Google Ranking Factors – SEO Checklist

October 14, 2008
By

1. Alleged POSITIVE ON-Page SEO Google Ranking Factors (38)
(Keeping in mind the converse, of course, that when violated, some of these factors immediately jump into the NEGATIVE On-Page Ranking Factors domain.)
The term “Keyword” below refers to the “Keyword Phrase”, which can be one word or more.
Green rows confirmed by Google patent -

Note -
Patent
Claim
#		 Factor
#		 POSITIVE
ON-Page SEO Factors		 Brief Note
50 KEYWORDS Google patent - Topic extraction
For keyword selection,
try Google Ad Words – Google Trends
HOT 1 Keyword in URL First word is best, second is second best, etc.
HOT 2 Keyword in Domain name Same as in page-name-with-hyphens
Keywords – Header
HOT 3 Keyword in Title tag Keyword in Title tag – close to beginning
Title tag 10 – 60 characters, no special characters.
- 4 Keyword in Description meta tag Shows theme – less than 200 chars.
Google no longer “relies” upon this tag, but will often use it.
- 5 Keyword in Keyword metatag Shows theme – less than 10 words.
Every word in this tag MUST appear somewhere in the body text. If not, it can be penalized for irrelevance.
No single word should appear more than twice.
If not, it may be considered spam. Google purportedly no longer uses this tag, but others do.
Keywords – Body
- 6 Keyword density in body text 5 – 20% – (all keywords/ total words)
Some report topic sensitivity – the keyword spamming threshold % varies with the topic.
- 7

Individual keyword density

 1 – 6% – (each keyword/ total words)
HOT 8 Keyword in H1, H2 and H3 Use Hx font style tags appropriately
- 9 Keyword font size “Strong is treated the same as bold, italic is treated the same as emphasis” . . . Matt Cutts July 2006
- 10 Keyword proximity (for 2+ keywords) Directly adjacent is best
- 11 Keyword phrase order Does word order in the page match word order in the query?
Try to anticipate query, and match word order.
- 12 Keyword prominence (how early in page/tag) Can be important at top of page, in bold, in large font
Keywords – Other
- 13 Keyword in alt text Should describe graphic – Do NOT fill with spam
(Was part of Google Florida OOP – tripped a threshold – may still be in effect to some degree as a red flag, when summed with all other on-page optimization – total page optimization score – TPOS).
- 14 Keyword in links to site pages (anchor text) Links out anchor text use keyword?
NAVIGATION – INTERNAL LINKS
SITE 15 To internal pages- keywords? Link should contain keywords.
The filename “linked to” should contain the keywords.
Use hyphenated filenames, but not long ones – two or three hyphens only.
SITE 16

All Internal links valid?

 Validate all links to all pages on site.
Use a free link checker. I like this one.
SITE 17 Efficient – tree-like structure TRY FOR two clicks to any page – no page deeper than 4 clicks
SITE 18 Intra-site linking Appropriate links between lower-level pages
54 NAVIGATION – OUTGOING LINKS
55

19

 To external pages- keywords? Google patent - Link only to good sites. Do not link to link farms. CAREFUL – Links can and do go bad, resulting in site demotion. Unfortunately, you must devote the time necessary to police your outgoing links – they are your responsibility.
56

20

 Outgoing link Anchor Text Google patent - Should be on topic, descriptive
61, 62

21

 Link stability over time Google patent - Avoid “Link Churn”
- 22

All External links valid?

 Validate all links periodically.
- 23 Less than 100 links out total Google says limit to 100,
but readily accepts 2-3 times that number. ref 2k
OTHER ON-Page Factors
- 24 Domain Name Extension
Top Level Domain – TLD		 .gov sites seem to be the highest status
.edu sites seem to be given a high status
.org sites seem to be given a high status
.com sites excel in encompassing all the spam/ crud sites, resulting in the need for the highest scrutiny/ action by Google.
Perhaps one would do well with the new .info domain class.<update> – Nope. Spammers jumped all over it – no safe haven there. Not so much, now – .info sites can rank highly.
- 25 File Size Try not to exceed 100K page size (however, some subject matter, such as this page, requires larger file sizes).
Smaller files are preferred <40K (lots of them).
26 Hyphens in URL Preferred method for indicating a space, where there can be no actual space
One or two= excellent for separating keywords (i.e., pet-smart, pets-mart)
Four or more= BAD, starts to look spammy
Ten = Spammer for sure, demotion probable?
6, 7
12, 13

27

 Freshness of Pages Google patent - Changes over time
Newer the better – if news, retail or auction!
Google likes fresh pages. So do I.
8, 9

28

 Freshness – Amount of Content Change New pages – Ratio of old pages to new pages
27

29

 Freshness of Links Google patent - May be good or bad
Excellent for high-trust sites
May not be so good for newer, low-trust sites
- 30 Frequency of Updates Frequent updates = frequent spidering = newer cache
- 31 Page Theming Page exhibit theme? General consistency?
- 32

Keyword stemming

 Stem, stems, stemmed, stemmer,
stemming, stemmist, stemification
- 33

Applied Semantics

 Synonyms, CIRCA white paper
- 34

LSI

 Latent Semantic Indexing – Speculation, no proof
- 35 URL length Keep it minimized – use somewhat less than the 2,000 characters allowed by IE – less than 100 is good, less is even better
OTHER ON-SITE Factors
5

36

 Site Size – Google likes big sites Larger sites are presumed to be better funded, better organized, better constructed, and therefore better sites. Google likes LARGE sites, for various reasons, not all positive. This has resulted in the advent of machine-generated 10,000-page spam sites – size for the sake of size. Google has caught on and dumped millions of pages, or made them supplemental.
4

37

 Site Age Google patent - Old is best. Old is Golden.
3

38

 Age of page vs. age of site Age of page vs. age of other pages on site
Newer pages on an older site will get faster recognition.
Note: For ALL the POSITIVE On-Page factors listed above,
PAGE RANK can OVERRIDE them all. So can Google-Bombing.

Top of page
2. Alleged Negative ON-Page SEO Google Ranking Factors (24)
Note Factor
#		 NEGATIVE
ON-Page SEO Factors		 Brief Note
BAD 39 Text presented in graphics form only
No ACTUAL body text on the page		 Text represented graphically is invisible to search engines.
BAD 40 Affiliate site? The Florida update went after affiliates with a vengeance – flower and travel affiliates were hit hard – cookie-cutter sites with massive inter-linking, but little unique content. Subsequent updates have also targeted affiliates.
BAD 41 Over optimization penalty (OOP) Penalty for over-compliance with well-established, accepted web optimization practices. Too high keyword repetition (keyword stuffing) may get you the OOP. Overuse of H1 tags has been mentioned. Meta-tag stuffing.
BAD 42 Link to a bad neighborhood Don’t link to link farms, FFAs (Free For All’s)
Also, don’t forget to check the Google status of EVERYONE you link to periodically. A site may go “bad”, and you can end up being penalized, even though you did nothing. For instance, some failed real estate sites have been switched to p0rn by unscrupulous webmasters, for the traffic. This is not good for you, if you are linking to the originally legitimate URL.
BAD 43 Redirect thru refresh metatags Don’t immediately send your visitor to another page other than the one he/ she clicked on, using meta refresh.
BAD 44 Vile language – ethnic slur Including the George Carlin 7 bad words you can’t say on TV, plus the 150 or so that followed. Don’t shoot yourself right straight in the foot. Also, avoid combinations of normal words, which when used together, become something else entirely – such as the word juice, and the word l0ve. See why I wrote that zero? I don’t even want to get a proximity penalty, either. Paranoia, or caution? You decide. I always want to try to put my “best foot forward”.
BAD 45 Poison words The word “Links” in a title tag has been suggested to be a bad idea. Here is my list of Poison Words for Adsense. This penalty has been loosened – many of these words now appear in normal context, with no problems. But watch your step.
BAD 46 Excessive cross-linking - within the same C block (IP=xxx.xxx.CCC.xxx)
If you have many sites (>10, author’s guess) with the same web host, prolific cross-linking can indicate more of a single entity, and less of democratic web voting. Easy to spot, easy to penalize.
“This does not apply to a small number of sites” .. (this author guesses the number 10, JAWG) . . . “hosted on a local server”. . Matt Cutts July 2006
BAD 47 Stealing images/ text blocks from another domain Copyright violation – Google responds strongly
if you are reported. ref egol
File Google DMCA
BAD 48 Keyword stuffing threshold In body, meta tags, alt text, etc. = demotion
?? 49 Keyword dilution Targeting too many unrelated keywords on a page, which would detract from theming, and reduce the importance of your REALLY important keywords.
??

50

 Page edit – can reduce consistency Google patent -
Google is now switching between a “newer” cache, and several “older” caches, frequently drawing from BOTH at the same time.
This was possibly implemented to frustrate SERP manipulators. Did your last edit substantially alter your keywords, or theme? Expect noticeable SERP bouncing.
6 – 7

51

 Frequency of Content Change Google patent - Too frequent = bad
32, 33

52

 Freshness of Anchor Text Google patent - Too frequent = bad
?? 53 Dynamic Pages Problematic – know pitfalls – shorten URLs, reduce variables (“. . no more than 2 or 3″, M.Cutts July 2006), lose the session IDs
?? 54 Excessive Javascript Don’t use for redirects, or hiding links
?? 55 Flash page – NOT Most (all-?) SE spiders can’t read Flash content
Provide an HTML alternative, or experience lower SERP positioning.
?? 56 Use of Frames Spidering Problems with Frames – STILL
- 57 Robot exclusion “no index” tag Intentional self-exclusion
- 58 Single pixel links A red flag – one reason only – a sneaky link.
- 59

Invisible text

 OK – No penalty – Google advises against this.
All over the place – but nothing is ever done. (The text is the same color as the background, and hence cannot be seen by the viewer, but can be visible to the search engine spiders.) I believe Google does penalize for hidden text, since it is an attempt to manipulate rank. Although they don’t catch everyone.
- 60

Gateway, doorway page

(I see changes here – not only does the doorway page disappear, but the main page gets pushed down, as well – this is a welcome fix.)

 OK – No penalty – Google advises against this.
Google used to reward these pages.
Multiple entrance pages in the top ten SERPs – I see it daily. There they are at #2, with their twin at #5 – 6 months now. Reported numerous times.
- 61

Duplicate content (YOUR’S)
Duplicate content (THEIR’S) below (Highjack)

 OK – No penalty – Google advises against this.
Google picks one (usually the oldest), and shoves it to the top, and pushes the second choice down. This has been a big issue with stolen content – the thief usurps your former position with YOUR OWN content.
- 62

HTML code violations
(The big G does not even use DOCTYPE declarations, required for W3C validation.)

 Doesn’t matter – Google advises against this.
Unless of course, the page is totally FUBAR.
Simple HTML verification is NOT required (but advised, since it could contribute to your page quality factor – PQF).
- Since the above 4 items are so controversial, I would like to add this comment:
There are many things that Google would LIKE to have webmasters do, but that they simply cannot control, due to logistical considerations. Their only alternative is to foment fear and doubt by implying that any violation of their “suggestions” will result in swift and fierce demotion.
(This is somewhat dated – G is fixing these things.)		 IN GENERAL, this works pretty well to keep webmasters in line. The fallacy of this is that attentive webmasters can readily observe continuing, blatant exceptions to these official pronouncements.

There are many anecdotes about Goggle “taking care” of a problem. Google states that they do not provide hand-tweaked “boosts”, but are silent about hand-tweaked demotions. They occur, for sure. To believe otherwise is naive. Wouldn’t YOU swat the most obnoxious flies? I would.

It is becoming easier to determine the best thing to do. Try to avoid any Google penalties or demotions.
- 119 Phrase-based ranking, filters, penalties Feb. 2007 – Google patent granted. Do not use phrases that have been associated and correlated with known spamming techniques, or you will be penalized. What phrases? Ahh, you tell me.

Top of page
3. Alleged POSITIVE OFF-Page SEO Google Ranking Factors (43)
Note Factor
#		 POSITIVE
OFF-Page SEO Factors		 Brief Note
INCOMING LINKS :
HOT 63 Page Rank Based on the Number and Quality of links to you
Google link reporting continues to display just a SMALL fraction of your actual backlinks, and they are NOT just greater than PR4 – they are mixed.
- 64

Total incoming links (“backlinks”)

 Historically, FAST counted best (www.alltheweb.com).
No more – Yahoo (parent) broke it.

In Yahoo search, type in:
linksite:www.domain-name.com
linkdomain:www.domainname.com

Try MSN -
http://beta.search.msn.com
Use link:www.domainname.com

Current TYPICAL Backlink Reporting Ratios -
Google – 30 links
MSN – 1,000 links
Yahoo – 3,000 links
- 65

Incoming links from high-ranking pages

 In 2004, Google used to count (report) the links from all PR4+ pages that linked to you. In 2005-2006, Google reported only a small fraction of the links, in what seemed like an almost random manner. In Feb. 2007, Google markedly upgraded (increased) the number of links that they report.
-

66

 Acceleration of link popularity
(“. . . used to be a good thing” … Martha)		 Google patent
Link acquisition speed boost – speculative
Too fast = artificial? Cause of -30 penalty?
Sandbox penalty imposed if new site?
FOR EACH INCOMING LINK :
- 67

Page rank of the referring page

 Based on the quality of links to you
HOT 68

Anchor text of
inbound link to you

 Contains keyword, key phrase?
#1 result in SERP does NOT EVEN need to have the keyword(s) on the page, ANYWHERE!!! What does that tell you? (Enables Google-bombing – search for “miserable failure”)

69

Age of link

 Google patent - Old = Good.

70

Frequency of change of anchor text

 Google patent - Not good. Why would you do that?
71

Popularity of referring page

 Popularity = desirability, respect
- 72

# of outgoing links on referrer page

 Fewer is better – makes yours more important
- 73

Position of link on referrer page

 Early in HTML is best
- 74

Keyword density on referring page

 For search keyword(s)
- 75

HTML title of referrer page

 Same subject/ theme?
28

76

Link from “Expert” site?

 Google patent - Big time boost (Hilltop Algorithm)
Recently reported to give a big boost !
- 77

Referrer page – Same theme

 From the same or related theme? BETTER
- 78

Referrer page – Different theme

 From different or unrelated theme? WORSE
- 79

Image map link?

 Problematic?
- 80

Javascript link?

 Problematic- attempt to hide link?
DIRECTORIES :
HOT 81

Site listed in DMOZ Directory?

The “Secret Hand” DMOZ Issues
1. Legitimate sites CAN’T GET IN
2. No Accountability
3. Corrupt Editors
4. Competitive Sites Barred
5. Dirty Tricks Employed
6. Rude dmoz editors

Flawed concept – communism doesn’t work
Free editing? Nothing is free.
DMOZ Sucks Discussions
DMOZ Problems Discussions

The Google Directory is produced by an unknown, ungoverned, unpoliced, ill-intentioned, retaliatory, monopoly enterprise, consisting of profiteering power-ego editors feathering their own nests – the ODP. AOL is making millions, and needs to police it’s run-amok entity. Enough already!

 This is a tough one.
Google’s directory comes STRAIGHT from the DMOZ directory. You should try to get into dmoz.
But you can’t.
Be careful whom you approach with the old spondulix -
Formal DMOZ Bribe Instructions.
It is almost impossible to get into DMOZ. This site cannot get in, after waiting over 2 YEARS (33 months). Not even in the lowest, most insignificant category, “Personal Pages”. I guess I just don’t “measure up” to the other 20,000+ sites in the personal category.
I’m not the suck-up type – I kissed them off long ago. What a waste of time!

UPDATE: This page (not site) finally got indexed in June 2007, thanks to a legitimate editor. No money was paid.

Google needs to DO SOMETHING about populating its own directory with the skewed, incomplete, poorly determined results from the dysfunctional Open Directory Project – the ODP!
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely
- 82

DMOZ category?

 Theme fit category?
General or geographic category? Both are possible, and acceptable.
HOT 83

Site listed in Yahoo Directory?

 Big boost – You can get in by paying $299 each year.
Many swear it is worth it – many swear it isn’t.
- 84

Site listed in LookSmart Directory?

 Boost? Another great vote for your site.
85

Site listed in inktomi?

 Inktomi has been absorbed internally by Yahoo.
- 86

Site listed in other directories (About, etc.)

 Directory listing boost (If other RESPECTED directories link to you, this must be positive.)
- 87 Expert site? (Hilltop or Condensed Hilltop) Large-sized site, quality incoming links
HOT

88

 Site Age – Old shows stability Google patent
Boost for long-established sites, new pages indexed easily
The opposite of the sand box.
- 89 Site Age – Very New Boost Temporary boost for very new sites – I estimate that this boost lasts from 1 week to 3 weeks – Yahoo does it too.
- 90 Site Directory – Tree Structure Influences SERPs – logical, consistent, conventional
- 91 Site Map and more site map Complete – keywords in anchor text
- 92 Site Size Previously, many pages preferred – conferred authority upon site, thus page. Bigger sites = better SERPs
Now, fewer pages preferred, due to proliferation of computer-generated pages. Google has been dropping pages like crazy.
- 93 Site Theming Site exhibit theme? Use many related terms?
Have you used a keyword suggestion tool?
A thesaurus?
PAGE METRICS – USER BEHAVIOR:

Currently implemented through the Google tool bar?
34, 35

94

Page traffic

 Google patent - # of visitors, trend
15,16,21

95

Page Selection Rate – CTR

 Google patent - How often is a page clicked on?
36, 37

96

Time spent on page

 Google patent - Relatively long time = indicates relevance hit
45, 46

97

Did user Bookmark page?

 Google patent - Bookmark = Good
47

98

Bookmark add/ removal frequency

 Google patent - Recent = Good?
99

How they left, where they went

 Back button, link clicked, etc.
SITE METRICS – USER BEHAVIOR :

Currently implemented through the Google tool bar?
34, 35

100

Site Traffic

 Google patent - # of visitors, increasing trend = good
101

Referrer

 Authoritative referrer?
102

Keyword

 Keyword searches used to find you
- 103

Time spent on domain

 Relatively long time = indicates relevance hit
Add brownie points.
38 DOMAIN OWNER BEHAVIOR :
40

104

Domain Registration Time

 Google patent - Domain Expiration Date
Register for 5 years, Google knows you are serious.
Register for 1 year, is it a throw-away domain?
39

105

Are associated sites legitimate?

 Google patent - No spam, ownership, etc.

Top of page
4. Alleged NEGATIVE OFF-Page SEO Google Ranking Factors (13)
Note Factor
#		 NEGATIVE
OFF-Page SEO Factors		 Brief Note
-

120
(added)

 Traffic Buying Have you paid a company for web traffic? It is probably low quality traffic, with a zero conversion rate. Some providers of traffic for traffic’s sake may be considered “bad neighborhoods”. Can Google discount your traffic (for true popularity), because they know it’s mostly phony?
Have you read about Traffic Power?
22-29

106

 Temporal Link Analysis In a nut shell, old links are valued, new links are not.
This is intended to thwart rapid incoming link accumulation, accomplished through the tactic of link buying.
Just one of the sandbox factors.
18

107

 Change of Meanings Query meaning changes over time, due to current events
BAD 108 Zero links to you You MUST have at least 1 (one) incoming link (back link) from some website somewhere, that Google is aware of, to REMAIN in the index.
BAD

109

 Link-buying

(Very good IF you don’t get caught,
but don’t do it -
when caught, the penalty isn’t worth it.)

 Google patent - Google hates link-buying, because it corrupts their PR model in the worst way possible.
1. Does your page have links it really doesn’t merit?
2. Did you get tons of links in a short time period?
3. Do you have links from high-PR, unrelated sites?
41, 42

110

 Prior Site Ranking Google patent - High = Good
BAD 111 Cloaking Google promises to Ban! (Presenting one webpage to the search engine spider, and another webpage to everybody else.)
?? 112 Links from bad neighborhoods, affiliates Google says that incoming links from bad sites can’t hurt you, because you can’t control them. Ideally, this would be true.
However, some speculate otherwise, esp., when other associated factors are thrown into the mix, such as web rings.
BAD 113 Penalties – resulting from
Domain Hijacking
(work with Google to fix)		 Should result in IMPRISONMENT, forthwith!
Grand Theft, mandatory minimum sentence.
The criminal COPIES your entire website, and HOSTS it elsewhere, with . . . a few changes.
- 114 Penalty – Google TOS violation WMG is the worst offender – gobbles up tons of Google server time by nervous Nellie webmasters. Google even mentions them by name. I think that Google will spank you when you cross the threshold, of say, 100 queries per day for the same term, from the same IP. Google can block your IP. Get a Google API.
?? 115 Server Reliability – S/B >99.9% What is your uptime? Ever notice a daily time when your server is unavailable, like about 1:30 AM? How diligent must Googlebot be? This is the worst reason to get dropped – you just aren’t there! An ISP maintenance interruption can cause delisting..
- 116 No more room
Pages being dropped from large sites		 The 232 problem – Google has hit the 4.3 Gigabyte address space wall. Bull! Google now has over 8 Gigs of indexed pages.
Thousands of pages are disappearing from various huge websites, but I think that it is G just cleaning house, by dumping computer-generated pages.
HOT
 117 Rank Manipulation by
Competitor Attack

(1. Content theft causing you to get a duplicate content penalty, even though your content is the original – Google has problems tracking original authorship. People are still stealing my content, but nobody trumps me (in Google) with my own content – hats off to Google.)

Examples -
Site-Wide Link Attack
and
302 Redirect Attack
and
Hijacker Attack

 Impossible by Google definition (except for a few nasty tricks, like making your competition appear to be link spammers)
Ideally, there SHOULD be nothing that your competition can do to directly hurt your rankings.

However, an astute observer noticed that Google changed their website to read :
Old verbiage = “There is nothing a competitor can do to harm your ranking …”
New verbiage = “There is ALMOST nothing a competitor can do …”
An obvious concession that Google thinks that at least some dirty tricks work!

Of course, there will always be new ones!
- 118 Bouncing Ball Algorithm At least 2, and often 3 identifiable Google Search Algos are currently in use, alternating pseudo-randomly through the data centers.
G has moved to a daily dance. Multiple changing factors are applied daily. GOOD LUCK NOW on trying to figure things out!

IN ADDITION, some the above factors are being “tweaked” daily. Not only are the “weights” of the factors changed, but the formula itself changes. Change is the only constant.

An algo change can boost or demote your site. I put this in the negative factors section, because your position is never secure, unless of course, you are huge (PR=7 or greater). If you simply cannot achieve top position, your only alternative to first page SERP exposure may be Google Ad Words (you pay for exposure).

Today, I searched for an extremely competitive “2-word term”, and I found that NOT ONE of the top ten Google SERPs had even one of the words on the page.
YOWSA!
Today’s theory – when it doesn’t matter, anybody can get #1 in a second, if they know the on-page rules. BUT, after a certain “commercial competitive level”, the “semantic analysis” algo kicks in, and less becomes more. The keyword density rules are flipped upon their noggins. I think that we are witnessing the evolution of search engine anti-seo sophistication, right before our very eyes. Fun stuff.

Tags: , ,

Post comment as
twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest