Comments on: *Update* SEO Gerüchte: Bounce Rate ein Rankingfaktor?!? http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/ SEM Blog & Affiliate Marketing Tipps sowie Privates von David Deutsch Thu, 29 Jul 2010 18:41:47 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: baltimore seo http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-3240 baltimore seo Thu, 03 Jun 2010 02:26:38 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-3240 Links play another important role in your rankings: They help to determine which words you will rank for. If another site links to you using the anchor (link) text, "pumpkin pie recipe", then they're saying that your page is relevant to "pumpkin pie recipe". You have one vote for "pumpkin pie recipe". If you get a lot of links/votes that use "pumpkin pie recipe" then the search engines will think your page is very relevant to that topic, and you'll find yourself ranking well for "pumpkin pie recipe". Links play another important role in your rankings: They help to determine which words you will rank for. If another site links to you using the anchor (link) text, “pumpkin pie recipe”, then they’re saying that your page is relevant to “pumpkin pie recipe”. You have one vote for “pumpkin pie recipe”. If you get a lot of links/votes that use “pumpkin pie recipe” then the search engines will think your page is very relevant to that topic, and you’ll find yourself ranking well for “pumpkin pie recipe”.

]]> By: David Deutsch http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-435 David Deutsch Wed, 26 Nov 2008 22:59:18 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-435 I agree that Google maybe tries to indicate which sites are of greater value through tracking the clicks in SERPS but thats not the topic. What I was trying to say is that there are several reasons why your Ranking dropped while the BR dropped, too. It's dangerous to say that it's confirmed that the Bounce Rate is a ranking factor just because of one strange statistik with several causes for the problem. I agree that Google maybe tries to indicate which sites are of greater value through tracking the clicks in SERPS but thats not the topic.

What I was trying to say is that there are several reasons why your Ranking dropped while the BR dropped, too. It’s dangerous to say that it’s confirmed that the Bounce Rate is a ranking factor just because of one strange statistik with several causes for the problem.

]]> By: quadszilla http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-432 quadszilla Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:43:29 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-432 My higher traffic keywords have lower bounce rates. I'll go into why in a post this week. My thesis is that in Googleland, lower bounce rate means the user found what they were searching for. I further qualified in a comment: that it may not be bounce rate per se, but something that is a close corollary to bounce rates. So, for example, if someone clicks another SERP on the same search 30 secs to 2 mins after clicking the initial site, or any other trackable metric that indicates that the surfer did not spend much time on your site and is looking elsewhere for an “answer”. It is a factor - certainly not as big a factor as links or overall domain trust but that may be because a majority of search strings are unique. For the "short head" you don't want a user clicking your site, then 1 min later clicking on the following SERP in the search results. So while wikipedia may have a high "bounce rate" the user will very often not click on the following SERP - so the corollary is not as strong in that instance. But we don't have access to the "next click" data, bounce rate is the closest we have. My higher traffic keywords have lower bounce rates. I’ll go into why in a post this week. My thesis is that in Googleland, lower bounce rate means the user found what they were searching for. I further qualified in a comment:
that it may not be bounce rate per se, but something that is a close corollary to bounce rates. So, for example, if someone clicks another SERP on the same search 30 secs to 2 mins after clicking the initial site, or any other trackable metric that indicates that the surfer did not spend much time on your site and is looking elsewhere for an “answer”.

It is a factor – certainly not as big a factor as links or overall domain trust but that may be because a majority of search strings are unique. For the “short head” you don’t want a user clicking your site, then 1 min later clicking on the following SERP in the search results. So while wikipedia may have a high “bounce rate” the user will very often not click on the following SERP – so the corollary is not as strong in that instance. But we don’t have access to the “next click” data, bounce rate is the closest we have.

]]> By: Absprungrate ein Ranking-Faktor? Quatsch! | Online Marketing Blog http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-431 Absprungrate ein Ranking-Faktor? Quatsch! | Online Marketing Blog Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:23:24 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-431 [...] immer weitere Kreise zieht, unter anderem bei Internetmarketing-News und seoFM (hat nur der David nachgedacht statt abzuschreiben?), will ich hier doch etwas dazu [...] [...] immer weitere Kreise zieht, unter anderem bei Internetmarketing-News und seoFM (hat nur der David nachgedacht statt abzuschreiben?), will ich hier doch etwas dazu [...]

]]> By: nils kambach http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-424 nils kambach Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:21:40 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-424 mmh lets get this straight, two cases: 1. A site's high-br-traffic is being taken away --> br lowered 2. A site ranks higher for a low-br-keyword --> br lowered Both make perfect sense and don't contradict each other. mmh lets get this straight,
two cases:

1. A site’s high-br-traffic is being taken away –> br lowered

2. A site ranks higher for a low-br-keyword –> br lowered

Both make perfect sense and don’t contradict each other.

]]> By: yi http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-423 yi Wed, 26 Nov 2008 10:20:07 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-423 >> Soweit ich Quadzilla verstehe, vertritt er die Meinung, das Google den Traffic “weggenommen” hat, der eine schlechte also hohe Bounce Rate aufweist und sich so die bessere weil niedrigere Bounce Rate erklären lässt. Dann sind seine Screenshots sehr schlecht gewählt. Die Bounce Rate der Stammbesucher sollte konstant unterdurchschnittlich bleiben, nehmen wir an, die Anzahl dieser bleibt konstant, dann sind das an normalen Tagen nur 16,7%, aber als der Google Traffic weggebrochen war, lagen die wiederkehrenden Besucher bereits bei 33,3%, jetzt kannst du hochrechnen, wieso der overall Bounce Rate um etwa 15 Prozentpunkte gesunken ist... >> Soweit ich Quadzilla verstehe, vertritt er die Meinung, das Google den Traffic “weggenommen” hat, der eine schlechte also hohe Bounce Rate aufweist und sich so die bessere weil niedrigere Bounce Rate erklären lässt.

Dann sind seine Screenshots sehr schlecht gewählt. Die Bounce Rate der Stammbesucher sollte konstant unterdurchschnittlich bleiben, nehmen wir an, die Anzahl dieser bleibt konstant, dann sind das an normalen Tagen nur 16,7%, aber als der Google Traffic weggebrochen war, lagen die wiederkehrenden Besucher bereits bei 33,3%, jetzt kannst du hochrechnen, wieso der overall Bounce Rate um etwa 15 Prozentpunkte gesunken ist…

]]> By: David Deutsch http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-418 David Deutsch Wed, 26 Nov 2008 03:15:49 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-418 Hey quadszilla, thx for your response. Maybe you're right and "I am retarded" but I still doesn't believe it. Now I understand your opinion but are you sure that the pages with the highest BR didn't get Google Traffic for the three days? Sure that your site didn't just loose their overall ranking for main keys or the ranking for one of your traffic overview sites? Or just the ranking for a high traffic keyword with high BR? In my experience the general keywords have a different BR than more specific keywords. And also that different ranking positions has different BR. There are so many reasons why your BR and ranking dropped. I'm not at all convinced that this is a google BR-testing for the quality of your site. Look at the following Google Analytics Screen: http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/bounce-rate-vs-visits.jpg - it shows the Google Traffic & its Bounce Rate. For one of my sites I ranked for three days for a keyword with very low BR. The overall BR dropped down to 40% instead of over 70%. After losing the ranking again the BR increased again, too. This has nothing to do with google testings for BR but it looks exactly like your graph in backwards. So why are you so sure that you are right? Hey quadszilla,

thx for your response. Maybe you’re right and “I am retarded” but I still doesn’t believe it.

Now I understand your opinion but are you sure that the pages with the highest BR didn’t get Google Traffic for the three days? Sure that your site didn’t just loose their overall ranking for main keys or the ranking for one of your traffic overview sites? Or just the ranking for a high traffic keyword with high BR? In my experience the general keywords have a different BR than more specific keywords. And also that different ranking positions has different BR.

There are so many reasons why your BR and ranking dropped. I’m not at all convinced that this is a google BR-testing for the quality of your site.

Look at the following Google Analytics Screen: http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/bounce-rate-vs-visits.jpg – it shows the Google Traffic & its Bounce Rate.
For one of my sites I ranked for three days for a keyword with very low BR.
The overall BR dropped down to 40% instead of over 70%. After losing the ranking again the BR increased again, too. This has nothing to do with google testings for BR but it looks exactly like your graph in backwards.

So why are you so sure that you are right?

]]> By: Jojo http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-414 Jojo Tue, 25 Nov 2008 23:59:52 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-414 Soweit ich Quadzilla verstehe, vertritt er die Meinung, das Google den Traffic "weggenommen" hat, der eine schlechte also hohe Bounce Rate aufweist und sich so die bessere weil niedrigere Bounce Rate erklären lässt. Das macht durchaus ein klein wenig Sinn, aber letztlich ist natürlich das Beispiel als Einzelfall und von der verfügbaren Datenbasis nicht wirklich geeignet daraus Schlüsse zu ziehen. Da sollte man sicherlich vorsichtig sein. Soweit ich Quadzilla verstehe, vertritt er die Meinung, das Google den Traffic “weggenommen” hat, der eine schlechte also hohe Bounce Rate aufweist und sich so die bessere weil niedrigere Bounce Rate erklären lässt. Das macht durchaus ein klein wenig Sinn, aber letztlich ist natürlich das Beispiel als Einzelfall und von der verfügbaren Datenbasis nicht wirklich geeignet daraus Schlüsse zu ziehen. Da sollte man sicherlich vorsichtig sein.

]]> By: yi http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-413 yi Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:19:06 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-413 In the second post you showed us two screenshots from your search engine visitors and this makes perfectly sense why you got a lower bounce rate on 11.November-13.November: In the first post we can see that you got ~15000 visitors at all on 11. Nov and in the second post ~10000 from Google alone which means that ~33% of these visitors are returning visitors with a lower bounce rate, through the Google ranking drops on 11. Nov you were getting less new Google visitors with a higher bounce rate through what you lowered your overall bounce rate (the amount of the returning visitors was constant)! So in fact you made a logical error in your posts... In the second post you showed us two screenshots from your search engine visitors and this makes perfectly sense why you got a lower bounce rate on 11.November-13.November: In the first post we can see that you got ~15000 visitors at all on 11. Nov and in the second post ~10000 from Google alone which means that ~33% of these visitors are returning visitors with a lower bounce rate, through the Google ranking drops on 11. Nov you were getting less new Google visitors with a higher bounce rate through what you lowered your overall bounce rate (the amount of the returning visitors was constant)! So in fact you made a logical error in your posts…

]]> By: yi http://blog.david-deutsch.com/2008/11/seo-geruechte-bounce-rate-ein-rankingfaktor/comment-page-1/#comment-412 yi Tue, 25 Nov 2008 22:02:00 +0000 http://blog.daviddeutsch.de/?p=146#comment-412 Just for you understanding quadzilla: The screenshots from Google Analytics you posted on your blog shows that with a lower bounce rate you were getting less visitors on your site as before and that´s just the opposite of what you were trying to declare your readers. According to your thesis we should see more visitors in the first graph during the time frame with a lower bounce rate, otherwise it doesn´t make any sense! Just for you understanding quadzilla: The screenshots from Google Analytics you posted on your blog shows that with a lower bounce rate you were getting less visitors on your site as before and that´s just the opposite of what you were trying to declare your readers. According to your thesis we should see more visitors in the first graph during the time frame with a lower bounce rate, otherwise it doesn´t make any sense!

]]>