Minihints

My Online NoteBook

Search Engine Ranking Factors

On-Page (Keyword-Specific) Ranking Factors

  1. Keyword Use Anywhere in the Title Tag

    66% very high importance
    66%
    8% moderate consensus

  2. Keyword Use as the First Word(s) of the Title Tag

    63% high importance
    63%
    11.3% light consensus

  3. Keyword Use in the Root Domain Name (e.g. keyword.com)

    60% high importance
    60%
    11.2% light consensus

  4. Keyword Use Anywhere in the H1 Headline Tag

    49% moderate importance
    49%
    10.2% light consensus

  5. Keyword Use in Internal Link Anchor Text on the Page

    47% moderate importance
    47%
    13% moderate contention

  6. Keyword Use in External Link Anchor Text on the Page

    46% moderate importance
    46%
    13.6% moderate contention

  7. Keyword Use as the First Word(s) in the H1 Tag

    45% moderate importance
    45%
    11.7% light consensus

  8. Keyword Use in the First 50-100 Words in HTML on the Page

    45% moderate importance
    45%
    9.9% light consensus

  9. Keyword Use in the Subdomain Name (e.g. keyword.seomoz.org)

    42% low importance
    42%
    9% light consensus

  10. Keyword Use in the Page Name URL (e.g. seomoz.org/folder/keyword.html)

    38% low importance
    38%
    9.1% light consensus

  11. Keyword Use in the Page Folder URL (e.g. seomoz.org/keyword/page.html)

    37% low importance
    37%
    8.6% light consensus

  12. Keyword Use in other Headline Tags (<h2> – <h6>)

    35% low importance
    35%
    8% light consensus

  13. Keyword Use in Image Alt Text

    33% minimal importance
    33%
    8.7% light consensus

  14. Keyword Use / Number of Repetitions in the HTML Text on the Page

    33% minimal importance
    33%
    10.3% light consensus

  15. Keyword Use in Image Names Included on the Page (e.g. keyword.jpg)

    33% minimal importance
    33%
    8.6% light consensus

  16. Keyword Use in <b> or <strong> Tags

    26% minimal importance
    26%
    7.6% moderate consensus

  17. Keyword Density Formula (# of Keyword Uses ÷ Total # of Terms on the Page)

    25% minimal importance
    25%
    9.8% light consensus

  18. Keyword Use in List Items <li> on the Page

    23% very minimal importance
    23%
    9.5% light consensus

  19. Keyword Use in the Page’s Query Parameters (e.g. seomoz.org/page.html?keyword)

    22% very minimal importance
    22%
    7.6% moderate consensus

  20. Keyword Use in <i> or <em> Tags

    21% very minimal importance
    21%
    8.4% light consensus

  21. Keyword Use in the Meta Description Tag

    19% very minimal importance
    19%
    9.9% light consensus

  22. Keyword Use in the Page’s File Extension (e.g. seomoz.org/page.keyword)

    12% very minimal importance
    12%
    8.3% light consensus

  23. Keyword Use in Comment Tags in the HTML

    6% very minimal importance
    6%
    5.7% moderate consensus

  24. Keyword Use in the Meta Keywords Tag

    5% very minimal importance
    5%
    5.5% moderate consensus

On-Page (Non-Keyword) Ranking Factors

  1. Existence of Substantive, Unique Content on the Page

    65% very high importance
    65%
    9.2% moderate consensus

  2. Recency (freshness) of Page Creation

    50% moderate importance
    50%
    10.5% moderate consensus

  3. Use of Links on the Page that Point to Other URLs on this Domain

    41% low importance
    41%
    12.6% moderate contention

  4. Historical Content Changes (how often the page content has been updated)

    39% low importance
    39%
    10.9% moderate consensus

  5. Use of External-Pointing Links on the Page

    37% low importance
    37%
    13.3% moderate contention

  6. Query Parameters in the URL vs. Static URL Format

    33% minimal importance
    33%
    11.8% moderate consensus

  7. Ratio of Code to Text in HTML

    25% minimal importance
    25%
    11% moderate consensus

  8. Existence of a Meta Description Tag

    22% very minimal importance
    22%
    11% moderate consensus

  9. HTML Validation to W3C Standards

    16% very minimal importance
    16%
    9.3% moderate consensus

  10. Use of Flash Elements (or other plug-in content)

    13% very minimal importance
    13%
    10.1% moderate consensus

  11. Use of Advertising on the Page

    11% very minimal importance
    11%
    8.6% moderate consensus

  12. Use of Google AdSense (specifically) on the Page

    8% very minimal importance
    8%
    7.3% moderate consensus

Page-Specific Link Popularity Ranking Factors

  1. Keyword-Focused Anchor Text from External Links

    73% very high importance
    73%
    6.4% moderate consensus

  2. External Link Popularity (quantity/quality of external links)

    71% very high importance
    71%
    9.2% moderate consensus

  3. Diversity of Link Sources (links from many unique root domains)

    67% very high importance
    67%
    8.5% moderate consensus

  4. Page-Specific TrustRank (whether the individual page has earned links from trusted sources)

    65% very high importance
    65%
    8.7% moderate consensus

  5. Iterative Algorithm-Based, Global Link Popularity (PageRank)

    63% high importance
    63%
    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
    58%
    10.6% moderate consensus

  7. Keyword-Focused Anchor Text from Internal Links

    55% high importance
    55%
    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
    51%
    10.7% moderate consensus

  9. Internal Link Popularity (counting only links from other pages on the root domain)

    51% moderate importance
    51%
    9.1% moderate consensus

  10. Quantity & Quality of Nofollowed Links to the Page

    25% minimal importance
    25%
    10.8% moderate consensus

  11. Percent of Followed vs. Nofollowed Links that Point to the Page

    17% very minimal importance
    17%
    11.4% moderate consensus

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
    66%
    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
    64%
    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
    64%
    9.5% light consensus

  4. Links from Hubs/Authorities in a Given Topic-Specific Neighborhood (as per the “Hilltop” algorithm)

    64% high importance
    64%
    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
    52%
    9.5% light consensus

  6. Links from Domains with Restricted Access TLD Extensions (e.g. .edu, .gov, .mil, .ac.uk, etc.)

    47% moderate importance
    47%
    13.8% moderate contention

  7. Percent of Followed vs. Nofollowed Links that Point to the Domain

    21% very minimal importance
    21%
    11% light consensus

Site-Wide (non-link based) Ranking Factors

  1. Site Architecture of the Domain (whether intelligent, useful hierarchies are employed)

    52% moderate importance
    52%
    13% moderate contention

  2. Use of External Links to Reputable, Trustworthy Sites/Pages

    37% low importance
    37%
    10.8% moderate consensus

  3. Length of Domain Registration

    37% low importance
    37%
    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
    36%
    12.3% moderate contention

  5. Server/Hosting Uptime

    32% minimal importance
    32%
    11.4% moderate consensus

  6. Hosting Information (what other domains are hosted on the server/c-block of IP addresses)

    31% minimal importance
    31%
    10.4% moderate consensus

  7. Domain Registration Ownership Change (whether the domain has changed hands according to registration records)

    31% minimal importance
    31%
    11.3% moderate consensus

  8. Inclusion of Feeds from the Domain in Google News

    31% minimal importance
    31%
    14.9% moderate contention

  9. Use of XML Sitemap(s)

    29% minimal importance
    29%
    12.3% moderate contention

  10. Domain Ownership (who registered the domain and their history)

    25% minimal importance
    25%
    12.1% moderate contention

  11. Domain Registration with Google Local

    24% very minimal importance
    24%
    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
    24%
    9.8% moderate consensus

  13. Inclusion of Feeds from the Domain in Google Blog Search

    24% very minimal importance
    24%
    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
    24%
    12.2% moderate contention

  15. Citations/References of the Domain in DMOZ.org (beyond the value of the link alone)

    23% very minimal importance
    23%
    11.5% moderate consensus

  16. Citations/References of the Domain in Wikipedia (beyond the value of the link alone)

    22% very minimal importance
    22%
    12.4% moderate contention

  17. Use of Feeds on the Domain

    21% very minimal importance
    21%
    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
    21%
    12.4% moderate contention

  19. Domain Registration with Google Webmaster Tools

    18% very minimal importance
    18%
    11.8% moderate consensus

  20. Activation of Google’s “Enhanced Image Search” (aka image labeler)

    17% very minimal importance
    17%
    10.3% moderate consensus

  21. Use of Security Certificate on the Domain (for HTTPS transactions)

    14% very minimal importance
    14%
    8.5% moderate consensus

  22. Validity of Mailing Address/Phone Numbers/Records from Domain Registration

    13% very minimal importance
    13%
    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
    13%
    9.2% moderate consensus

  24. Use of a Google Search Appliance on the Domain

    6% very minimal importance
    6%
    7.4% moderate consensus

  25. Use of Google AdSense on the Domain

    5% very minimal importance
    5%
    6.1% moderate consensus

  26. Use of Google AdWords for Ads Pointing to the Domain

    5% very minimal importance
    5%
    5.8% moderate consensus

  27. Alexa Rank of the Domain (independent of actual traffic)

    5% very minimal importance
    5%
    5.8% moderate consensus

  28. Compete.com Rank of the Domain (independent of actual traffic)

    5% very minimal importance
    5%
    6.1% moderate consensus

  29. Use of Google’s Hosted Web Apps (not App Engine) on the Domain

    3% very minimal importance
    3%
    4.9% strong consensus

Social Media/Social Graph Based Ranking Factors

  1. Delicious Data About the Domain or Page

    21% very minimal importance
    21%
    11.9% light consensus

  2. StumbleUpon Data About the Domain or Page

    19% very minimal importance
    19%
    12.3% moderate contention

  3. Twitter Data About the Domain or Page

    17% very minimal importance
    17%
    10.7% light consensus

  4. LinkedIn Data About the Domain or Page

    15% very minimal importance
    15%
    11% light consensus

  5. Facebook Data About the Domain or Page

    12% very minimal importance
    12%
    9.1% moderate consensus

  6. MySpace Data About the Domain or Page

    11% very minimal importance
    11%
    8.4% moderate consensus

Usage Data Ranking Factors

  1. Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to the Exact Page/URL

    42% low importance
    42%
    11.4% light consensus

  2. Historical Click-Through Rate from Search Results to Pages on this Domain

    39% low importance
    39%
    11.3% light consensus

  3. Search Queries for the Domain Name or Associated Brand

    36% low importance
    36%
    12.3% moderate contention

  4. Use of Query Refinement Post-Click on a Search Result

    32% minimal importance
    32%
    11.2% light consensus

  5. Average “Time on Page” Duration

    26% minimal importance
    26%
    12% light consensus

  6. Data from Google’s SearchWiki Voting, Ratings, Comments

    19% very minimal importance
    19%
    9.1% moderate consensus

  7. References/Links to the Domain in Gmail Emails

    9% very minimal importance
    9%
    7.7% moderate consensus

Negative Ranking Factors

  1. Cloaking with Malicious/Manipulative Intent

    68% very high importance
    68%
    10.7% light consensus

  2. Link Acquisition from Known Link Brokers/Sellers

    56% high importance
    56%
    13.1% moderate contention

  3. Links from the Page to Web Spam Sites/Pages

    51% moderate importance
    51%
    12.1% moderate contention

  4. Cloaking by User Agent

    51% moderate importance
    51%
    15.2% moderate contention

  5. Frequent Server Downtime & Site Inaccessibility

    51% moderate importance
    51%
    12.3% moderate contention

  6. Hiding Text with same/similar colored text/background

    49% moderate importance
    49%
    15.3% moderate contention

  7. Links from the Domain to Web Spam Sites/Pages

    48% moderate importance
    48%
    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
    46%
    11% light consensus

  9. Cloaking by IP Address

    46% moderate importance
    46%
    15.3% moderate contention

  10. Hiding Text with CSS by Offsetting the Pixel display outside the visible page area

    44% low importance
    44%
    14.8% moderate contention

  11. Excessive Number of Dynamic Parameters in the URL

    43% low importance
    43%
    13.5% moderate contention

  12. Excessive Links from Sites Hosted on the Same IP Address C-Block

    41% low importance
    41%
    10.5% light consensus

  13. Link Acquisition from Manipulative Bait-and-Switch Campaigns (301’ing microsites, etc.)

    41% low importance
    41%
    12.9% moderate contention

  14. Keyword Stuffing in the On-Page Text

    41% low importance
    41%
    11.3% light consensus

  15. Hiding Text with CSS display:none; Styling

    40% low importance
    40%
    14.2% moderate contention

  16. Keyword Stuffing in the <title> Tag

    39% low importance
    39%
    11.2% light consensus

  17. Keyword Stuffing in the URL

    37% low importance
    37%
    9.9% light consensus

  18. Link Acquisition from Manipulative Widget/Badge Campaigns

    37% low importance
    37%
    12.8% moderate contention

  19. Cloaking by JavaScript/Rich Media Support Detection

    37% low importance
    37%
    15.4% moderate contention

  20. Cloaking by Cookie Detection

    36% low importance
    36%
    16.3% moderate contention

  21. Link Acquisition from Low Quality Paid Directories

    36% low importance
    36%
    12.2% moderate contention

  22. Excessive Links from Sites Owned by the Same Registrant

    36% low importance
    36%
    12.4% moderate contention

  23. Links to the Page from Web Spam Sites/Pages

    36% low importance
    36%
    13.1% moderate contention

  24. Links to the Domain from Web Spam Sites/Pages

    34% minimal importance
    34%
    14% moderate contention

  25. Link Acquisition from Manipulative Viral Campaigns

    33% minimal importance
    33%
    12.9% moderate contention

  26. Cloaking with Positive User Experience Intent

    33% minimal importance
    33%
    12.8% moderate contention

  27. Over-Optimization of Internal Link Anchor Text

    32% minimal importance
    32%
    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
    32%
    11.9% light consensus

  29. Link Acquisition from Buying Old Domains & Redirecting

    32% minimal importance
    32%
    13.2% moderate contention

  30. Excessively Long URL

    30% minimal importance
    30%
    13% moderate contention

  31. Use of Keyword-Rich Anchor Text Internal Links in Footers

    27% minimal importance
    27%
    10.2% moderate consensus

  32. Keyword Stuffing in the Meta Description Tag

    26% minimal importance
    26%
    11.2% light consensus

  33. Link Acquisition from Buying Old Domains and Adding Links

    24% very minimal importance
    24%
    10.2% light consensus

  34. Overuse of Nofollow on Internal Links for “PageRank Sculpting”

    24% very minimal importance
    24%
    10.9% light consensus

  35. Forum Link Building (Signatures, Link Drops, etc.)

    22% very minimal importance
    22%
    12.8% moderate contention

  36. Excessively Long Title Tag

    21% very minimal importance
    21%
    9.1% light consensus

  37. Keyword Stuffing in the Meta Keywords Tag

    15% very minimal importance
    15%
    10.9% light consensus

Factors Negatively Affecting the Value of an External Link

  1. Domain Banned from Google’s Index for Web Spam

    70% very high importance
    70%
    10.8% moderate consensus

  2. Domain’s Rankings Penalized in Google for Web Spam

    65% very high importance
    65%
    10.9% light consensus

  3. Link is Determined to be “Paid” Rather than Editorially Given

    63% high importance
    63%
    12.5% moderate contention

  4. Domain Contains Links to a Significant Amount of Web Spam

    52% moderate importance
    52%
    11.3% light consensus

  5. Domain Has Not Earned Trusted Links

    41% low importance
    41%
    11.8% light consensus

Geo-Targeting Factors:

  1. Country Code TLD of the Root Domain (e.g. .co.uk, .de, .fr, .com.au, etc.)

    69% very high importance
    69%
    7.9% moderate consensus

  2. Language of the Content Used on the Site

    63% high importance
    63%
    9.3% light consensus

  3. Links from Other Domains Targeted to the Country/Region

    60% high importance
    60%
    10.3% light consensus

  4. Geographic Location of the Host IP Address of the Domain

    57% high importance
    57%
    12%.0 moderate contention

  5. Manual Review/Targeting by Google Engineers and/or Quality Raters

    53% moderate importance
    53%
    14.6% strong contention

  6. Geo-Targeting Preference Set Inside Google Webmaster Tools

    52% moderate importance
    52%
    11.4% light consensus

  7. Registration of the Site with Google Local in the Country/Region

    45% moderate importance
    45%
    10.3% light consensus

  8. Address in On-Page Text Content

    41% low importance
    41%
    11.8% light consensus

  9. Address Associated with the Registration of the Domain

    35% low importance
    35%
    12.3% moderate contention

  10. Geographic Location of Visitors to the Site (the country/region from which many/most visitors arrive)

    30% minimal importance
    30%
    10.2% light consensus

  11. Geo-Tagging of Pages via Meta Data (e.g. Dublin Core Meta Data Initiative)

    24% very minimal importance
    24%
    10.8% light consensus
via seomoz.org