Onsite SEO is Dead ?!

[Tom_Dwan]

Well, I didn't put this striking title just to get higher CTRs, it's actually the name of a recent article by Ahrefs. However, due to the controversy it caused in the SEO community they edited the title and the article itself. Still, it has some really interesting statistics and conclusions. So, is onsite SEO dead.. what do you think? Here is the post:

https://ahrefs.com/blog/on-page-seo/

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

For those whom onpage SEO is only "playing with tags" or "keywords density" - for sure SEO may cause problems. The point behind that is old school on-page SEO is just a small necessary part of job need to be done. Except standard on-page SEO you need to pay high attention on you UX - without is it is very hard to push your website into great rankings.

1. Decrease your bounce and exit rate
2. Try to engage your users to prolong avarage session time and increase pages / session
3. Deliver fresh content regulary to increase number of returning visitors

 

[Chris Ashdown]

What nobody ever mentions is the vast amount of history that google has about customers visits to the site for use in SEO

They know how many visited
When they visited
How long they stayed on each page
Where they visited from compared to where you are
If they brought anything
How much they spent
How often the site is updated
What search terms were used to find the site

All this is factual data that tells them far more about the site than some back-links or other easily manipulated data

 

[zigojacko]

What nobody ever mentions is the vast amount of history that google has about customers visits to the site for use in SEO

They know how many visited
When they visited
How long they stayed on each page
Where they visited from compared to where you are
If they brought anything
How much they spent
How often the site is updated
What search terms were used to find the site

All this is factual data that tells them far more about the site than some back-links or other easily manipulated data

It is worth noting that Google only has access to most of this data if the visitor uses Google products (like Google's search engines) or the website uses Google products (Like Google Analytics and Google AdWords).

Whilst there are definitely good cases for Google indirectly using some of this data in some way to establish relevancy, usability, usefulness and various engagement metrics to work in to their 200+ ranking factors, it would be impossible to base an algorithm solely around this data and incredibly biased (but I guess we've all learnt not to put anything past Google by now).

 

[fisicx]

On-site SEO isn't dead and never will be just like off-site isn't dead and never will be. There are new ranking signals and the relative weight of the ranking signals may change but your content and internal navigation are still very important.

Bounce, dwell time and even the UX are tiny signals compared to a well structured content rich site with great internal navigation.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

if the visitor uses Google products (like Google's search engines) or the website uses Google products (Like Google Analytics and Google AdWords).

Did you forget about Chrome? Why do you think Google was cooperating with Firefox so long? It's all about collecting data without Google Analytics.

 

[zigojacko]

Did you forget about Chrome? What do you think Google was cooperating with Firefox so long? It's all about collecting data.

I only listed a couple of examples, but yes, of course, Google Chrome is included in Google products. A heck of a lot of people don't actually use any Google products at all, granted though, many do in some way sure.

 

[Tin]

So, is onsite SEO dead.. what do you think?

No!

 

[Clinton]

1. Decrease your bounce and exit rate

Why would bounce rate affect ranking? There's more than a bit of contradiction between your points #1 and #2.

A high quality, detailed article can answer the user's question without sending him anywhere else. That's a good user experience.

Why do you claim it isn't, and do you have any evidence that bounce rate affects ranking?

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

Why would bounce rate affect ranking? There's more than a bit of contradiction between your points #1 and #2.

A high quality, detailed article can answer the user's question without sending him anywhere else. That's a good user experience.

Why do you claim it isn't, and do you have any evidence that bounce rate affects ranking?

As an experienced SEO you should know that bounce rate is always comparing to average session time for particular page/subpage.

If bounce rate is high but at same your time average session time is high its a strong positive SEO signal - it is exactly example you mentioned - it could be "detailed article". Users reads everything that was interesting for them - without need to click anywhere else.

Steven Levy - In the Plex

...on the basic level Google could see how satisfied users were. The best sign of their happiness was the "Long Click"

 

[Shopclicks]

If bounce rate is high but at same your time average session time is high its a strong positive SEO signal - it is exactly example you mentioned - it could be "detailed article". Users reads everything that was interesting for them - without need to click anywhere else.

You haven't actually said this but I would hope that what you mean is a site's bounce rate compared to other sites competing for the same search term, is the reason that bounce rates & time on site are a ranking factor.
The arguement that bounce rate is not important because 'the query was answered on a single page visit with no interaction' doesn't hold up because the site is being compared to other sites ranking for the same search term.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

Unfortunately I can't fully express myself with english. I have been learning english since 6 month ago and Im still working on it. Sorry if wasn't clear enough.

 

[fisicx]

Bounce can be 100% and dwell time in seconds for the top result. If I want the fact I can google it, click on the link, get the answer and be gone in seconds. If bounce + dwell were that important the link I clicked on should be sliding down the SERPs.

Consider also that google now often displays the answer in a box at the top of the serps - no need to visit the page - it was the one site content that google liked - not how long people stay on the page.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

Bounce can be 100% and dwell time in seconds for the top result.

Come back to planet earth sunshine

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

Bounce can be 100% and dwell time in seconds for the top result. If I want the fact I can google it, click on the link, get the answer and be gone in seconds. If bounce + dwell were that important the link I clicked on should be sliding down the SERPs.

Consider also that google now often displays the answer in a box at the top of the serps - no need to visit the page - it was the one site content that google liked - not how long people stay on the page.

I'm not huge fan of Brain Dean but this episode should tell you some more about bounce rate and rankings.

Watch from 2:20 the best part of it.

 

[Shopclicks]

If bounce + dwell were that important the link I clicked on should be sliding down the SERPs.

You're missing the point entirely. There might be 10 results on the first page that all answer the query on the landing page. The page which engages the user with the most relevant, factual content and keeps the user on the page for longer, is obviously more interesting & useful to the user. Isn't that why we recommend relevant, informative & engaging content?

 

[fisicx]

Indeed. But if you land on a page and your query is answered in the first paragraph you may well close the tab after a few seconds. It's the perfect result for you. But if you landed on a page and had to read a lot of content before you found the answer then you will be on the page for a lot longer searching for the answer. This would be a poor result for you compared to the other landing page.

According to the bounce+dwell theory the second result should rank higher even though the result was poor for the reader.

I'm sure Google has some complex algo to deal with this but I doubt that bounce and dwell time are a significant ranking signals.

 

[fisicx]

Come back to planet earth sunshine

I've got a page ranking #1 for a specific keyword. Bounce is 100% and most people rarely stay for more than 10 seconds (as it answers their query). Planet earth is very happy with this thank you.

PS, still waiting for you confirm your statement that nofollow links are the same as dofollow links.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

Well I truly believe you rank #1 for a specific keyword with 100% bounce rate and few seconds session time.

I can give you few more examples of keywords like yours that will also rank #1 with similar bounce rate and average session time:

1. "what is the actual time"
2. "is London belong to UK, yes or no"
3. "is cancer treatment depends on the phase of the moon"

All I try to say is if you meet competitor with same keyword like yours with lower bounce rate, and higher session time he will easily outrank you.

P.S

If you just promise me to stop misleading users and write preposterous things like "nolollow have ZERO value to SEO", I will make my posts more detailed.

 

[Shopclicks]

But if you landed on a page and had to read a lot of content before you found the answer then you will be on the page for a lot longer searching for the answer. This would be a poor result for you compared to the other landing page.

It's all good in Google's eyes. How else is Google going to determine what users find useful, other than the time spent on the page & interaction? Google can tell if your content is relevant but not if it's useful. Google can see links to a page but can't tell if they were natural or paid for.

The other factors to consider are:
We don't all look at the answer to a question the same way. Some people will require a more in-depth answer.
Pages generally rank for multiple search terms not just one query, so people may be looking for a different answer on the same page. And they may not be looking for the answer you had to dig for.

Bounce is 100% and most people rarely stay for more than 10 seconds

Not sure why you would use this example when it's clearly obvious that any competitors for the keyword don't have the same page structure or keyword relevance as your page.

 

[fisicx]

If you just promise me to stop misleading users and write preposterous things like "nolollow have ZERO value to SEO", I will make my posts more detailed.

OK. So does that mean you will now explain why nofollow = dofollow?

 

[AllUpHere]

Unfortunately I can't fully express myself with english. I have been learning english since 6 month ago and Im still working on it. Sorry if wasn't clear enough.

That excuse would hold more weight if you hadn't been posting on this forum in pretty good English for the last 6 months.

 

[fisicx]

We don't all look at the answer to a question the same way. Some people will require a more in-depth answer.
Pages generally rank for multiple search terms not just one query, so people may be looking for a different answer on the same page. And they may not be looking for the answer you had to dig for.

Exactly. Which is why time on page is so unimportant (as a ranking signal).

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

That excuse would hold more weight if you hadn't been posting on this forum in pretty good English for the last 6 months.

Trust me you can also be pretty good at Polish with Google Translate.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

Which is why time on page is so unimportant (as a ranking signal).

You just broke your promise. Shame on on!

 

[AllUpHere]

Trust me you can also be pretty good at Polish with Google Translate.

If you have been holding your own on this forum (especially in SEO debates) with only a basic level of English and the use of Google translate then I take my hat off to you.

 

[Shopclicks]

Exactly. Which is why time on page is so unimportant (as a ranking signal).

Again, compared to other sites competing for the same search query, it is important. The more useful the page, to a greater number of visitors, for a variety of search terms, the longer they stay and the more useful Google sees the page.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

If you have been holding your own on this forum (especially in SEO debates) with only a basic level of English and the use of Google translate then I take my hat off to you.

Well I also should take my hat off to you, just because you have ability to transform any marketing just in 2 hours. I always appreciate real geniuses.

 

[Usman Ahmed]

Right now, on page SEO isn't dead.....BUT

Think about Google in the future.... with Rankbrain and improvements in AI, we're going to get to a point where Google's algorithm will understand content much like a human does and will be able to determine what is relevant and high quality and answers people's queries... no longer do you mess around with keywords and on page seo but Google will know when and where your content answers a searches query and then put it in front of the people that are actually looking for it....

I don't think we're that far off from that future.

That's where I think SEO is heading anyways.

 

[SEO Service Bangalore]

SEO is dead as we probably am aware it. The old math of expanded backlinks and stuffing watchwords is presently an objective for Google to recognize your site and cover it in the list items.

SEO is no more a math issue, it's a human one. Social markers are getting to be vital to positioning and connection calculations are being resigned. It's the ideal opportunity for you to see reality about SEO and alter likewise.

 

[Joel Bissitt]

Is it dead? In a word no. All about quality content and real partnerships

 

[Monquiel]

On-page SEO will never die.

 

[Chris Ashdown]

Are you saying that the big search engine players with all the data cannot beat a group of players who really know very little about the mega large corporations algorithms and data usage

 

[quikshop]

So what I have learnt since coming back to online business is that on-site SEO still has value, just different. The weighting of the UI has increased in our new responsive landscape (well new to me) but I don't see any downgrading of relevant content - Google still uses target page relevance in its Adwords computations, the old mantra of relevant content well written and updated periodically appears to still hold true.

 

[StevePoster]

"Onsite SEO is Dead?"

For the people who knows only tags and keyword density.

However, for the well experienced and has technical aspects within Onsite SEO, it is not and always. Simply because you have to get through into more deeper analysis on how this particular website will perform well in the target market.

 

[Marek Skoczylas]

I'm also a big fan

Im not

For the people who knows only tags and keyword density.

Thanks for continuously repeating my sentences

 

[marka3441]

Onpage SEO will not die but OFF page SEO may evolve for good.

 

[Elliottc26]

SEO won't die, but it will evolve as all things do over time. More and more, on-page SEO is becoming more technical and includes aspects built into the stitching of the website rather than floating on the glistening surface (without the right foundations your new pond will collapse, leak, and present more problems than it solves (hint!)).

Links still add credence if they're relevant to the site and of good quality. As things change, links can be disavowed once they become negative due to algorithm changes so it's not the alligator swamp some like you to believe - but there are strategies to guide your content and multiple strategies can be implemented for different reasons.

However, SEO is about optimizing to rank for multiple keywords (more than what's on the site but relevant) to attract particular users (CTR) to find, say, customers (conversions) - and that's all. It's your online CV and business card.

So, if you build a site targeted to potential customers/clients that uses relevant and original content that's easy to read and understand, is relevant to your targets' search queries, has calls to actions, and offers value alongside ease of use (keep it simple), then you're more than half way there already.

Aside: Often people think you need to attract all the traffic in the world to be successful - myth not true. Target, target, target and start small so you don't waste a lot of money getting to know what doesn't work.

 

[cracklepop]

On page hasn't been the final word on SEO for years. It has relative importance, but nothing like the value of link building.

 

[fisicx]

It all depends on the keywords you are targeting. Local and niche may not need any link building. You can get all the ranking you need with really good onsite SEO.