europeforvisitors
msg:3514641 | 7:02 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I don't think it's that simple. If it were, mom-and-pop sites wouldn't outrank heavily SEOed megasites for competitive phrases.
|
tedster
msg:3514652 | 7:18 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I agree that it's not that simple. However, there is a lot of conjecture in this whole area of using traffic data in the algorithm. Various patents do indicate that they've developed the technology in theory, but if it's in use, then where might the traffic data be coming from? Obviously clicks on a SERP listing really matter a lot - so if your snippet or title look messed up, that's something to take care of. But where else is traffic data available that Google can use? I for one don't think that Google Analytics is playing into it. There's just not enough market penetration for that to work.
|
OrganicPop
msg:3514712 | 8:30 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
thanks.
|
nomis5
msg:3514739 | 9:27 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
It's irrelevant. 100,000 per day or 1,000 per day, Google ranks you the same. IMHO
|
petehall
msg:3514748 | 9:34 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
I don't think numbers have anything to do with the algo. I do however believe the 'bounce rate' as a % on a paticular phrase have an effect.
|
kamikaze Optimizer
msg:3514769 | 9:56 pm on Nov 27, 2007 (gmt 0) |
Can we discuss a little history here? I believe (correct me if I am wrong) that in the old days (pre-1998) AOL used traffic in the algo.
|
|
