In a single tweet, how best to promote its SEO value

[hungry_bear]

In using a single tweet to promote a webpage, other than adding a request to retweet and link to the page, what else should one do/not do within the body of the tweet? Is clear phrasing with keywords important only within the 1st 42 characters? No/few hashtags?

(This is asking just about what to put in the one tweet, ignoring all other media; assume nothing else will be done to promote, e.g., following addn'l others, building websites, Facebook.)

[martinibuster]

I don't see it as SEO. More like building awareness and popularity which may indirectly feed into rankings or traffic.

Twitter is a community. So rather than thinking in terms of broadcasting, think in terms of joining in a conversation. That means having something interesting to say. Bring people together rather than blasting criticism. Amplifying others, etc.

Good luck!

Roger Montti

[hungry_bear]

IIUC (e.g., from [searchengineland.com...] ), Google reads (some) Tweets and is more likely to rank links to webpages given in the tweet more highly depending on a) how often the tweet is retweeted, b) the 'influence' of the retweeter, …. No?

[aristotle]

Well I don't use twitter, but most big social media sites automatically put nofollow tags on all outbound links. Regardless, any backlink from a site like twitter probably has very little SEO value no matter how much it's dressed up. The main value would lie in how much traffic it sends to the site.

[hungry_bear]

Re "how much traffic" … right — I should've also listed a request for readers to click on the link, thx.

Re 'nofollow', I had found this from [smallbusiness.chron.com...] (13 May 2013):

NoFollow Links: The rel="nofollow" tag was developed by Google as a way for webmasters to tell the search engine to ignore a link. Usually, websites would use these tags for paid links or content that wasn't trustworthy. When determining PageRank, a 1 through 10 rating indicating authority, these links would not pass "juice," meaning that the website containing the link would not pass its authority through to the linked website. For a while, webmasters would game the search engines by creating or purchasing a massive amount of "Do Follow" backlinks, guaranteeing a high ranking in the search engines. Google got smarter about patterns along the way, and eventually these sites were penalized due to these practices.

Links that come from Twitter have the rel="nofollow" tag. Since the major algorithm updates, however, these links are just as valuable as followed links in creating a well-rounded back-link portfolio and avoiding penalization. Twitter aggregators may gather Tweets and post them on their websites, providing a followed link in addition to the original nofollow link.

[lucy24]

most big social media sites automatically put nofollow tags on all outbound links

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that tweets to your site would partake in Twitter‘s own link juice. But the act of being shared/liked/tweeted counts for something in its own right ... at least until the search engine figures out that a certain site’s tweets are all coming from the owner of the site being linked to.

[hungry_bear]

Thx … In this instance, it's not for promoting a page belonging to the tweeter, but rather promoting a particular page on Wikipedia. If we assume all the clicks are off of the link in that one tweet or its retweets, I take it that PageRank would still give some weight to the number of clicks and retweets (and number of followers the tweeter and the retweeters have?) rather than just give it a '1' for the original tweet … right?

[tangor]

Tweets generally don't have SEO value for anyone but twitter ...

A simple announcement tweet is about all one gets ... and there's little magic in how those are phrased...

BTW hungry_bear ... welcome to Webmasterworld!

[hungry_bear]

Thx for the welcome …

Re your "Tweets generally don't have SEO value for anyone but twitter": Iiuc, Google would count retweets towards PageRank for the tweet; but would count clicks on the -link- in the tweet — say [wikipedia.org...] — towards PageRank for that WP page, so that the number of people who see the tweet AND click on the link in the tweet would materially affect wikipedia.org/x.htm's PageRank. Right?

Apologies if that's repetitive.

[tangor]

The value of page rank has changed over the years, completely different from what your link from 2013 used to mean. I doubt it is as important now as it was then, though I am NOT saying it has no value. One just can't know HOW much value these links have today.

That said, any notice of product, regardless of who or what, is better than no notice at all. Just don't look for magic numbers!

[tangor]

I also suspect that the "bot farm" nature of twitter and fb (in particular) with fake accounts out the wahzoo might have something to do with any "trust" factors that the search engines might have with links from either.

[hungry_bear]

Thx for the updated perspective; I do appreciate the discounting and hidden formulae. But (last q, I promise) still, it seems to (the admittedly naive) me that Google, given its access to the full Twitter tweet stream, would see that each click on [wikipedia.org...] in a tweet would come from a different Twitter account. And that would factor into PageRank?

[tangor]

Everything factors ... we just don't know how much, and empirical observation seems to suggest these may not have that much value.

YMMV

That said, ALWAYS promote (whatever it is being promoted) if you want anything to happen at all! :)

[tangor]

Promoting from a keyboard is the cheapest method, so go for it!

[hungry_bear]

Grazie

[martinibuster]

Google reads (some) Tweets and is more likely to rank links to webpages given in the tweet...

This part is a fact:

>>>Google reads (some) Tweets...

This part is not a fact. It is an assumption.

... and is more likely to rank links to webpages given in the tweet

The article notes that Google has access to tweets and that is the only VERIFIABLE FACT in the article.

Any conclusion beyond that fact goes way beyond the press release about the deal between Twitter and Google.

There is no official research or patent that discusses using tweets for ranking purposes.

The Stone Temple survey is a correlation study. Correlations prove nothing. If you checked all the top ranked sites you'll see many of them are WordPress. But that does not mean that WordPress helped them ranked. Similarly, if a site has an active social media trail that's just an indicator that they are popular and/or active in their community. It does NOT mean that the tweets themselves helped them rank.

[edited by: martinibuster at 6:23 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2019]

[martinibuster]

Twitter aggregators may gather Tweets and post them on their websites, providing a followed link in addition to the original nofollow link.

1. Nofollowed links pass zero value. To Google there is no link there, only words, the anchor text used, to be precise.

So if the anchor is "click here" or "best seo" that's all Google sees, those words. Google does NOT associate those words with the link (because the link does not exist for Google).

2. Twitter aggregators? You mean scrapers? Scraper sites publishing duplicate content have zero value.

As I said already, Twitter has an indirect value for it's power in growing your popularity.

Google ranks the web pages that people expect to see and those are often the popular pages. Pages are popular because they solve problems or please users because of their content.

But you need the right content and user experience to please people AND THEN the tweets will amplify that satisfaction. Real links, high quality links, follow from there. I am speaking from experience. ;)

Good luck!
;)

Roger Montti

[edited by: martinibuster at 6:25 am (utc) on Aug 28, 2019]

[hungry_bear]

Thx for sharing the benefit of your experience
Much appreciated!