Here at Hull SEO, there did not seem to be much evidence that the computer OS or browser type had any significant role in the re-ranking processes or mean rates. As mentioned earlier, further testing could include isolating aspects such as Google Toolbars being installed, state of java script & so forth. There was also an interesting fact in that the lone Safari browser on Mac had the cleanest information. Meaning that when they looked at the mean average rankings, this set up had the rankings that best represented the average ranking. It is already known to not be compatible with Google personalized search which may have been relevant.
Technical aspects of what they learnt:
What they learned so far:
At this point there are not likely any huge effects related to the technical set up of the searcher in query. How much flux is there in the rankings? There was certainly a reasonable movement in the rankings to the extent that no one result sets were the same. Sometimes there were minor adjustments & others with movements from 9th up to 2nd which is a healthy move thinking about the location above the fold. What is worth noting is that this was not really reflected in profiles with personalized search ON more so than when it was disabled for the most part; re-ranking implemented with & without personalized search.
There are also instances where personalization enabled results & then paused state results (same user) showed consideration retention of personalized results (or at least ranking anomalies). This could insinuate a level of non search history related signals as well. Another consideration is that they have not inquired in to the strongest performing URLs from the questions to establish relative competitiveness of the query spaces. More competitive search terms may have greater (or lesser) levels of re-ranking.
Ultimately, while the information showed a fair amount of re-ranking, there was not really a reshape one of SEO programs or reporting. That is to say those potential behavioral re-rankings are not generating a huge flux that inhibits valuations. Not that those behavioral signals are not having a pre-delivery ranking effect; fundamentally that they do not seem to be having a major role in re-ranking by personalized search or query analysis. Top canines & usual suspects – There was a tension for the top 10 results to be re-ranked over complete upheaval across the top 20 placing. For the most part the first page rankings remained consistent as a group in the majority of query spaces & there were nominal placement of URLs not found across all the results.
What is affecting the rankings (& what are the effects)? Thinking about the affects of having personalized search turned on were often minimal, there seemed to be other factors at play here – some causation could have related to; > Behavioral – information other than search history could also be affecting as previous searches prior to the experiments, logged or not, could have an effect (query analysis coming to mind). In the future ensuring that responses restated
This was even more evident in the top 3-4 placed URLs for most of the questions. The top results were often unchanged or interchanged. Thinking about the tendencies noted at this point there is small evidence of several re-rankings such as pages ranking 20th moving in & out of the top 10.
They can also take note that the winner listings in the top 10 are the ones most likely to be moved out of the top 10 when any type of re-ranking outside the usual suspects occur (common urls). This means that they are still interested in ranking top 4 on a mean average (query a set of DCs for ranking reports) as they are never if ever dumped from the top 10 in re-ranking scenarios.
their computers / browsers & start new search sessions would limit this effect better. & that is this set of information – keep in mind these are generic informational searches. None of the questions tested involved a high level of QDF (query deserves freshness) nor geographic triggers. They do know that these factors can easily generate a higher level of SERP re-ranking & flux. Personalization seems to have the greatest effect on the weakest urls in the results information sets. The ranking anomalies they noted in the information were often found in both the active & disabled personalized search setting. Generally speaking any personalization re-ranking would be minimal & dampening effects, while evident, seem to be reliably benign in nature.How can they make the most from it?
Summary – Adapting the SEO plan At this point there may be evidence to warrant further inquiry but not to abandon rankings as an indicator in your SEO programs. If anything, there is evidence that makes a top ranking (1-4) more valuable than ever. These positions were shown to be the strongest with the least amount of movement due to re-ranking. Above the fold still holds value What is also important is how one valuates these rankings. Identifying target markets & getting mean search ranking information from these locales is an important aspect for consideration. This is because any deviations from re-ranking are stable & setting a baseline from target locations (geographic) should be to efficiency efficiency in targeting (the rest can be established by analytics).
As far as tracking SEO projects are concerned, I would be wary of any single information set & be sure to try & isolate Google information centers when doing ranking / competitive analysis & use a mean average as your primary indicators. This also highlights the need to geographically target information centers & ensure strong rankings across your target markets. While they only looked at a useful of international information, searching the Google.com domain shown no major re-rankings beyond what they were seeing elsewhere. While slightly more movement was evident among international respondents, not to skew SEO efforts extremely.
Personalization re-rankings are minimal – from what they could see (using an informational query) the effects of personalization were minimal. This may be due to a lack of history around the questions used, but they did use terms loosely related to topics the respondents would normally be using. Even factoring in room for error, there is no evidence to show that personalization is drastically changing the ranking landscape.
The core take-away from this round is; No one SERPs were the same (personalization ON or not)> Personalization re-rankings are minimal (for informational queries)> Establish geo-graphic baselines (or segment segment information)> Top 4 positions are primary targets> Top 10 are secondary targets> Top 20 may be leveraged through behavioral optimization
Obviously this is for the core / secondary terms .. tracking long tail this way would not be cost effective. Generate terms that become the bases; valuating long tail terms should be done by analytics information extremely.
Top 4 positions are primary targets – the information shown that top rankings 1-4, (above the fold) are more stable than the rankings 5-10 as far as being re-ranked were concerned. This means not only is ranking analysis still a viable SEO program metric, but in all likelihood these top rankings have more value than ever. They do seem to have stronger resistance to personalization / ranking anomalies.
Top 20 may be leveraged – while they have not conducted research in the top 20 listings at this time; they can extrapolate within reason that the stronger 11-20th ranked pages would have an obvious likelihood of migrating in to the top 10 in personalized search situations. If you can not break the top 10; be a strong contender to ensure the best chance of capitalizing on potential opportunities.
Top 10 are secondary targets – as noted there is still value to be had in top 10 rankings as they generally remained within the top 10; merly re-ranked through the information sets. That being said, when re-ranking outside of the top 10 occurred, it was more often the positions 5-10 that would be likely candidates for demotion. If you are not in the top 4 then ensuing your page is one of the stronger listings will better ensure potential personalization / re-ranking does not affect your listing.
