Web design New York

Google’s John Mueller recently spoke on the topic of placing links and where on the page they hold the most value.

This was discussed during a Google Webmaster Central hangout on May 1 where the following question was submitted:

“Is there any difference in link value between static and main content? I mean links from navigation and product pages. Do they have the same value.”

Here is Mueller’s response.

Don’t Focus on Algorithms Over Users

Mueller prefaces his response with a familiar warning not to focus on SEO over doing what makes the most sense for users.

Google’s algorithm is designed in a way that it responds to things how actual users would, Mueller says.

So, in general, what makes sense for users will also make sense for Google’s algorithm.

Mueller strongly recommends optimizing for users first because you may drive them away if you’re focused on trying to “game the algorithm.”

Back to the Original Question…

As it relates to the specific question of where links are most valuable, Mueller once again brings up the point of optimizing for users.

Users primarily focus on a page’s main content, which is what Mueller suggests Google’s algorithm does as well:

“So with this specific situation – usually what happens here is we do focus on the primary content on the page. And that’s something that make sense from a user point of view.”

Primary content is always the main focus, but Google still pays attention to the rest of the page.

How has the competitive landscape changed?
Find out if your competitors secured their market positions in recent months.

Get Data for Free

ADVERTISEMENT

Related: Google on Whether Link Value Changes With Age

What Does Mueller Mean By This?

Mueller is always cautious about how much he gives away regarding the value of links, but here’s what we can infer from his response.

Links in the body content of a page are likely to be weighted highest, given how that’s Google’s primary focus.

Links in static content, such as the footer or navigation menu, are given some weight but are not Google’s main focus.

In the end though, if you’re really torn about where the best place is to put a link, do what makes the most sense for users.

Hear the full question and answer in the video below:

“It feels a little bit like you’re focusing too much on links rather than trying to make a website that works well for users.

The tricky part with a lot of these things is, obviously, that we try to make our algorithm so they respond to things similar to how users would respond.

So if you’re trying to, essentially, game the algorithms the way they’re set up now that’s something that…

If users changed their behavior, and user decide “oh, this kind of content is no longer as interesting to me, or no longer as useful for me…”

Then that’s something where you’re essentially stuck with that old version.

So with this specific situation – usually what happens here is we do focus on the primary content on the page. And that’s something that make sense from a user point of view.

If you have one page then usually you focus on what is actually unique about this page and you kind of ignore the rest.

I mean, you still use it, but you primarily focus on the primary content.

My general recommendation here, if you’re doing internal linking, is to focus on making your website work well for users.”

Why Google Correlation Studies are Unreliable

 Roger Montti 

  / April 30, 2020

• 235

  SHARES

•  

• 1.3K

  READS

Correlation studies of Google search results have a long tradition in SEO.  But they also may be unreliable for providing insights into how Google ranks web pages. Using insights from correlation studies in an SEO strategy may result in poor decisions.

Bill Slawski On Pitfalls of Correlation Studies

Bill Slawski shared a reason why correlation studies are unreliable:
“The data in correlation studies may be cleaned so that one boxes and featured Snippets don’t appear… but it’s been a long time since we lived in a world of ten blue links. “

I asked Bill Slawski (@bill_slawski) about correlation studies and he pointed out several reasons why those studies may lead to inaccurate conclusions.

This is what Bill said:

“One issue is the placement of search results that are augmented results taken from knowledge based upon an entity in a query.

A correlation study may have difficulties explain anything about those without an awareness of how that augmentation process works, or One Boxes, which aren’t in search results because of the number of backlinks pointed to them.

The same with top stories at the top of search results. They aren’t there based on backlinks.

The data in correlation studies may be cleaned so that one boxes and featured Snippets don’t appear within them, but it’s been a long time since we lived in a world of ten blue links.

Not sure I have seen a correlation study that covers those other types of results well at all.

How would a correlation study include information about top stories which are triggered in the SERPs depending upon the query?

Google has a number of triggering events happening based on the query. Has data been cleansed to remove those, since they may not fit into the conclusions of the study? I suspect that may take place in a lot of studies.

The manipulation of the data is unfortunate because it means the results of the study mirror the conclusions set for it before it is run.”

Backlink Correlations

Some correlations studies will find that having more links correlates with the number one ranked sites. Other correlation studies have discovered ideal anchor text ratios and how many links should be pointed to the home page.

But there is a problem with these kinds of findings.

Positions 1 – 10 of Google’s search results are often ranked for different search intents. The classic example of this reality in the SERPs is the search results for the search phrase, jaguar.

One way Google ranks the SERPs is according to the popularity of search intent. In the case of the search phrase, jaguar, the most popular search intent is that of the automobile.

The reason that the web page for jaguar the animal does not rank in the top spot has nothing to do with the amount of backlinks or anchor text ratios. It’s excluded from the number one position because the search intent for animal does not match the search intent for automobile.

Related: What Is a Natural Link?

ADVERTISEMENT

A search for jaguar could be a search for:

• a car
• an animal
• a football team.
• news about the car
• reviews about the latest car
• videos about the car

The above are examples of what Google currently ranks in the top ten for the search query, jaguar.  That’s six search intents just for the first page of Google’s search results pages (SERPs).

The above is an example of search intent diversity. Search intent diversity is a big reason why correlation studies are unreliable.

Search Intent Diversity

There is a diversity of search intent for just about every search query.

The more vague the search query the more likely Google will show navigational search features like People Also Ask, which further complicates correlation studies.

The old way of search results that are ten blue links are a thing of the past. But correlation studies treat the SERPs as if they were still ten blue links. That’s another way that correlation studies are flawed.

Correlation studies ignore the reality of search intent diversity and many other modern day search features.

This is an example of what a typical search result might resemble:

• Position three might be a result about How to Do A.
• Position four might be about where to buy A.
• Position five might be about reviews of A and their competitors B and C.
• Position six might be about latest news about A.

ADVERTISEMENT

In the above example each site is ranked not because of the amount of links. They are ranked according to the most popular search intent.

It’s like the search results for the search term Jaguar. The top result (an automobile site) isn’t there because it has more backlinks than the Wikipedia page for jaguar the animal.

The top result is there because the most popular search intent for the phrase jaguar is a web page about Jaguar automobiles.

The backlink counts between positions one, three, four, five and six are totally irrelevant to the reason why those pages are ranked in those positions. There are generally multiple search intents for any given search query.

Consequently, any correlation study that draws conclusions from the top ten or top twenty of Google’s search results is going to yield information that does not accurately reflect how Google ranks web pages.

To try to get a more accurate result, a research study would have to first identify the different intents and assign them a classification like Informational, Transactional, Educational, etc.

But even if that was done, there is still a flaw. The search intent classifications will not match the search intents that Google used to create any given SERP.

ADVERTISEMENT

Related: How People Search: Understanding User Intent

Nobody Can Reverse Engineer Search Results

Unraveling Google’s search results through correlation studies is not as simple as correlating ranking factors with millions of SERPs for the reasons outlined above.

Correlation studies have always been unreliable. Yet many people continue to believe in them. They make great clickbait.

But perhaps it’s time for the SEO industry to grow up and set them aside.