Please, have a little respect for documented history!
        Because something is documented, especially in religious texts doesn't make it absolute, despite repetition amongst various other religious texts. Faith often determines whether an individual decides something is quantifiably accurate without any tangible evidence bar scripture. Whether Churchill or Stalin existed however isn't a debate.

        Mike's entitled to his opinion, you yours, Mike is no doubt not offended by your faith that what you read in the texts is entirely accurate , you should not be offended that he believes it's not entirely accurate.

        The world would be a better place if people spent less time being offended by other other peoples' right to believe what they wish, irrelevant of which side of the coin you favour.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518184].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author dburk
          Originally Posted by Midas3 Consulting View Post

          Because something is documented, especially in religious texts doesn't make it absolute, despite repetition amongst various other religious texts. Faith often determines whether an individual decides something is quantifiably accurate without any tangible evidence bar scripture. Whether Churchill or Stalin existed however isn't a debate.

          Mike's entitled to his opinion, you yours, Mike is no doubt not offended by your faith that what you read in the texts is entirely accurate , you should not be offended that he believes it's not entirely accurate.

          The world would be a better place if people spent less time being offended by other other peoples' right to believe what they wish, irrelevant of which side of the coin you favour.

          Hi Midas3,

          This not a discussion about religious beliefs, it is a discussion about the accepted methods of recording history.

          Actually, the documentation of the life and events of Noah predate, by thousands of years, the formulation of any of those organized religions, so to try to tie it's origins to a religious belief system is either disingenuous or naive. It comes from the best contemporaneous documentation of that time period (10th century B.C.), it is collaborated by huge amounts of geological, genelogical, and archaeological evidence. There is a no recorded history that could claim to have absolute accuracy, so by your apparent standard, all recorded history is dubious at best, even if it is collaborated by facts.

          This whole notion of the story and events of Noah and the great flood as a "myth" is a recent corruption by revisionists that have no respect for true history. Contemporaneously recorded accounts of historical events have always been generally accepted as the most accurate accounting of true history. Anyone that uses their religious belief system as an excuse for revising history is doing nothing more than corrupting the true accounting of history, a common practice of hate groups, and I find that offensive. Stop the hate! :p
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518619].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    Nevermind. You are selling YouTube views in your signature which is why you are trying to promote this nonsense theory. Makes sense now.
    Signature
    New Private Mastermind Group Discussing SEO, Local SEO, Google Ads, Facebook Ads, and more -
    Open for A Limited Time!

    Request to Join
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7514077].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Icematikx
    Audience Retention is the most important factor for ranking in YouTube by far. I know myself because I'm a partner under the Curse network with currently, 16,000 subscribers (not one of them has been bought or is fake). The YouTube search & related videos section displays videos with the highest AR (Audience Retention) as the main contributing factor. Other contributing factors are likes, views, comments, favorites and so forth - but AR is the main ranking factor on YouTube.

    I'm not sure how this converts into Google though.
    Signature

    Just got back from a #BrightonSEO. I was given room 404 in the hotel I stayed at. Couldn’t find it anywhere!

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7517897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author paulgl
      Google has recently added changes, like whether or not a video
      gets views all the way through. People were using all sorts of
      things to rank videos in wrong categories. Not a good user
      experience.

      Selling youtube views is just nonsense. But at least we know the
      rest of the story.

      Anyone who buys youtube views, is an idiot.

      Paul
      Signature

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

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518140].message }}
  • your entire post focussed on religion, and your introduction focussed on how a billion people would be offended.

    What you classify as historical fact isn't even in the same ball park as data on recent figures such as Churchill. The analogy without faith is absurd.

    The point is that taking offence is pointless , the only sane course is let everybody have their two cents as long ad it doesn't hurt any other party and stop telling people how offended you are that they don't take thousands of years old "facts" verbatim

    As iPhones suck at long messages that's my final 2 cents , have a happy Xmas, whatever your belief system is.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518654].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by Midas3 Consulting View Post

      your entire post focussed on religion, and your introduction focussed on how a billion people would be offended.

      What you classify as historical fact isn't even in the same ball park as data on recent figures such as Churchill. The analogy without faith is absurd.

      The point is that taking offence is pointless , the only sane course is let everybody have their two cents as long ad it doesn't hurt any other party and stop telling people how offended you are that they don't take thousands of years old "facts" verbatim

      As iPhones suck at long messages that's my final 2 cents , have a happy Xmas, whatever your belief system is.
      No, my entire focus was on history and the corruption of history by hate groups. I went out of my way to establish that it is the historical accuracy that was being demeaned and religion should not color the facts. By all reasonable accounts it is true history, and it seems ridiculous to call it a myth and that the central figure of that historical event to be called a "fictional character". We have contemporaneous documentation, collaborated my multiple cultures, and geological, genealogical (confirmed by geneticists), archaeological evidence. Rarely, is there so much scientific collaboration of ancient events. I am just trying to keep people honest here.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518706].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author dburk
      Originally Posted by Midas3 Consulting View Post

      The analogy without faith is absurd.
      I disagree with that assertion, The source documentation of that event predates the establishment of any religion that happens to recount it. And again it is collaborated with many scientific facts. It has been accepted as a true accounting of history for many thousands of years, and science has come along to uncover huge amounts of collaborating evidence. It is only in the past few decades that it has been called a "myth" by certain hate groups that attack people based upon their religious beliefs. If you want to attack people you hate, go ahead, but please don't mess with history.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518724].message }}
  • {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7518739].message }}

Trending Topics