23 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
23 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

*Social Signals - Myth or Must?*

by Nick Logan
20 replies
  • SEO
    • |
I know there are some marketers thinking social signals is only a myth. But is it really?

I just found an interesting research designed to take multiple factors into account in order to show why some websites rank high and other don't.

The results show that Social signals are a bit more than just a myth. See for yourself...

And here is a link of the entire article

Your comments much appreciated!

#myth #signals #social
  • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
    The study is not called Spearman's Correlation - that's the method of the study. This little misunderstanding here speaks volumes... Although you'd like the results to support this "social signals" myth, it just says that actively marketed sites show signs of good success also in search engines.

    And as the name suggest, it's merely talking about correlation. I'm sure everyone is aware what they say about correlation and causation. This BTW is also noted in the bottom of the page linked above.
    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[9106591].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GyuMan82
    Social signals on their own do not directly improve your search engine results.

    It is the indirect effect where the more exposure your website/article etc. gets through social signals (likes, tweets, shares etc) the better chances that someone will find it and link to it.

    It is these resulting links from the social media activities that lead to improved search engine results, not the actual social signals themselves.

    Remember correlation does not equal causation. You can Tweet/Share/Like the s### out of something, but if no one actually links to the content it won't do diddly for your search engine rankings.
    Signature
    Learn To Blog Like The Pros. No Experience Necessary!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9106593].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MikeFriedman
    I so sick of people using stupid stuff like this to try to get people to believe that social signals improve ranking.

    This chart proves nothing. When you look at top ranked pages, yes, many of them have a lot of social signals. However, are they ranking well because of the social signals or did they attract the social signals because they already had the top ranking?

    I have seen no evidence of a site ranking better due to social signals.
    Signature

    For SEO news, discussions, tactics, and more.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9106793].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Nick Logan
      Hey!

      Actually I don't have my own opinion on this topic. I just wanted to share what I found while doing my own research.

      And I think it is good if we have a thread like this, just to clarify it. I really want to hear many different opinions about 'social signals'.

      Originally Posted by MikeFriedman View Post

      I so sick of people using stupid stuff like this to try to get people to believe that social signals improve ranking.

      This chart proves nothing. When you look at top ranked pages, yes, many of them have a lot of social signals. However, are they ranking well because of the social signals or did they attract the social signals because they already had the top ranking?

      I have seen no evidence of a site ranking better due to social signals.
      Signature

      *****
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9106825].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
        Originally Posted by Project View Post

        I really want to hear many different opinions about 'social signals'.
        I'm not so sure that I do. Hearing "both sides" of the topic just gives legitimacy to this belief that seems about as valid as homeopathy. If you completely stop believing in and caring about "social signals" - well, nothing changes in the world. This goes for most supernatural things.

        I don't also like the fact that "social signals" seems to mean backlinks and that something else that Google supposedly gets from these services. If Google truly was querying FB's API that'd be a true social signal. Backlink on a FB page is just a backlink on a FB page.

        I don't also like that Google+ is always thrown into the mix as a proof of something. For obvious reasons.

        If Google was using Facebook's or Twitters "hidden" data guess who would've spammed your ears and eyes full of stuff on how this is the most important thing since sliced bread? The social media services themselves because that thing would be truly massive for them. You know, for obvious 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[9107122].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author yukon
        Banned
        Originally Posted by Project View Post

        And I think it is good if we have a thread like this, just to clarify it. I really want to hear many different opinions about 'social signals'.
        If you had done a SEO sub-forum WF search with the keyword social in the thread title you would have found 495 individual forum threads repeating social won't rank a page in Google SERPs.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9108155].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Surajrai
    Hi Project,

    Recently, I came through a blog post titled "Why Social Is the New SEO" by NEIL PATEL. More info: quicksprout(dot)com/2014/04/11/why-social-is-the-new-seo/

    For more clarification visit: backlinko(dot)com/google-ranking-factors

    I hope, it will be helpful for you.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9107127].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      It's a myth.

      And thus services that offer fake likes, tweets, google+'s are completely worthless, cause it's all based on fake accounts, not a single real human will ever find those social shares, so it would never lead to natural back links.

      Yes they do have followers and friends but those are just as fake or idle as they can be.

      That's why you never see that mentioned at their sales pages, instead they like to keep the myth alive as that's there only sales point, that the signal / nofollow link it self boosts you in the rankings.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9107175].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      So, maybe these "signals" we loved so much aren't working. But so what? Social is still a valuable channel for promotion, content, distribution, virality, and sharing. Social is still a crucial aspect for search even if it doesn't register as one of Google's many algorithmic ranking factors.

      by Neil Patel
      This is what he wrote, so not from an SEO point of view.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9107180].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author pedrorr84
        I don't think that social signals right now are an important factor for ranking better. Anyway, the social networks are being so important right now, so Google is maybe modifying the algorithms to identify which social profiles are good, so their posts which are shared across the Internet are good candidates to be ranked better.

        Also, Google is taking a lot of care about its social network, so it wouldn't be strange to think that Google + is helping a little bit. Anyway, I think that social media is not enough powerful as many people say and there are other more important factors.

        It's a good topic anyway!
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9107200].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      Originally Posted by Surajrai View Post

      For more clarification visit: backlinko(dot)com/google-ranking-factors
      The whole article is wrapped in a nice "this might be total BS" disclaimer, but I gotta say I'm disappointed. I thought backlinko was a bit better than that.

      There's entries that confuse user accounts with pages. There's entries that don't make any difference between stuff that ends up being a backlink, and something that needs to be queried from the API. And then there's the last entry on "social signals" category that really takes the biscuit. "Site-level social signals" is just total gibberish.

      Originally Posted by pedrorr84

      so Google is maybe modifying the algorithms to identify which social profiles are good, so their posts which are shared across the Internet are good candidates to be ranked better.
      Nobody can tell what Google will do in the future. But all of this would not help them too much, would ultimately make them dependent on someone else's data, and would cause unnecessary new complexities to a reasonably well working model. They've sort of burned their fingers with Twitter before.
      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[9107480].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author monkeybru
    social signal = backlinks from high authority website ofc they make good seo
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9107535].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matthew Anton
    Please be a be more open-minded. The greatest defense attornies are ones that think like prosecutors. If you were a search engine...the most popular search engine in the world would you factor in Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, Linkedin, Stumbleupon, etc?

    Of course you would, and there are even quotes from Danny Sullivan that Google+ and Pinterest are strong social signals:
    https://twitter.com/dannysullivan/st...47611997130752

    We have people in this thread that sell a house of cards - Private Blog Networks, yet blast this type of tactic/service, when in reality those likes/shares will last way longer than any typical bs network.

    Social Network Signals are a factor. If you choose to ignore it you are risking a penalty because a surge in links should be accompanied by a surge in social activity (makes sense if something gets popular/viral). It would be very odd to have thousands of backlinks but no social network signals.

    The argument that no one has done a case study/shown results is false but you are right that you can't say do this and rank, because you have to take a holistic approach. It's not doing any one thing that puts you over the competition, but doing every little thing in combination to form synergies.
    Signature
    BacklinksIndexer - automated index/bulk links
    TwitterBacklinks - retweets service
    Web2.0Backlinks - web2.0 creation/link building
    Google+ Matthew Anton
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9107967].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nik0
      Banned
      Easy defense, claiming they only work in synergy format, that way you don't have to proof anything.

      Guess what, my links don't need any other links to work and none of my personal sites tanked cause of a lack of social signals.

      How you explain that?

      And yeah you don't do one single thing, you just combine a dozen different spam methods and hope you won't tank in the next Penguin refresh.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9108113].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author nettiapina
      Originally Posted by Matthew Antonthe

      most popular search engine in the world would you factor in Twitter, Facebook, Google+, Pinterest, Linkedin, Stumbleupon, etc?
      They do. They're spidering and indexing the pages, most of which are completely fine and accessible. They're just normal HTML pages like any other page. Some sites are easier to access than others, but site structure is the most straight-forward explanation.

      Again, you don't even need this "social signals" story for this stuff to work.


      Originally Posted by Matthew Anton View Post

      The argument that no one has done a case study/shown results is false but you are right that you can't say do this and rank, because you have to take a holistic approach. It's not doing any one thing that puts you over the competition, but doing every little thing in combination to form synergies.
      It's funny to see this bit after I happened to use homeopathy as an analogy. You know who else uses this kind of language? The faith healing / alternative medicine crowd. This is technology we're talking about here. Everything is measurable on your own properties even though there are black boxes like Google.

      Indeed you need to take a "holistic" view of the situation, and use strategies that are appropriate for the client. Using that to argue for "social signals" is just taking it backwards. If it doesn't really work the way it's described on it's own, why would it work as a part of larger campaign?

      I don't oppose nofollow backlinks - on the opposite, I'd argue that they're good for your site. That's what you get from most social media sites. However, I don't see any reason to mystify those backlinks by coming up with special cutesy names.
      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[9109433].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Matthew Anton
    So you are saying Danny Sullivan and Rand Fishkin and other well known Online Marketing/SEO experts are spewing nonsense when they say Google+, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter are strong social signals the search engines use in their algorithm?

    If so, it's a very strong stance to take against the industry leaders.
    Signature
    BacklinksIndexer - automated index/bulk links
    TwitterBacklinks - retweets service
    Web2.0Backlinks - web2.0 creation/link building
    Google+ Matthew Anton
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9108592].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author yukon
      Banned
      Originally Posted by Matthew Anton View Post

      So you are saying Danny Sullivan and Rand Fishkin and other well known Online Marketing/SEO experts are spewing nonsense when they say Google+, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter are strong social signals the search engines use in their algorithm?

      If so, it's a very strong stance to take against the industry leaders.
      Moz isn't an SEO industry leader, the social hype proves that.

      SEL is basically a news reporter.

      Your welcome to prove me wrong by ranking your own pages with Tweets, Likes & Views. Let us know how that works out.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9108596].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author GyuMan82
      Originally Posted by Matthew Anton View Post

      So you are saying Danny Sullivan and Rand Fishkin and other well known Online Marketing/SEO experts are spewing nonsense when they say Google+, Pinterest, Facebook and Twitter are strong social signals the search engines use in their algorithm?

      If so, it's a very strong stance to take against the industry leaders.
      That's exactly what we are saying.

      Just because someone is well known in the SEO world (or any other industry) I'm not going to take what they say as truth blindly, especially on something that there is no evidence/test to show is truth.

      Show me the case study where social signals alone rank a site. It doesn't exist. Maybe in the future, but currently it does not.

      Anyone in the trenches that does SEO on a daily basis knows social signals to rank is BS.
      Signature
      Learn To Blog Like The Pros. No Experience Necessary!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9108715].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulgl
        It was always a myth. Too many people thought that google would just
        go away once FB was perceived as "dominating." Not everyone drank the
        koolaid, certainly not me. Social is social. Period. Now don't get me wrong,
        I was a late user on FB, and now I spam and abuse it to the fullest. But
        that's a different story.

        The only thing that google can actually keep track of, is G+. And that is
        certainly going to be somewhere in the mix. Google is cramming that down
        any throat they can. How that pans out, who knows.

        I have always pitied the poor fools who think google can count and keep
        track of FB likes...and why on earth they would even attempt such a nonsense
        thing. Let alone keep track of any shares. The whole idea was just an inane
        example of thinking google can (or does) keep track of every friggin thing
        on the net. They can't, don't, and won't.

        But about that G+ thingy. That's something everyone should be doing.

        Paul
        Signature

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

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9108737].message }}

Trending Topics