A Week in the Life of 3 Keywords |
| A Week in the Life of 3 Keywords Posted: 12 Nov 2012 06:57 PM PST Posted by Dr. Pete Like it or not, rank-tracking is still a big part of most SEO's lives. Unfortunately, while many of us have a lot of data, sorting out what’s important ends up being more art (and borderline sorcery) than science. We’re happy and eager to take credit when keywords move up, and sad and quick to hunt for blame when they move down. The problem is that we often have no idea what “normal” movement looks like – up is good, down is bad, and meaning is in the eye of the beholder. What’s A Normal Day?Our work with MozCast has led me to an unpleasant realization – however unpredictable you think rankings are, it’s actually much worse. For example, in the 30 days prior to writing this post (10/11-11/9), just over 80% of SERPs we tracked changed, on average, every day. Now, some of those changes were small (maybe one URL shifted one spot in the top 10), and some were large, but the fact that 4 of 5 SERPs experienced some change every 24 hours shows you just how dynamic the ranking game has become in 2012. Compare these numbers to Google’s statements about updates like Panda – for example, for Panda #21, Google said that 1.2% of queries were “noticeably affected”. An algorithm update (granted, Panda 21 was probably data-only) impacted 1.2%, but baseline is something near 80%. How can we possibly separate the signal from the noise? Is Google Messing With Us?We all think it from time to time. Maybe Google is shuffling rankings on purpose, semi-randomly, just to keep SEOs guessing. On my saner days, I realize that this is unlikely from a search quality and tracking perspective (it would make their job a lot messier), but with average flux being so high, it’s hard to imagine that websites are really changing that fast. While we do try to minimize noise, by taking precautions like tracking keywords via the same IP, at roughly the same time of day, with settings delocalized and depersonalized, it is possible that the noise is an artifact of how the system works. For example, Google uses highly distributed data – even if I hit the same regional data center most days, it could be that the data itself is in flux as new information propagates and centers update themselves. In other words, even if the algorithm doesn’t change and the websites don’t change, the very nature of Google’s complexity could create a perpetual state of change. How Do We Sort It Out?I decided to try a little experiment. If Google is really just adding noise to the system – shuffling rankings slightly to keep SEOs guessing – then we’d expect to see a fairly similar baseline pattern regardless of the keyword. We also might see different patterns over time – while MozCast is based on 24-hour intervals, there’s no reason we can’t check in more often. So, I ran a 7-day crawl for just three keywords, checking each of them every 10 minutes, resulting in 1,008 data points per keyword. For simplicity, I chose the keyword with the highest flux over the previous 30 days, the lowest flux, and one right in the middle (the median, in this case). Here are the three keywords and their MozCast temperatures for the 30 days in question:
Xbox queries run pretty hot, to put it mildly. The 7-day data was collected in late September and early October. Like the core MozCast engine, the Top 10 SERPs were crawled and recorded, but unlike MozCast, the crawler fired every 10 minutes. Experiment #1: 10-minute FluxLet’s get the big question out of the way first – Was the rate of change for these keywords similar or different? You might expect (1) “new xbox” to show higher flux when it changes, but if Google was injecting randomness than it should change roughly as often, in theory. Over the 1,008 measurements for each keyword, here’s how often they changed:
While three keywords isn’t enough data to do compelling statistics, the results are striking. The highest flux keyword changed 55% of the times we measured it, or roughly every 20 minutes. Either Google is taking into account new data that’s rapidly changing (content, links, SEO tweaks), or high-flux keywords are just inherently different beasts. The simple “random injection” model just doesn’t hold up, though. The lowest flux keyword only changed 4% of the times we measured it. If Google were moving the football every time we tried to kick it, we’d expect to see a much more consistent rate of change. If we look at the temperature (a la MozCast) for “new xbox” across these micro-fluxes (only counting intervals where something changed), it averaged about 93°F, high but considerably less than the average 24-hour flux. This could be evidence that something about the sites themselves is changing at a steady rate (the more time passes, the more they change). Keep in mind that “new xbox” almost definitely has QDF (query deserves freshness) in play, as the Top 10 is occupied by major players with constantly updated content – including Forbes, CS Monitor, PC World, Gamespot, and IGN. This is a naturally dynamic query. Experiment #2: Data Center FluxExperiment #1 maintained consistency by checking each keyword from the same IP address (to avoid the additional noise of changing data centers). While it seems unlikely that the three keywords would vary so much simply because of data center differences, I decided to run a follow up test to measure just “new xbox” every 10 minutes for a single day (144 data points) across two different data centers. Across the two data centers, the rate of change was similar but even higher than the original experiment: (1) 98 changes in 144 measurements = 68% and (2) 104 changes = 72%. This may have just been an unusually high-flux day. We’re mostly interested in the differences across these two data sets. Average temperature for recorded changes was (1) 121°F and (2) 118°F, both higher than experiment #1 but roughly comparable. What if we compared each measurement directly across data centers? In other words, we typically measure flux over time, but what if we measured flux between the two sets of data at the same moment in time? This turned out to be feasible, if a bit tricky. Out of 144 measurements, the two data centers were out of sync 140 times (97%). As we data scientists like to say: Yikes! The average temperature for those mismatched measurements was 138°F, also higher than the 10-minute flux measurements. Keep in mind that these measurements were nearly simultaneous (within 1 second, generally) and that the results were delocalized and depersonalized. Typically, “new xbox” isn’t a heavily local query to begin with. So, this appears to be almost entirely a byproduct of the data center itself (not its location). So, What Does It All Mean?We can’t conclusively prove if something is in a black box, but I feel comfortable saying that Google isn’t simply injecting noise into the system every time we run a query. The large variations across the three keywords suggest that it’s the inherent nature of the queries themselves that matter. Google isn’t moving the target so much as the entire world is moving around the target. The data center question is much more difficult. It’s possible that the two data centers were just a few minutes out of sync, but there’s no clear evidence of that in the data (there are significant differences across hours). So, I’m left to conclude two things – the large amount of flux we see is a byproduct of both the nature of the keywords and the data centers. Worse yet, it’s not just a matter of the data centers being static but different – they’re all changing constantly within their own universe of data. The broader lesson is clear – don’t over-interpret one change in one ranking over one time period. Change is the norm, and may indicate nothing at all about your success. We have to look at consistent patterns of change over time, especially across broad sets of keywords and secondary indicators (like organic traffic). Rankings are still important, but they live in a world that is constantly in motion, and none of us can afford to stand still. Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read! |
| When Is My Tweet's Prime of Life? (A brief statistical interlude.) Posted: 12 Nov 2012 03:47 AM PST Posted by followerwonk This post was originally in YouMoz, and was promoted to the main blog because it provides great value and interest to our community. The author's views are entirely his or her own and may not reflect the views of SEOmoz, Inc. Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player, So, little tweet, how long do you have before you must exit stage left? A minute? An hour? If you're Obama, well, your record-breaking tweet is probably going to live as long as school kids hate Shakespeare. But, for the rest of us, our tweets probably have the life of a very short-lived fruit fly, right? Right? Perhaps not! How can we measure the lifespan of a tweet?We can't ever really know when a tweet has been "consumed" (to use Twitter's artless term) without access logs. However, we do have a few pieces of information that may help. Notably, retweets. Retweets are the currency of Twitter. They're a transaction; I've consumed this tweet and find it valuable enough to pass along to others. And, as retweet-like functionality spreads to Facebook and other networks, they're increasingly becoming the currency of the Internet. We can look at the time retweets occur relative to the underlying tweet for a pretty good signal for how long a tweet "lives." Ultimately, we're not necessarily interested in the old age of a tweet. Rather, with retweets, we can find a tweet's prime of life, when it's youthful and has many courters. Gather ye rosebuds... Are there any issues using retweets as a prime-of-life metric?Yep! First, a retweet probably "kicks the can down the round." When a RT happens, more people may read and retweet the underlying tweet. Therefore, any conclusions we may come to in regards to lifespans of tweets are only for those with RTs. Tweets without RTs have their own hidden lifecycle. While that lifecycle probably correlates strongly, a retweet re-energizes and probably means that RTed tweets have slightly longer lives. Second, not everyone gets retweeted. As we see, as you approach a million followers, pretty much all of your tweets get at least 1 retweet. Those with less than 100 followers have virtually no tweets retweeted. Why might this be a problem? RTd tweets from small follower count users may have characteristics that set them apart from their other tweets. Something drove readers to applaud them compared to the many other tweets of theirs that get nary a clap. By comparison, high follower count users could tweet a single word and still count on lots of retweets. So, bottom-line, this analysis looks at the gems of low follower count users. And, since we're limited to just looking at 100 RTs per tweet, we also rely on the forgettable tweets of high follower count users. Ultimately I don't think this is an issue, but I want to mention it up front. Drumroll...Ready for it? The magic number? Eighteen minutes. My suspicion was that tweets survived for a minute or so, never to be heard from again after that. Indeed, even following a few hundred users, it's hard to keep up with the tweets that come at you. But generally, tweets live longer than I had imagined. (This 18 minute figure keeps coming up again and again, no matter how you slice the data.) What's to blame?Well, nothing! That's just the way it is. But just as nicotine may knock years off your life, a few things may change your tweets' lifespans significantly. As you'd expect, the number of people who follow you changes things up a bit. Here, I plot the average retweet time for all users against their follower counts. (Parenthetically, you can see the stratification I did for follower count... yes, we randomly sample, but first we put all Twitter users into buckets by how many follow them. This ensures we also sample from the relatively few high follower count users out there.) High follower count users have a longer life than low follower count users. Okay, not that surprising. (By the way, it's kind of in vogue to dismiss follower count, but generally it's the most informative and productive metric there is.) Look a bit closer at the above graph. Note the dispersion on the left, for lower follower count users, is less than on the right, for higher follower count users. If we plot the standard deviations (and I'll save you from that nerdiness), the dispersion is very tight on the right, really disperse on the left. This indicates that there are some low follower count users who hit the ball out of the park. We'll dig more into this in a future post; to find out what it is about some of their tweets that allow them to go big. Here's something else that seems to impact how long tweets live. Here, we compare the average lifespan of a tweet to the time it took that user to make 200 tweets. This positive correlation kinda makes sense, too: tweets cannibalize each other. Presumably, the longer a tweet sits at the top of your page, the longer its life. The more you tweet, the shorter the lifespan of each individual tweet. Can we say this is a causal relationship? No... but it probably is. (If anything, this relationship is probably even stronger.) You might say to yourself, "Ah, just because tweeting a lot means you drive down the life expectancy of any individual tweet, it doesn't mean that your overall retweet rate will be lower." Perhaps tweeting lots and lots rapidly will garner more overall RTs? The data doesn't bear that out: Here we see that there's no correlation between how fast you tweet and the total RTs that you get. Okay, so what else can we investigate? You know how occasionally those studies come out saying people who use Internet Explorer are less intelligent than Chromers? Okay, well, that was just plain silliness. But perhaps we can learn something by looking at the "source" of the tweet: namely, what client made it. (This is something that Twitter now hides from users, but it is still available via API calls.) So what do we find? Yeah, so I suppose this isn't that surprising. Almost 90% of all RTs come from official Twitter clients. So much for the salad days of yore, when every developer and his mother published a little Twitter client. We all know that Twitter has, ahem, discouraged that. And it has apparently worked. Above is the detail on top RT clients. Here, I looked at 1.3 million retweets. (While the sampling isn't perfect due to the sheer volume of calls that would be required to get a truly random sample, I don't expect that anything would change much with better sampling.) I also include the median time that users of that client made a retweet. A few things stand out. First, desktop clients are speedy little suckers: note that Tweetdeck and Twitter for Mac both have really fast times. Second, note that Flipboard, a sorta tweet curation service, has a slow response time, which makes sense given that it exposes tweets in report-like "what you missed" format. I looked at the difference of Flipboard for RTs of tweets by high follower count versus low follower count users. It definitely had more of a presence in high follower count tweets. Similarly, the fast-on-the-draw automatic retweet clients (like RoundTeam) seem to have more of a presence on low follower count tweets (perhaps folks trying to bulk up their influence scores, or engage in other RT exchange programs). Ultimately, though, these clients are so relatively scarce that it's perhaps not worth reading too much into these observations. Bottom line?In the next installment, I will dig deeper into both the types of users and tweets that get more retweets. (Please make sure to Like this blog post to encourage me to get started on the next one!) Here, I wanted to lay the groundwork a bit by looking at retweets as a measure of a tweet's life. We learned that 18 minutes is an important number. That's the median lifespan of a tweet. Sure, tweets can have an extended old age, with a couple of people continually zapping the tweet back to life. To that end, when you tweet becomes critically important. I recommend that people understand when their audience is online so as to best time your tweets. In Followerwonk, you can analyze your followers (or those of any other user) and see a chart of when they're most likely to be online. This'll help you find optimal times to tweet. Parenthetically, it remains an open question, in my ever contrarian mind, that the best time to tweet is the time when most of your followers are online. It almost certainly is. But until tested, I can also make a case that the best time to tweet is when the least amount of your followers are online. Why? Because it's kinda like watching TV at 3 am versus 9 pm. At 3 am you find yourself watching infomercials because there is nothing else on. So, perhaps tweeting at 3 am, when few of your own timezone followers online, will more likely catch those night owl's attention, versus tweeting in the middle of the day when your audience has many other tweeters drawing their attention? Finally, I think that we've also uncovered a bit of dirt in regards to tweet volume. I don't want to get all correlation versus causation on you, but it seems to be that the faster you tweet, the less life your tweets get. Since it's kinda sad to stamp out the life of a tweet too early, you might consider re-holstering your tweet finger now and again to ensure that you're tweeting quality content at a reasonable rate. This is a preliminary and brief exploration of Twitter data. Next time, I'll get even nuttier with data. So please "like" this post if you'd like to see more! And don't forget to follow me on Twitter! Sign up for The Moz Top 10, a semimonthly mailer updating you on the top ten hottest pieces of SEO news, tips, and rad links uncovered by the Moz team. Think of it as your exclusive digest of stuff you don't have time to hunt down but want to read! |
.png)
| You are subscribed to email updates from SEOmoz Daily SEO Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
Postări
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu