<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>The final word on bounce rates as a ranking signal</title>
		<description>Discuss The final word on bounce rates as a ranking signal</description>
		<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 14:03:06 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://www.huomah.com/feed/com_content/372/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>http://www.greececasino.com/ says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-2072</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I guess filtering noise is much harder in real life than in the studies but I don't think I know enough to comment on this.tying personalized search into related/similar groups to cut on bandwidth and computing power: sure, that's what SEO Surbot Nets are all about, really: mimicking the industry-typical customer will create those very patterns that can function as false positives to dominate results.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>http://www.greececasino.com/</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-2072</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>nice info</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-1491</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Thanks for your comments. Google would be able to work out bounce rates via both Analytic and their site itself.for example lets assume I search for]]></description>
			<dc:creator>currency trade field</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 15 May 2009 04:57:57 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-1491</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dave says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-536</link>
			<description><![CDATA[whoah... 2 Dave's - we're talking echo chamber here soon... @Fanto just had to leave Matt love notes didn't ya? I guess that's why it's 'adversarial IR' huh? I think that's why some IR peeps that feel this course is a dead horse, if may be lyrical at this late hour. No one has done more than show 'my pretty idea' in a closed environment (often with woefully poor subject diversity). The spam element solicits a cry for more funding. Now the 'noise' part, is actually more about establishing intent and satisfaction ie; perceived signals vary wildly and assertions are unclear from demographic to demographic. Thus between these two relatively large elephants in the room, one wonders if there is hope ultimately.... It would suck if it's a ghost, I've put so much time in on it...lol :o @Dave - hi there, Dave here... (told U the echo chamber was coming) There are two main schools which are; visiting one page and/or time one page (say, less than 5 seconds). You raise more valid points. If Google is doing it's job, for example on an informational query, I should get what I was after and be out of there. If I had to dig 3 pages deeper to find that which I was after, how does this show satisfaction? In some cases this is a positive, in others not at all - these are the types of 'noisy' signals I mentioned above (the list goes on and on). I do agree with your assessment, though it can be situational and query dependent or not. .... time will tell.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:23:24 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-536</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dave says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-874</link>
			<description><![CDATA[From my understanding a 'bounce' is recorded when someone visits a web page but then doesn't visit another page on the website after that. This behaviour supposedly indicated that the user was not happy with the page they arrived on, so decides to leave. This interpretation is not valid for all web pages. I can think of plenty of times when I visit one page directly from Google, get the information I want, and leave again. It seems to me that bounce rate is an old way of thinking about the web when people had homepages to attract people, who would then move on from there. It's much more common now to deep link into a website, meaning the user does not necessarily have to move on from that page. This would result in that page having a high bounce rate, despite the fact that it's meeting people's needs.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 21:59:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-874</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>fantomaster says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-678</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Just to chime in on a couple of points seeing that you mention me explicitly, heh. For one, if you want to go for manipulation of SERPs via behavioral signals (I'll leave it to Matt Cutts and his minions to term it "spam" or, worse, "black hat" in Matts' current favorite synonymizing tactics "black hat = felons" - think: crackers, malware infusers etc.), you'll obviously have to scale your activities. Claiming, like some patents do, that the overall impact of such "noise" (which, technically, won't actually even be that: manipulation, yes, but not "noise" in the sense of "chaotic signals" will be negligible is quite ludicrous, to put it mildly: deploy a and scalable network of SEO Surfbots for all the relevant search terms (short tail and long tail alike) and let them do their good work automatically 24/7. Once rolled out, all you'll have to do is feed them with lists of search phrases and target sites, that's all. Do it on a couple of mainframes, and where does that leave all those super duper protection algos? Yes, it's brute force, but then so is spam and scalable IM anyway. As for tying personalized search into related/similar groups to cut on bandwidth and computing power: sure, that's what SEO Surbot Nets are all about, really: mimicking the industry-typical customer will create those very patterns that can function as false positives to dominate results. Personally, I, too, don't buy into the hype that the major engines are actually using bounce rates etc. in any major way currently. But I won't put it past them that they'll go for it one day if only to cut some corners. After all, doing this is a whole lot cheaper than developing highly targeted verticals with loads of human editors to monitor results and safeguard quality... As for that old carrot of "Google being great on catching spam", my sole response is "bah". (Check results for "cheap viagra" or similar to see for yourself - and lots of those SERPs are very probably hand jobs, too...)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>fantomaster</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:27:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-678</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dave says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-681</link>
			<description><![CDATA[That's interesting U say 'groups' as much of the personalization does work that way as it can be to resource intensive to go on a singular level. I have a post Monday on 'Personalized PageRank' be sure to tune in :0)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:23:19 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-681</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Lea de Groot says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-680</link>
			<description><![CDATA[When combined with personalisation  its going to be much more useful: Take my logged in personalisation , put me in a group of other people who seem to have similar interests, and prefer results for me that others in my group are bouncing less on. There, was that so hard? So, I just have to hope that my usage pattern doesn't make me look like a 3rd world paid-to-click person :sad: *sigh*]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Lea de Groot</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:12:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-680</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Dave says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-692</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@AK John - well, Yahoo also put out patents relating to Personalized PageRank an HarmonicRank... sooooo... One learns quick that patents are mearly covering ones ass... not always a sign of actual implementation. As far as Goog, Search Wiki signals used in a non-personalized enviro would be MASSIVELY spamm-able, regardless of what Marissa says about 'some day' there are many problems inherent there. Personalized search? Sure... it's an explicit signal of worth. To many people underestimate the problems associated with adversarial IR - tricky business @Nick - there is considerable debate in the IR world as well. Obiously behavioral metrics will play into the evolution, we're just not sure what flavour (approach) - I do agree with you there...]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 12:27:46 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-692</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Pogosticking, GAnalytics and SearchWiki</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-691</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Yahoo! is clearly looking at pogosticking behavior via their patent application and Google has had personalized, SERP rank tracking in place for a number of years (as i described in my link previously). I doubt very highly that Google is using GAnalytics data. They can get this information in other ways that don't pose such an enormous risk. That said, the benchmarks product within GAnalytics might be something they look at and match up against their own site taxonomy, which I believe they do have on some level. SearchWiki is the more interesting avenue right now IMO. At its core, it provides a human feedback mechanism on SERPs. The algorithm needs a human tutor and SearchWiki turns us into a massive army of mechanical turks. http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/searchwiki-turns-you-into-free-mechanical-turk Again, remember that we're talking 7 billion US searches in a month on Google. It only takes a small amount of usage to obtain a stream of intelligent (human) ranking via SearchWiki. It's not about the rankings of any individual but whether the human ranking of that SERP deviated statistically from what the algorithm produced.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AJ Kohn</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-691</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Nick Stamoulis says:</title>
			<link>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-690</link>
			<description><![CDATA[There is a lot of back and forth on this. Personally in the future I think that this will be a factor in rankings.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Nick Stamoulis</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:29:47 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://www.huomah.com/Search-Engines/Algorithm-Matters/The-final-word-on-bounce-rates-as-a-ranking-signal.html#comment-690</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
