I’ve been considering ranking factors this year and asked several leading SEOs for a reality check (Real World Ranking Factors). The feedback I received confirmed the direction of my thoughts about ranking factors. Google’s algorithm has changed dramatically. While ranking factors still matter, content factors may be playing a larger role.
SEO Ranking Factors Evolve
Search engines evolve faster than the SEO industry. The SEO industry is in a constant state of catching up. A good example is the 2005 announcement of the role statistical analysis played in ranking (quality websites) and demoting (spam) websites.
Statistical Analysis – 2005
Statistical analysis was a major evolution in search engine algorithms. The ranking factors associated with SEO evolved along with it. Link ranking factors now focused on statistically relevant quantities of anchor text and so on. Quantity of links remained an important ranking factor.
Penguin Algorithm – 2012
The Penguin algorithm, which is arguably about Link Ranking, also took the SEO community by surprise. Nobody saw it coming. There were lots of guesses as to what it was.
Link ranking algorithms was a milestone that changed how the SEO industry thought about ranking factors related to links. SEO was no longer about obtaining loads of links and loads of anchor text. Ranking factors evolve in response to how search engines rank websites.
Ranking Factors for AI
Now we’re in an era where AI answers 30% of search queries. Search Engine Journal published the first article that discussed Neural Matching that named a specific research paper. Google has been using AI in search for almost the entire year of 2018. It was only recently announced, months and months later.
So how does AI ranking affect ranking factors?
Reviewing these AI type algorithms, it’s clear that they tend to come into play after the ranking algorithm has already done it’s thing. So we’re safe in assuming that traditional type ranking factors like links and headings still play a role for weeding out spam and less relevant search results candidates.
The search engines rank websites for a search query in what’s called a Ranking Engine. After that the results are passed over to the Neural Matching algorithm to then choose a search result with factors other than traditional ranking factors. Links don’t play a role in this part of search ranking.
That’s a simplification of the process, of course. There are other algorithms in the ranking engine that introduce synonyms and stemming in order to broaden the amount of pages and not limit the results to pages that contain all the keywords.
What I think is key to keep in mind is that these AI based algorithms tend to work after the ranking algorithms have done their thing. And it’s at this point that traditional ranking factors like headings, title tags, alt attributes and links take on less importance.
AI Search Aspires to Answer Like a Human
When you look at a web page for an answer to a question, do you examine the title tag and the headings? Of course not. You look for your answer.
Google’s AI can be said to do the same thing.
In simple terms, AI can be said to have two functions:
To precisely understand what a person really means when they type a search query
To find a web page that precisely answers the real question hidden within any given search query
Just like a real person would, AI is not counting how many times a keyword appears on the page anymore. Nor is it looking for synonyms. It’s looking to answer a question, to solve a problem.
So, rather than focus exclusively on traditional ranking factors, it kind of makes sense to also think in terms of answers (even for eCommerce).
In eCommerce someone is looking to buy. So does it make sense to have informational content on that page? As always, check what Google is ranking for confirmation.
Content Factors for Ranking
Content Factors is where I’m headed to in this article. I am not advocating a move away from ranking factors. I am suggesting that it may be useful to add a deeper consideration of Content Factors to the mix of considerations for SEO.
Images are content.
Topic is content.
Search query meanings are the focus of content.
Images as Content
Carefully chosen images can influence the ranking of a web page and help it pop into featured snippets, in additon to ranking in Google image search.
Topic as Content
Outlining your topic is content in itself. It provides the focus for your web page. Lack of a focused topic is, in my opinion, a leading cause of an inability to rank. I conduct many site audits and this is something quite common to today’s search algorithm.
Inability to rank is not always about “page quality” and “being spammy.” Increasingly, what causes a site to rank less well, particularly for informational sites, is an issue with the page topic.
Search Query Meanings
We’re no longer in the Keyword Era. Keyword research is just the beginning. Understanding what users mean is the next evolution of SEO, which follows how search engines rank sites.
Ranking Factors can Support Content Factors
Ranking factor type elements tend to support the Content Type Factors. For example, a savvy publisher will select images that are directly relevant to the content. That’s a content factor consideration.
Here are examples of ranking related considerations:
Content around the image is directly relevant to the image.
Captions associated with the content informs Google about what the image is about.
The URL of the image should ideally describe the image.
The first two aren’t generally considered ranking factors, but they do play a role. Although a descriptive URL can be considered a ranking factor, I tend to consider all three of those as content factors, along with the choice of the image itself. They all work together to tell what the image is about and the image itself works to influence what the meaning of the page is about.
The old way for SEO was like this:
Keyword Research > Add Keywords to Ranking Elements (anchor, headings, titles), leads to > Rankings
Images are an important component of most web pages, and are of course a particular sticking point for low-vision users. We must consider the role an image plays in a page to work out what type of text alternative it should have.
In the page we have a picture of a cat, illustrating an article on cats’ well-known judgmental behavior.
…You can use the alt attribute to provide a useful text alternative to this image — for example, “A cat staring menacingly off into space.”
Google does not recommend using your keywords in the alt attribute.Google recommends accurately describing what the image is.
For example, in a previous article about WordPress 5.0’s release date being in limbo, I used an image of children playing the game of limbo.
In the alt attribute I accurately described the image as:
“Image of child symbolizing WordPress who is doing a limbo, a metaphor for the state of limbo.”
And it’s ranking in Google images, not necessarily just because of (or in spite of) the alt attribute:
This is an example of how ranking factors and content factors work together to help Google understand what an image is for purpose of improving image search results.
This is why it’s so important to get your Content Factors right. The best case scenario is to use an image that is directly or indirectly related to what the page is about, even if it is a metaphorical connection. Everything, the content factors and the ranking factors must work and support each other. In my opinion it’s best to avoid random choices!
If the image is a building that symbolizes something, then the alt tag should describe it exactly in that manner. Doing so will help Google understand the image is and help it to rank the image in Google Image Search.
Google’s John Mueller advised that the Alt attribute was helpful for helping Google Image search rank an image. He did not recommend using the alt attribute for stuffing it with keywords. He merely said it was useful. Google’s recommendation is to use the alt attribute to accurately describe the content of the image.
Google has image algorithms that are precise enough to not only identify that there’s a dog in a photo but it can identify the breed of the dog.
Using the alt attribute in the manner it is recommended by Google will help that image rank better in Google Images and work together with the rest of the content to rank the web page.
This is what I mean about how traditional Ranking Factor type elements are not necessarily the cause of good rankings in themselves. That’s how it used to work in the past and in less competitive niches the old approach can still work.
But today, in my opinion, we have to consider content factors. Chief among those is identifying what Google believes a user means when they type a search query (content factors). Then work from there to outline the content and use the traditional ranking factors (headings, title, alt attributes) to support the content.
Content and Ranking Factors
When doing SEO for a search engine that uses AI for 30% of search queries, it takes more planning in order to rank. The simplistic idea that ranking elements are expressly for adding keywords seems anachronistic nowadays, especially considering that AI doesn’t care about keywords.
That’s why I feel it’s shortchanging someone to simply answer yes when someone asks if the alt attribute is a ranking factor. The best advice, in my opinion, is to say it’s more nuanced than adding keywords to a ranking element. It doesn’t take a scientist to realize this, just look at the search results (SERPs).
Images by Shutterstock, Modified by Author Screenshots by Author, Modified by Author
Subscribe to SEJ
Get our daily newsletter from SEJ’s Founder Loren Baker about the latest news in the industry!
The inclusion of XML Sitemaps as a WordPress Core feature has been proposed by a group of Yoast and Google team members as well as other contributors. In addition to a basic XML Sitemap, the proposal also introduces an XML Sitemaps API that would extend functionality for developers and webmasters.
The proposed XML Sitemaps structure. Image sourced from Make WordPress Core.
What it’ll include. The proposal states that XML Sitemaps will be enabled by default, allowing for indexing of the following content types:
Posts page .
Core post types (Pages and Posts) .
Custom post types .
Core taxonomies (Tags and Categories) .
Custom taxonomies .
Users (Authors) .
It’s worth keeping in mind that your WordPress site’s automatically generated robots.txt file will also reference your sitemap index.
What it won’t include. Although the proposed feature will include the majority of WordPress content types and meet search engine minimum requirements, the initial integration will not cover image, video or news sitemaps, XML Sitemaps caching mechanisms or user-facing changes such as UI controls that exclude individual posts or pages from the sitemap.
The XML Sitemaps API. Here’s how the API will let you manipulate your XML Sitemaps:
Provide a custom XML Stylesheet .
Add extra sitemaps and sitemap entries .
Add extra attributes to sitemap entries .
Exclude a specific post, post type, taxonomy or term from the sitemap .
Exclude a specific author from the sitemap .
Exclude specific authors with a specific role from the sitemap .
Why we should care. Sitemaps facilitate indexing by providing web crawlers with your site’s URLs. If implemented, this might mean one less third-party plugin that brands and webmasters have to rely on for their SEO efforts. As a WordPress Core feature, we can expect wider compatibility and support than we might get from third-party solutions.
Poorly optimized plugins can also slow down your site, which can have a negative impact on your organic traffic. This default option from WordPress may not replace plugins like Yoast SEO because they often include other features in addition to XML Sitemaps, but its availability has the potential to provide us with more flexibility over which plugins we install.
About The Author
George Nguyen is an Associate Editor at Third Door Media. His background is in content marketing, journalism, and storytelling.
Yoast SEO’s latest update enhances its FAQ blocks by automatically generating structured data to accompany questions and answers. The update also introduces some UX improvements and addresses issues with AMP pages when viewed in Reader mode.
How to use it. Yoast’s FAQ structured data implementation is only compatible with the WordPress block editor (also known as Gutenberg; available on versions 5.0 and newer). Webmasters can get started by selecting the FAQ block, adding a question, inputting the answer and an image (if applicable) and repeating the process for all frequently asked questions.
The Yoast FAQ block.
The corresponding FAQpage structured data will be generated in the background and added to Yoast’s structured data graph, which may help search engines identify your FAQ page and figure out how it fits into the overall scheme of your site.
A new action and filter were also introduced to make this integration more flexible. The wpseo_pre-schema_block-type_<block-type> lets you adjust the graph output based the blocks on the page and the wpseo_schema_block_<block-type> filter enables you to filter graph output on a per-block basis.
Other improvements. Yoast has also linked the SEO and readability scores in the Classic Editor and relocated the Focus keyphrase field to the top of meta box and sidebar to make it easier to find. And, they’ve resolved issues with AMP pages when viewed in Reader mode.
Why we should care. At this year’s I/O conference, Google announced support for FAQ markup, which may mean that searchers will be presented with FAQs as rich results more frequently. Being able to easily and efficiently equip our FAQ sections with structured data can yield better odds of earning prominent placement on SERPs.
For more on Yoast’s structured data implementation, check out our coverage on their 11.0 (general schema implementation), 11.1 (image and video), 11.2 (custom schema) and 11.3 (image and avatar) updates.
About The Author
George Nguyen is an Associate Editor at Third Door Media. His background is in content marketing, journalism, and storytelling.
WordFence announced that they had discovered a vulnerability at four hosting companies. WordFence warns that while the vulnerability was patched, it’s possible sites were hacked prior to the fix.
Server settings allowed hackers to create WordPress administrator accounts from which the sites could be exploited with rogue code added to the WordPress theme.
WordFence urged site administrators to check their sites for rogue administrator accounts if they are hosted on iPage, FatCow, PowWeb, or NetFirm. All four are owned by the same company, Endurance International Group.
What Was the Server Vulnerability?
The affected servers had permission and file settings that allowed an attacker to view sensitive files. Other vulnerabilities allowed the attackers to access the database, add themselves as an administrators then take over the site.
This is how WordFence described the vulnerability:
“Four conditions existed that contributed to this vulnerability:
1. Customer files are all stored on a shared file system.
2. The full path to a user’s web root directory was public or could be guessed.
3. All directories in the path to a customer’s site root directory were either world-traversable (the execute bit for ‘all users’ is 1) or group-traversable (the execute bit for ‘group’ is 1), and the sensitive files were world-readable (the read bit for ‘all users’ is 1) or group-readable (the read bit for ‘group’ is 1).
4. An attacker could cause a program running in the group www to read files in arbitrary locations.”
Sites Could be Infected
WordFence warned that there was a period of time before the vulnerability was fixed during which sites hosted on these four host providers could have been infected.
It is recommended that site owners check their user lists to make sure there are no unauthorized administrators. If your site has been affected, then there should be rogue code that was added to the theme.
Here is how WordFence described the rogue code:
“If your site was exploited before the fixes, the attackers may have added malware which could still be present. Our customers had obfuscated code added at the top of the active theme’s header.php file, similar to this: