A decent article which encourages discussion and healthy debate. Reading some of the comments I see it also highlights some of the misunderstandings some people (including some SEOs) have of Google PageRank. Toolbar PageRank is not the same thing as PageRank. The little green bar (Toolbar PageRank) was never a very accurate metric and told you very little about the value of any particular web page. It may have been officially killed off earlier this year, but the truth is its been dead for many years. Real PageRank on the other hand, is at the core of Google’s algorithm and remains very important.
7. Keyword research. Specific target keywords aren’t as important for SEO success as they used to be, now that Google search is fueled by semantic and contextual understanding, but you should still be able to identify both head keyword (short, high-volume keywords) and long-tail keyword (longer, conversational, low-volume keywords) targets to guide the direction of your campaign.
When running reports in the search engines you always have the option to further segment your data. You can segment by device, time, network, and much more . There are many different options to choose from giving you the granularity you desire. These can be located on many of the tabs in AdWords. Some segments will only apply to certain sub-sets of data, and other segments can be found once you download the report from the interface.
While ordinary users were not that interested in pages' scores, SEOs of a different caliber felt that this was a great opportunity to make a difference for their customers. This obsession of SEOs with PageRank made everyone feel that this ranking signal is more or less the only important one. In spite of the fact that pages with a lower PR score can beat those with a higher score! What did we receive then, as a result?
CTR matters because it is a metric that can be controlled by marketers. However, while Google’s emphasis on CTR should be noted, it is also important that marketers don’t get tunnel vision with improving CTR. It is not an uncommon mistake for marketers to focus primarily on improving CTR… to their detriment. Creating highly attractive ads for the sole purpose of increasing CTR could be a costly error that ultimately impact your account history, especially if the ads are misleading and result in high bounce rates.
Smartphone - In this document, "mobile" or “mobile devices" refers to smartphones, such as devices running Android, iPhone, or Windows Phone. Mobile browsers are similar to desktop browsers in that they can render a broad set of the HTML5 specification, although their screen size is smaller and in almost all cases their default orientation is vertical.
By checking this box, you agree to receive emails (including occasional newsletters) from Yext and its affiliates regarding Yext and Yext’s products, services, special events and offers, surveys, and updates. You can withdraw your consent at any time. Please refer to Yext’s privacy policy (including for the list of relevant Yext affiliates) or contact Yext for more details.

Totally agree — more does not always equal better. Google takes a sort of ‘Birds of a Feather’ approach when analyzing inbound links, so it’s really all about associating yourself (via inbound links) with websites Google deems high quality and trustworthy so that Google deems YOUR web page high quality and trustworthy. As you mentioned, trying to cut corners, buy links, do one-for-one trades, or otherwise game/manipulate the system never works. The algorithm is too smart.
Advertisers pay for each single click they receive, with the actual amount paid based on the amount of bid. It is common practice amongst auction hosts to charge a winning bidder just slightly more (e.g. one penny) than the next highest bidder or the actual amount bid, whichever is lower.[8] This avoids situations where bidders are constantly adjusting their bids by very small amounts to see if they can still win the auction while paying just a little bit less per click.

Search engines use complex mathematical algorithms to guess which websites a user seeks. In this diagram, if each bubble represents a website, programs sometimes called spiders examine which sites link to which other sites, with arrows representing these links. Websites getting more inbound links, or stronger links, are presumed to be more important and what the user is searching for. In this example, since website B is the recipient of numerous inbound links, it ranks more highly in a web search. And the links "carry through", such that website C, even though it only has one inbound link, has an inbound link from a highly popular site (B) while site E does not. Note: Percentages are rounded.


This extension also takes into account the overall business process. Businesses that successfully roll out rating and review extensions create processes whereby they ask customers for feedback on a regular basis. Search engines also have processes to identify fake reviews as well. Part of this process involves a natural flow of ratings. For example if a business were to suddenly get fifty 5-star ratings in single a month, it would indicate to the search engines the potential for fraudulent reviews.
Google works because it relies on the millions of individuals posting links on websites to help determine which other sites offer content of value. Google assesses the importance of every web page using a variety of techniques, including its patented PageRank™ algorithm which analyzes which sites have been “voted” the best sources of information by other pages across the web.

By relying so much on factors such as keyword density which were exclusively within a webmaster's control, early search engines suffered from abuse and ranking manipulation. To provide better results to their users, search engines had to adapt to ensure their results pages showed the most relevant search results, rather than unrelated pages stuffed with numerous keywords by unscrupulous webmasters. This meant moving away from heavy reliance on term density to a more holistic process for scoring semantic signals.[13] Since the success and popularity of a search engine is determined by its ability to produce the most relevant results to any given search, poor quality or irrelevant search results could lead users to find other search sources. Search engines responded by developing more complex ranking algorithms, taking into account additional factors that were more difficult for webmasters to manipulate. In 2005, an annual conference, AIRWeb, Adversarial Information Retrieval on the Web was created to bring together practitioners and researchers concerned with search engine optimization and related topics.[14]
×