skip to main content
10.1145/3447535.3462479acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageswebsciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

The influence of search engine optimization on Google's results: A multi-dimensional approach for detecting SEO

Published:22 June 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Search engine optimization (SEO) can significantly influence what is shown on the result pages of commercial search engines. However, it is unclear what proportion of (top) results have actually been optimized. We developed a tool that uses a semi-automatic approach to detect, based on a given URL, whether SEO measures were taken. In this multi-dimensional approach, we analyze the HTML code from which we extract information on SEO and analytics tools. Further, we extract SEO indicators on the page level and the website level (e.g., page descriptions and loading time of a website). We amend this approach by using lists of manually classified websites and use machine learning methods to improve the classifier. An analysis based on three datasets with a total of 1,914 queries and 256,853 results shows that a large fraction of pages found in Google is at least probably optimized, which is in line with statements from SEO experts saying that it is tough to gain visibility in search engines without applying SEO techniques.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

PS1.1_SebastianSunkler_The_Influence_of_SearchEngineOptimization_on_Googles_Results_210616.mp4

mp4

126.6 MB

References

  1. Muhammad Akram, Imran Sohail, Sikandar Hayat, M Imran Shafi, and Umer Saeed. 2010. Search Engine Optimization Techniques Practiced in Organizations: A Study of Four Organizations. J. Comput. 2, 6 (June 2010), 134–139.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Judit Bar-Ilan, Kevin Keenoy, Mark Levene, and Eti Yaari. 2009. Presentation bias is significant in determining user preference for search results-A user study. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 1 (January 2009), 135–149. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.20941Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Aziz Barbar and Anis Ismail. 2019. Search Engine Optimization (SEO) for Websites. In Proceedings of the 2019 5th International Conference on Computer and Technology Applications, ACM, New York, NY, USA, 51–55. https://doi.org/10.1145/3323933.3324072Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Nick Craswell, Onno Zoeter, Michael Taylor, and Bill Ramsey. 2008. An experimental comparison of click position-bias models. In Proceedings of the international conference on Web search and web data mining, Microsoft Research, Cambridge, United Kingdom Microsoft Research, Redmond, United States, 87–94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Ashwini Dalvi and Riya Saraf. 2019. Inspecting Engineering College Websites for Effective Search Engine Optimization. In 2019 International Conference on Nascent Technologies in Engineering (ICNTE), IEEE, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICNTE44896.2019.8945823Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Fernando Diaz. 2016. Worst Practices for Designing Production Information Access Systems. ACM SIGIR Forum 50, 1 (June 2016), 2–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/2964797.2964799Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Murray Dick. 2011. Search Engine Optimisation in Uk News Production. Journal. Pract. 5, 4 (August 2011), 462–477. https://doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2010.551020Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ioannis C Drivas, Damianos P Sakas, Georgios A Giannakopoulos, and Daphne Kyriaki-Manessi. 2020. Big Data Analytics for Search Engine Optimization. Big Data Cogn. Comput. 4, 2 (April 2020), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc4020005Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Edelman. 2020. Edelman Trust Barometer 2020.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. European Commission. 2016. Special Eurobarometer 447 – Online Platforms. European Commission, Brussels. https://doi.org/10.2759/937517Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Michael P. Evans. 2007. Analysing Google rankings through search engine optimization data. Internet Res. 17, 1 (2007), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/10662240710730470Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Andreas Giannakoulopoulos, Nikos Konstantinou, Dimitris Koutsompolis, Minas Pergantis, and Iraklis Varlamis. 2019. Academic excellence,website quality, SEO performance: Is there a correlation? Futur. Internet 11, 11 (2019), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11110242Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Dimitrios Giomelakis, Christina Karypidou, and Andreas Veglis. 2019. SEO inside Newsrooms: Reports from the Field. Futur. Internet 11, 12 (December 2019), 261. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11120261Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Dimitrios Giomelakis and Andreas Veglis. 2016. Investigating Search Engine Optimization Factors in Media Websites. Digit. Journal. 4, 3 (April 2016), 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2015.1046992Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Sharad Goel, Andrei Broder, Evgeniy Gabrilovich, and Bo Pang. 2010. Anatomy of the long tail. In Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on Web search and data mining - WSDM ’10, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 201. https://doi.org/10.1145/1718487.1718513Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Nadine Höchstötter and Dirk Lewandowski. 2009. What users see – Structures in search engine results pages. Inf. Sci. (Ny). 179, 12 (May 2009), 1796–1812. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ins.2009.01.028Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. C D Hoyos, J C Duque, A F Barco, and É Vareilles. 2019. A search engine optimization recommender system. In CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 43–47.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Thorsten Joachims, Laura Granka, Bing Pan, and Helene Hembrooke. Accurately Interpreting Clickthrough Data as Implicit Feedback.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mark T. Keane, Maeve O'Brien, and Barry Smyth. 2008. Are people biased in their use of search engines? Commun. ACM 51, 2 (February 2008), 49–52. https://doi.org/10.1145/1314215.1314224Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Diane Kelly and Leif Azzopardi. 2015. How many results per page? In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval - SIGIR ’15, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 183–192. https://doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767732Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Raphael N. Klein, Lisa Beutelspacher, Katharina Hauk, Christina Terp, Denis Anuschewski, Christoph Zensen, Violeta Trkulja, and Katrin Weller. 2009. Informationskompetenz in Zeiten des Web 2.0: Chancen und Herausforderungen im Umgang mit Social Software. Inf. - Wiss. Prax. 60, 3 (2009), 129–142.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Dirk Lewandowski. 2017. Users’ Understanding of Search Engine Advertisements. J. Inf. Sci. Theory Pract. 5, 4 (2017), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2017.5.4.1Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Dirk Lewandowski and Yvonne Kammerer. 2020. Factors influencing viewing behaviour on search engine results pages: a review of eye-tracking research. Behav. Inf. Technol. (May 2020), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2020.1761450Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Dirk Lewandowski, Friederike Kerkmann, Sandra Rümmele, and Sebastian Sünkler. 2018. An empirical investigation on search engine ad disclosure. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 69, 3 (March 2018), 420–437. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23963Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Dirk Lewandowski and Sebastian Sünkler. 2013. Representative online study to evaluate the revised commitments proposed by Google on 21 October 2013 as part of EU competition investigation AT.39740-Google: Country comparison report. Hamburg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Kai Li, Mei Lin, Zhangxi Lin, and Bo Xing. 2014. Running and chasing - The competition between paid search marketing and search engine optimization. Proc. Annu. Hawaii Int. Conf. Syst. Sci. (2014), 3110–3119. https://doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2014.640Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Zeyang Liu, Yiqun Liu, Ke Zhou, Min Zhang, and Shaoping Ma. 2015. Influence of Vertical Result in Web Search Examination. In Proceedings of the 38th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval - SIGIR ’15, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 193–202. https://doi.org/10.1145/2766462.2767714Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Carlos Lopezosa, Lluís Codina, Javier Díaz-Noci, and José-Antonio Ontalba. 2020. SEO and the digital news media: From the workplace to the classroom. Comunicar 28, 63 (April 2020), 63–72. https://doi.org/10.3916/C63-2020-06Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Goran Matošević, Jasminka Dobša, and Dunja Mladenić. 2021. Using machine learning for web page classification in search engine optimization. Futur. Internet 13, 1 (2021), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi13010009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  30. TJ McCue. 2018. SEO Industry Approaching $80 Billion But All You Want Is More Web Traffic. forbes.com.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Mike Moran and Bill Hunt. 2015. Search Engine Marketing, Inc.: Driving Search Traffic to Your Company's Website (Third edit ed.). IBM Press, Upper Saddle River, NJ.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Lourdes Moreno and Paloma Martinez. 2013. Overlapping factors in search engine optimization and web accessibility. Online Inf. Rev. 37, 4 (2013), 564–580. https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-04-2012-0063Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  33. Ushadi Niranjika and Dinesh Samarasighe. 2019. Exploring the Effectiveness of Search Engine Optimization Tactics for Dynamic Websites in Sri Lanka. In 2019 Moratuwa Engineering Research Conference (MERCon), IEEE, 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1109/MERCon.2019.8818903Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Barış Özkan, Eren Özceylan, Mehmet Kabak, and Metin Dağdeviren. 2020. Evaluating the websites of academic departments through SEO criteria: a hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM approach. Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-019-09681-zGoogle ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Bing Pan, Helene Hembrooke, Thorsten Joachims, Lori Lorigo, Geri Gay, and Laura Granka. 2007. In Google We Trust: Users’ Decisions on Rank, Position, and Relevance. J. Comput. Commun. 12, 3 (April 2007), 801–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00351.xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Philip Petrescu. 2014. Google Organic Click-Through Rates in 2014 - Moz.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  37. Indra Prawira and Mariko Rizkiansyah. 2018. Search engine optimization in news production online marketing practice in Indonesia online news media. Pertanika J. Soc. Sci. Humanit. 26, T (2018), 263–270.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Kristen Purcell, Joanna Brenner, and Lee Raine. 2012. Search Engine Use 2012. Washington, DC.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Joni Salminen, Roope Marttila, Bernard J. Jansen, Juan Corporan, and Tommi Salenius. 2019. Using machine learning to predict ranking of webpages in the gift industry: Factors for search-engine optimization. ACM Int. Conf. Proceeding Ser. (2019). https://doi.org/10.1145/3361570.3361578Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Philipp Schaer, Philipp Mayr, Sebastian Sünkler, and Dirk Lewandowski. 2016. How Relevant is the Long Tail? In CLEF 2016, Norbert Fuhr, Paulo Quaresma, Teresa Gonçalves, Birger Larsen, Krisztian Balog, Craig Macdonald, Linda Cappellato and Nicola Ferro (eds.). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 227–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44564-9_20Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  41. Sebastian Schultheiß and Dirk Lewandowski. 2020. “Outside the industry, nobody knows what we do” SEO as seen by search engine optimizers and content providers. J. Doc. (2020). https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2020-0127Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Sebastian Schultheiß and Dirk Lewandowski. 2020. How users’ knowledge of advertisements influences their viewing and selection behavior in search engines. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. (September 2020), asi.24410. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.24410Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Sebastian Schultheiß and Dirk Lewandowski. 2021. Misplaced trust? The relationship between trust, ability to identify commercially influenced results, and search engine preference. Journal of Information Science. May 2021. https://doi.org/10.1177/01655515211014157Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  44. Sebastian Schultheiß and Dirk Lewandowski. 2021. Expert interviews with stakeholder groups in the context of commercial search engineswithin the SEO Effect project. Retrieved from https://osf.io/5aufr/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Sebastian Schultheiß, Sebastian Sünkler, and Dirk Lewandowski. 2018. We still trust in google, but less than 10 years ago: An eye-tracking study. Inf. Res. 23, 3 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Jenna Pack Sheffield. 2020. Search Engine Optimization and Business Communication Instruction: Interviews With Experts. Bus. Prof. Commun. Q. (January 2020), 232949061989033. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329490619890335Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Similarweb. 2021. SimilarWeb | Website Traffic Intelligence.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Herbert Alexander Simon. 1955. A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice. Q. J. Econ. 69, 1 (1955), 99–118. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884852Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  49. StatCounter. 2020. Search Engine Market Share Europe | StatCounter Global Stats.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Artur Strzelecki. 2020. Eye-Tracking Studies of Web Search Engines: A Systematic Literature Review. Information 11, 6 (June 2020). https://doi.org/10.3390/info11060300Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Ao-Jan Su, Y Charlie Hu, Aleksandar Kuzmanovic, and Cheng-Kok Koh. 2014. How to Improve Your Search Engine Ranking: Myths and Reality. Acm Trans. Web 8, 2 (2014), 8. https://doi.org/10.1145/2579990Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Sebastian Sünkler and Nurce Yagci. 2021. Development and software implementation of a preliminary model to identify the probability of search engine optimization on webpages. Hamburg.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  53. Arthur Taylor and Heather A. Dalal. 2017. Gender and Information Literacy: Evaluation of Gender Differences in a Student Survey of Information Sources. Coll. Res. Libr. 78, 1 (2017), 90–113. https://doi.org/10.5860/crl.78.1.90Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  54. Shari Thurow. 2015. To Optimize Search, Optimize the Searcher. Online Search. 39, 4 (2015), 44–48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  55. Shari Thurow and Nick Musica. 2009. When Search Meets Web Usability. New Riders, Berkeley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  56. Andreas Tremel. 2010. Suchen, finden - glauben? Die Rolle der Glaubwürdigkeit von Suchergebnissen bei der Nutzung von Suchmaschinen. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität (LMU) München.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Lance Umenhofer. 2019. Gaining Ground: Search Engine Optimization and Its Implementation on an Indie Book Press. Publ. Res. Q. 35, 2 (June 2019), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-019-09651-xGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  58. Julian Unkel and Alexander Haas. 2017. The effects of credibility cues on the selection of search engine results. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 68, 8 (August 2017), 1850–1862. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23820Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  59. Eugene B. Visser and Melius Weideman. 2011. An empirical study on website usability elements and how they affect search engine optimisation. SA J. Inf. Manag. 13, 1 (March 2011), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.4102/sajim.v13i1.428Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Xuanhui Wang, Michael Bendersky, Donald Metzler, and Marc Najork. 2016. Learning to rank with selection bias in personal search. SIGIR 2016 - Proc. 39th Int. ACM SIGIR Conf. Res. Dev. Inf. Retr. (2016), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1145/2911451.2911537Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  61. Axel Westerwick. 2013. Effects of Sponsorship, Web Site Design, and Google Ranking on the Credibility of Online Information. J. Comput. Commun. 18, 2 (January 2013), 80–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12006Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  62. Yisong Yue, Rajan Patel, and Hein Roehrig. 2010. Beyond position bias. In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World wide web - WWW ’10, ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 1011. https://doi.org/10.1145/1772690.1772793Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  63. Hamed Zamani, Michael Bendersky, Xuanhui Wang, and Mingyang Zhang. 2017. Situational context for ranking in personal search. 26th Int. World Wide Web Conf. WWW 2017 (2017), 1531–1540. https://doi.org/10.1145/3038912.3052648Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  64. Lihong Zhang, Jianwei Zhang, and Yanbin Ju. 2011. The research on Search Engine Optimization based on Six Sigma Management. In 2011 International Conference on E-Business and E-Government (ICEE), IEEE, 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICEBEG.2011.5881880Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  65. Christos Ziakis, Maro Vlachopoulou, Theodosios Kyrkoudis, and Makrina Karagkiozidou. 2019. Important factors for improving Google search rank. Futur. Internet 11, 2 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3390/fi11020032Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Malte Ziewitz. 2019. Rethinking gaming: The ethical work of optimization in web search engines. Soc. Stud. Sci. 49, 5 (2019), 707–731. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306312719865607Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  67. George Kingsley Zipf. 1949. Human Behaviour and the Principle of Least Effort. https://doi.org/10.2307/2226729Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    WebSci '21: Proceedings of the 13th ACM Web Science Conference 2021
    June 2021
    328 pages
    ISBN:9781450383301
    DOI:10.1145/3447535

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 22 June 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • Article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate218of875submissions,25%

    Upcoming Conference

    Websci '24
    16th ACM Web Science Conference
    May 21 - 24, 2024
    Stuttgart , Germany

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format