On-Page (Keyword-Specific) Ranking Factors

1. Keyword Use Anywhere in the Title Tag
66% very high importance
8% moderate consensus
 
2. Keyword Use as the First Word(s) of the Title Tag
63% high importance
11.3% light consensus
 
3. Keyword Use in the Root Domain Name (e.g. keyword.com)
60% high importance
11.3% light consensus
 
4. Keyword Use Anywhere in the H1 Headline Tag
49% moderate importance
10.2% light consensus
 
5. Keyword Use in Internal Link Anchor Text on the Page
47% moderate importance
13% moderate contention
 
6. Keyword Use in External Link Anchor Text on the Page
46% moderate importance
13.6% moderate contention
 
7. Keyword Use as the First Word(s) in the H1 Tag
45% moderate importance
11.7% light consensus
 
8. Keyword Use in the First 50-100 Words in HTML on the Page
45% moderate importance
9.9% light consensus
 
9. Keyword Use in the Subdomain Name (e.g. keyword.seomoz.org)
42% low importance
9% light consensus
 
10. Keyword Use in the Page Name URL (e.g. seomoz.org/folder/keyword.html)
38% low importance
9.1% light consensus
 
11. Keyword Use in the Page Folder URL (e.g. seomoz.org/keyword/page.html)
37% low importance
8.6% light consensus
 
12. Keyword Use in other Headline Tags (<h2>-<h6>)
35% low importance
8% light consensus
 
13. Keyword Use in Image Alt Text
33% minimal importance
8.7% light consensus
 
14. Keyword Use / Number of Repetitions in the HTML Text on the Page
33% minimal importance
10.3% light consensus
 
15. Keyword Use in Image Names Included on the Page (e.g. keyword.jpg)
33% minimal importance
8.6% light consensus
 
16. Keyword Use in <b> or <strong> Tags
26% minimal importance
7.6% moderate consensus
 
17. Keyword Density Formula (# of Keyword Uses ÷ Total # of Terms on the Page)
25% minimal importance
9.8% light consensus
 
18. Keyword Use in List Items <li> on the Page
23% very minimal importance
9.5% light consensus
 
19. Keyword Use in the Page’s Query Parameters (e.g. seomoz.org/page.html?keyword)
22% very minimal importance
7.6% moderate consensus
 
20. Keyword Use in <i> or <em> Tags
21% very minimal importance
8.4% light consensus
 
21. Keyword Use in the Meta Description Tag
19% very minimal importance
9.9% light consensus
 
22. Keyword Use in the Page’s File Extension (e.g. seomoz.org/page.keyword)
12% very minimal importance
8.3% light consensus
 
23. Keyword Use in Comment Tags in the HTML
6% very minimal importance
5.7% moderate consensus
 
24. Keyword Use in the Meta Keywords Tag
5% very minimal importance
5.5% moderate consensus
 
Top


On-Page (Non-Keyword) Ranking Factors

1. Existence of Substantive, Unique Content on the Page
65% very high importance
9.2% moderate consensus
 
2. Recency (freshness) of Page Creation
50% moderate importance
10.5% moderate consensus
 
3. Use of Links on the Page that Point to Other URLs on this Domain
41% low importance
12.6% moderate contention
 
4. Historical Content Changes (how often the page content has been updated)
39% low importance
10.9% moderate consensus
 
5. Use of External-Pointing Links on the Page
37% low importance
13.3% moderate contention
 
6. Query Parameters in the URL vs. Static URL Format
33% minimal importance
11.8% moderate consensus
 
7. Ratio of Code to Text in HTML
25% minimal importance
11% moderate consensus
 
8. Existence of a Meta Description Tag
22% very minimal importance
11% moderate consensus
 
9. HTML Validation to W3C Standards
16% very minimal importance
9.3% moderate consensus
 
10. Use of Flash Elements (or other plug-in content)
13% very minimal importance
10.1% moderate consensus
 
11. Use of Advertising on the Page
11% very minimal importance
8.6% moderate consensus
 
12. Use of Google AdSense (specifically) on the Page
8% very minimal importance
7.3% moderate consensus
 
Top


Page-Specific Link Popularity Ranking Factors

1. Keyword-Focused Anchor Text from External Links
73% very high importance
6.4% moderate consensus
 
2. External Link Popularity (quantity/quality of external links)
71% very high importance
9.2% moderate consensus
 
3. Diversity of Link Sources (links from many unique root domains)
67% very high importance
8.5% moderate consensus
 
4. Page-Specific TrustRank (whether the individual page has earned links from trusted sources)
65% very high importance
8.7% moderate consensus
 
5. Iterative Algorithm-Based, Global Link Popularity (PageRank)
63% high importance
8.8% moderate consensus
 
6. Topic-Specificity/Focus of External Link Sources (whether external links to this page come from topically     relevant pages/sites)
58% high importance
10.6% moderate consensus
 
7. Keyword-Focused Anchor Text from Internal Links
55% high importance
9.9% moderate consensus
 
8. Location in Information Architecture of the Site (where the page sits in relation to the site’s structural hierarchy)
51% moderate importance
10.7% moderate consensus
 
9. Internal Link Popularity (counting only links from other pages on the root domain)
51% moderate importance
9.1% moderate consensus
 
10. Quantity & Quality of Nofollowed Links to the Page
25% minimal importance
10.8% moderate consensus
 
11. Percent of Followed vs. Nofollowed Links that Point to the Page
17% very minimal importance
11.4% moderate consensus
 
Top


Site-Wide Link-Based Ranking Factors

1. Trustworthiness of the Domain Based on Link Distance from Trusted Domains (e.g. TrustRank, Domain mozTrust,     etc.)
66% very high importance
9.5% light consensus
 
2. Global Link Popularity of the Domain Based on an Iterative Link Algorithm (e.g. PageRank on the domain graph,     Domain mozRank, etc.)
64% high importance
11% light consensus
 
3. Link Diversity of the Domain (based on number/variety of unique root domains linking to pages on this domain)
64% high importance
9.5% light consensus
 
4. Links from Hubs/Authorities in a Given Topic-Specific Neighborhood (as per the “Hilltop” algorithm)
64% high importance
10.9% light consensus
 
5. Temporal Growth/Shrinkage of Links to the Domain (the quantity/quality of links earned over time and the     temporal distribution)
52% moderate importance
9.5% light consensus
 
6. Links from Domains with Restricted Access TLD Extensions (e.g. .edu, .gov, .mil, .ac.uk, etc.)
47% moderate importance
13.8% moderate contention
 
7. Percent of Followed vs. Nofollowed Links that Point to the Domain
21% very minimal importance
11% light consensus
 
Top


Site-Wide (non-link based) Ranking Factors

1. Site Architecture of the Domain (whether intelligent, useful hierarchies are employed)
52% moderate importance
13% moderate contention
 
2. Use of External Links to Reputable, Trustworthy Sites/Pages
37% low importance
10.8% moderate consensus
 
3. Length of Domain Registration
37% low importance
14.3% moderate contention
 
4. Domain Registration History (how long it’s been registered to the same party, number of times renewed, etc.)
36% low importance
12.3% moderate contention
 
5. Server/Hosting Uptime
32% minimal importance
11.4% moderate consensus
 
6. Hosting Information (what other domains are hosted on the server/c-block of IP addresses)
31% minimal importance
10.4% moderate consensus
 
7. Domain Registration Ownership Change (whether the domain has changed hands according to registration     records)
31% minimal importance
11.3% moderate consensus
 
8. Inclusion of Feeds from the Domain in Google News
31% minimal importance
14.9% moderate contention
 
9. Use of XML Sitemap(s)
29% minimal importance
12.3% moderate contention
 
10. Domain Ownership (who registered the domain and their history)
25% minimal importance
12.1% moderate contention
 
11. Domain Registration with Google Local
24% very minimal importance
12.7% moderate contention
 
12. Domain “Mentions” (text citations of the domain name/address even in the absence of direct links)
24% very minimal importance
9.8% moderate consensus
 
13. Inclusion of Feeds from the Domain in Google Blog Search
24% very minimal importance
12.8% moderate contention
 
14. Citations/References of the Domain in the Yahoo! Directory (beyond the value of the link alone)
24% very minimal importance
12.2% moderate contention
 
15. Citations/References of the Domain in DMOZ.org (beyond the value of the link alone)
23% very minimal importance
11.5% moderate consensus
 
16. Citations/References of the Domain in Wikipedia (beyond the value of the link alone)
22% very minimal importance
12.4% moderate contention
 
17. Use of Feeds on the Domain
21% very minimal importance
10.8% moderate consensus
 
18. Citations/References of the Domain in the Librarian’s Internet Index - Lii.org (beyond the value of the link       alone)
21% very minimal importance
12.4% moderate contention
 
19. Domain Registration with Google Webmaster Tools
18% very minimal importance
11.8% moderate consensus
 
20. Activation of Google’s “Enhanced Image Search” (aka image labeler)
17% very minimal importance
10.3% moderate consensus
 
21. Use of Security Certificate on the Domain (for HTTPS transactions)
14% very minimal importance
8.5% moderate consensus
 
22. Validity of Mailing Address/Phone Numbers/Records from Domain Registration
13% very minimal importance
8.3% moderate consensus
 
23. Citations/References of the Domain in Google Knol Articles (beyond the value of the link alone)
13% very minimal importance
9.2% moderate consensus
 
24. Use of a Google Search Appliance on the Domain
6% very minimal importance
7.4% moderate consensus
 
25. Use of Google AdSense on the Domain
5% very minimal importance
6.1% moderate consensus
 
26. Use of Google AdWords for Ads Pointing to the Domain
5% very minimal importance
5.8% moderate consensus
 
27. Alexa Rank of the Domain (independent of actual traffic)
5% very minimal importance
5.8% moderate consensus
 
28. Compete.com Rank of the Domain (independent of actual traffic)
5% very minimal importance
6.1% moderate consensus
 
29. Use of Google’s Hosted Web Apps (not App Engine) on the Domain
3% very minimal importance
4.9% strong consensus
 
Top


Social Media/Social Graph Based Ranking Factors

1. Delicious Data About the Domain or Page
21% very minimal importance
11.9% light consensus
 
2. StumbleUpon Data About the Domain or Page
19% very minimal importance
12.3% moderate contention
 
3. Twitter Data About the Domain or Page
17% very minimal importance
10.7% light consensus
 
4. LinkedIn Data About the Domain or Page
15% very minimal importance
11% light consensus
 
5. Facebook Data About the Domain or Page
12% very minimal importance
9.1% moderate consensus
 
6. MySpace Data About the Domain or Page
11% very minimal importance
8.4% moderate consensus
 
Top


Usage Data Ranking Factors

1. Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to the Exact Page/URL
42% low importance
11.4% light consensus
 
2. Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to Pages on this Domain
39% low importance
11.3% light consensus
 
3. Search Queries for the Domain Name or Associated Brand
36% low importance
12.3% moderate contention
 
4. Use of Query Refinement Post-Click on a Search Result
32% minimal importance
11.2% light consensus
 
5. Average “Time on Page” Duration
26% minimal importance
12% light consensus
 
6. Data from Google’s SearchWiki Voting, Ratings, Comments
19% very minimal importance
9.1% moderate consensus
 
7. References/Links to the Domain in Gmail Emails
9% very minimal importance
7.7% moderate consensus
 
Top


Negative Ranking Factors

1. Cloaking with Malicious/Manipulative Intent
68% very high importance
10.7% light consensus
 
2. Link Acquisition from Known Link Brokers/Sellers
56% high importance
13.1% moderate contention
 
3. Links from the Page to Web Spam Sites/Pages
51% moderate importance
12.1% moderate contention
 
4. Cloaking by User Agent
51% moderate importance
15.2% moderate contention
 
5. Frequent Server Downtime & Site Inaccessibility
51% moderate importance
12.3% moderate contention
 
6. Hiding Text with same/similar colored text/background
49% moderate importance
15.3% moderate contention
 
7. Links from the Domain to Web Spam Sites/Pages
48% moderate importance
13.1% moderate contention
 
8. Excessive Repetition of the Same Anchor Text in a High Percentage/Quantity of External Links to the Site/Page
46% moderate importance
11% light consensus
 
9. Cloaking by IP Address
46% moderate importance
15.3% moderate contention
 
10. Hiding Text with CSS by Offsetting the Pixel display outside the visible page area
44% low importance
14.8% moderate contention
 
11. Excessive Number of Dynamic Parameters in the URL
43% low importance
13.5% moderate contention
 
12. Excessive Links from Sites Hosted on the Same IP Address C-Block
41% low importance
10.5% light consensus
 
13. Link Acquisition from Manipulative Bait-and-Switch Campaigns (301’ing microsites, etc.)
41% low importance
12.9% moderate contention
 
14. Keyword Stuffing in the On-Page Text
41% low importance
11.3% light consensus
 
15. Hiding Text with CSS display:none; Styling
40% low importance
14.2% moderate contention
 
16. Keyword Stuffing in the <title> Tag
39% low importance
11.2% light consensus
 
17. Keyword Stuffing in the URL
37% low importance
9.9% light consensus
 
18. Link Acquisition from Manipulative Widget/Badge Campaigns
37% low importance
12.8% moderate contention
 
19. Cloaking by JavaScript/Rich Media Support Detection
37% low importance
15.4% moderate contention
 
20. Cloaking by Cookie Detection
36% low importance
16.3% moderate contention
 
21. Link Acquisition from Low Quality Paid Directories
36% low importance
12.2% moderate contention
 
22. Excessive Links from Sites Owned by the Same Registrant
36% low importance
12.4% moderate contention
 
23. Links to the Page from Web Spam Sites/Pages
36% low importance
13.1% moderate contention
 
24. Links to the Domain from Web Spam Sites/Pages
34% minimal importance
14% moderate contention
 
25. Link Acquisition from Manipulative Viral Campaigns
33% minimal importance
12.9% moderate contention
 
26. Cloaking with Positive User Experience Intent
33% minimal importance
12.8% moderate contention
 
27. Over-Optimization of Internal Link Anchor Text
32% minimal importance
11.2% light consensus
 
28. Use of “Poison” Keywords in Anchor Text of External Links (e.g. student credit cards, buy viagra, porn terms,       etc.)
32% minimal importance
11.9% light consensus
 
29. Link Acquisition from Buying Old Domains & Redirecting
32% minimal importance
13.2% moderate contention
 
30. Excessively Long URL
30% minimal importance
13% moderate contention
 
31. Use of Keyword-Rich Anchor Text Internal Links in Footers
27% minimal importance
10.2% moderate consensus
 
32. Keyword Stuffing in the Meta Description Tag
26% minimal importance
11.2% light consensus
 
33. Link Acquisition from Buying Old Domains and Adding Links
24% very minimal importance
10.2% light consensus
 
34. Overuse of Nofollow on Internal Links for “PageRank Sculpting”
24% very minimal importance
10.9% light consensus
 
35. Forum Link Building (Signatures, Link Drops, etc.)
22% very minimal importance
12.8% moderate contention
 
36. Excessively Long Title Tag
21% very minimal importance
9.1% light consensus
 
37. Keyword Stuffing in the Meta Keywords Tag
15% very minimal importance
10.9% light consensus
 
Top


Factors Negatively Affecting the Value of an External Link

1. Domain Banned from Google’s Index for Web Spam
70% very high importance
10.8% moderate consensus
 
2. Domain’s Rankings Penalized in Google for Web Spam
65% very high importance
10.9% light consensus
 
3. Link is Determined to be “Paid” Rather than Editorially Given
63% high importance
12.5% moderate contention
 
4. Domain Contains Links to a Significant Amount of Web Spam
52% moderate importance
11.3% light consensus
 
5. Domain Has Not Earned Trusted Links
41% low importance
11.8% light consensus
 
Top


Geo-Targeting Factors:

1. Country Code TLD of the Root Domain (e.g. .co.uk, .de, .fr, .com.au, etc.)
69% very high importance
7.9% moderate consensus
 
2. Language of the Content Used on the Site
63% high importance
9.3% light consensus
 
3. Links from Other Domains Targeted to the Country/Region
60% high importance
10.3% light consensus
 
4. Geographic Location of the Host IP Address of the Domain
57% high importance
12%.0 moderate contention
 
5. Manual Review/Targeting by Google Engineers and/or Quality Raters
53% moderate importance
14.6% strong contention
 
6. Geo-Targeting Preference Set Inside Google Webmaster Tools
52% moderate importance
11.4% light consensus
 
7. Registration of the Site with Google Local in the Country/Region
45% moderate importance
10.3% light consensus
 
8. Address in On-Page Text Content
41% low importance
11.8% light consensus
 
9. Address Associated with the Registration of the Domain
35% low importance
12.3% moderate contention
 
10. Geographic Location of Visitors to the Site (the country/region from which many/most visitors arrive)
30% minimal importance
10.2% light consensus
 
11. Geo-Tagging of Pages via Meta Data (e.g. Dublin Core Meta Data Initiative)
24% very minimal importance
10.8% light consensus
 
Top
 

Copyright © 2008 Bergstrom Inc. All rights reserved