Pushing Organic Rank with Paid Ads

[Dino]

Has anyone here ever tested to see if traffic from paid ads had much of an effect on organic search results?

If traffic is any kind of ranking factor, paid ads could help. That is, unless Google factors in whether or not traffic was generated from paid sources such as Adwords, Yelp ads, Facebook newsfeed Ads, etc.

 

[Laustin1878]

I'm running an AdWords campaign on 2 websites right now and have not seen any push of the needle on the organic side of things. Interesting question and one would think with all the chatter out there about UX on websites and it's supposed effects on rankings, it would have some sort of positive shift to some degree. Of course, that is if the Adwords campaign is somewhat successful.

It makes me wonder if Google filters out paid traffic somehow or Google doesn't use analytics data as much as suspected.

 

[Dino]

Yes, I have been wondering the same thing - that Google may be filtering out paid traffic.

On the one had, it would make sense to do that if Google wanted to keep organic as close to pure results as possible. On the other hand, if it did affect rankings, it would be a way to get more marketers to use Adwords - along with the usual complaints by others claiming unfair advantages to Adwords clients.

 

[Local Mixed]

The thing is that there are so over 200 ranking factors, and you are talking about just one.

Bounce rate/engagement is one factor. If your ads bring traffic that simply leaves, it could be discounting the traffic.

But at the end of the day, just look in your GA account. Google knows what traffic comes from your Adwords ads, so I would expect them not to weigh that traffic for organic results. If they did, it would be a pay of placement engine and they wouldn't need their algorithm or worry about updating their algorithm.

 

[JacobMaslow]

If bounce rate, click through or engagement is a factor at all, it's a lightweight one.

Those sorts of things that I'd easily manipulated. It wouldn't take that many people to muck up the metrics in your favor and numerous sites are now offering "crowd searching" where they get people to click through the organic results on your favor.

Google is under anti trust scrutiny for years in numerous countries. It's still ongoing. Giving an advantage to customers of analytics would be illegal.

 

[Local Mixed]

Most of the factors Google uses are light - that is why there are over 200 ranking factors. While some are heavier than others, it is a sum of the factors that ends up ranking your site.

Here is a good list of Google's Ranking Factors: Google Ranking Factors: The Complete List

 

[JacobMaslow]

Light weight factors are important in non competitive niches. Google cannot use signals that are easy to manipulate like click through from the SERPs or that would violate anti trust like analytics data.

The article you link to says that they just gathered 200 factors and many are nothing more than speculation.

The article clearly states that there is no research, tests or any other basis to rely on the factors listed and much of the list is speculation.

Content, good site structure, quality links and the other classics are all strong signals.

 

[Local Mixed]

Right, no one actually knows exactly what Google uses as factors. However, Google has said there are over 200.

The list I linked to includes the what is commonly accepted as taking factors in the SEO community.

Also, I have argued against bounce rate because if the page provides exactly what the person was looking for, they would have no need to go to a next page.

Decreasing bounce rate is more something to help increase your visitors time on your site. The longer they are there, and the more they look around, the higher the chance for a conversion.

 

[JacobMaslow]

Again, the list does not claim that it is authoritative. They specifically claim that it includes rank speculation. They make it clear that it is not "commonly accepted".


There are a couple of main factors that causes sites like wikipedia to show up for so many results.

Links, site structure and content is not in a state of flux, so they stay on top for many searches.

Personalization and lots of other factors is in a constant state of flux. Those sorts of crowd based factors are constantly shifting but strong sites maintain their results as the more fundamental SEO factors stay the same.

Costco like every other supermarket sells thousands of products. Their profits are derived from the top couple of products. If Georgia Pacific was to be unable to supply them with Paper towels, their sales would be significantly affected.

Just because Google has hundreds of factors that can go into play, doesn't mean it is evenly distributed. If not for the fact that there are a couple of primary factors, results would vary a lot more.

Right, no one actually knows exactly what Google uses as factors. However, Google has said there are over 200.

The list I linked to includes the what is commonly accepted as taking factors in the SEO community.

Also, I have argued against bounce rate because if the page provides exactly what the person was looking for, they would have no need to go to a next page.

Decreasing bounce rate is more something to help increase your visitors time on your site. The longer they are there, and the more they look around, the higher the chance for a conversion.

 

[Local Mixed]

I agree, and never said they are evenly distributed. I said I my first comment that some are weighted heavier. In my last comment I simply stated that the 200 factors in the article are commonly accepted.

Not trying to argue with you, I'm agreeing with you.

 

[painperdu]

The question comes down to does Google allow its properties to inform each other. Does Google Analytics talk to the Google search crawler/s and the AdWords landing page crawler? Why wouldn't they?

If the landing page bot finds malware on a page I'm certain it would store that info in a central index that would then be used by all of Google properties. Likewise with things like speed rating that gets used across all bots.

I don't see any drawback from using info gained by paid means or organic means. As long as the info is correct why wouldn't they use it?

 

[JacobMaslow]

They aren't commonly accepted. Not even by the author of the article.

And google adds some and drops some. Google isn't like Baskin Robbins that has an exact number of flavors and changes the menu every month.

They once stated that they have over 200. By now it is likely over that number.

I agree, and never said they are evenly distributed. I said I my first comment that some are weighted heavier. In my last comment I simply stated that the 200 factors in the article are commonly accepted.

Not trying to argue with you, I'm agreeing with you.