This allows the New York times to create a more meaningful site architecture for the recipe and cooking content. The different user intents can often be discerned by the different kinds of pages ranked in the search results. The length of the videos appear to be longer in YouTube rankings than in the Google desktop carousel.
But lack of meaningful data will offer a chaotic picture at best and false conclusions at worst. Both of those factors have nothing to do with anchor text or links.
Some pages are ranked based on geographic proximity to the user. Video Carousel Ranking in Desktop Search Here is a screenshot of the video carousel for the phrase [How to Make Pizza], as displayed in desktop search: I am not implying that Facebook helped that video rank.
The third video in the carousel is by a highly popular online personality who started out as a pioneer YouTube star discussing makeup tips. That is tangible evidence that a great many people enjoyed the video.
Facebook likes are not a ranking signal. The second video in the carousel, also with several million views has relevant content on the video page itself. Links, content, and popularity are some of the top reasons for why web pages appear in the search results. The content creator is a popular cook and has a popular following with some blogs linking to it.
The videos that are ranked by the YouTube algorithm may be based on features related to the videos themselves, on popularity, and user engagement metrics.
For the example search phrase, how to make pizza, Google even ranks a video that is forty two seconds long. Curiously, the number one ranked video, by BuzzFeed, has irrelevant text content: With some understanding of how search engines tend to rank websites, one can, as I demonstrated above, discover interesting clues as to why Google Desktop rankings for Carousel videos differs from the rankings on YouTube.
Top ranked video in YouTube features irrelevant text content. The author of that video Tanya Burr is active on blogs and social media.
Images by Shutterstock, modified by Author. Are Reasons for Ranking Differences Chaotic? Web pages that are popular and useful tend to attract links. It ignored other factors such as popularity, subscribers, links, or even something as important as the length of the videos.
Her Twitter account has over three million followers and her YouTube channel has over 3 million subscribers. That may be why the author of the study was perplexed at the seeming randomness of differences between YouTube and Google Desktop rankings: A side effect, in my experience, is that building awareness can cultivate traditional link and webpage signals, such as this link from a cooking site within an article about making pizza.
Quite likely there are citations and links to that video. Here is an example of one of many web pages that link to that video: Data does not lie. Her Facebook post about that pizza recipe received over two thousand likes.
However, Facebook engagement can be evidence of how popular something is. It may be reasonably expected that many others will enjoy that video. The RankRanger study focused on a limited set of factors that prohibited it from reaching any meaningful conclusions.
Takeaway Many ranking factor studies will be of limited use for understanding the reasons why sites rank the way they do. Perhaps more importantly, there is a lack of irrelevant textual content. Those kinds of pages are ranked purely to satisfy user expectations.
Putting that content in a subdomain separates that recipe content from the rest of the site.
Many ranking studies do not and can not take user satisfaction into account. That tangible evidence of popularity points to the fact that the video page may also be link worthy and tending to acquire links, which can assist with rankings.
This article goes beyond that study to identify possible reasons to explain that difference. Links are an important ranking factor.
That pizza recipe exists as a text recipe here: I am citing the Facebook post as evidence that the video has been promoted and is in fact popular.
RankRanger discovered that the algorithm Google uses for desktop search is different from the YouTube algorithm.Why Did Google Miss The Video Opportunity YouTube, Google, and the Rise of Internet Video Case Introduction: The recent trends in Internet video.
Jun 21, · Autoplay When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next. Up next Halestorm - "I Am The Fire" [Official Video] - Duration: Aug 24, · The length of the videos appear to be longer in YouTube rankings than in the Google desktop carousel.
For the example search phrase, how to make pizza, Google even ranks a video that is forty two seconds killarney10mile.com: Roger Montti. killarney10mile.com video opportunity can be defined as the defeat it has faced with Facebook.
It had launched Google+ nine years ago and it had failed to generate. How did Google miss the “Video” opportunity? Google chose to enter the Internet video market using its competitive advantage in searching.
The company developed an infrastructure of servers, storage systems, bandwidth, and hardware that supports the fastest and efficient searches on the web (Smart Advantage, ). 60 Minutes reports on the power of Google, a company whose critics say has stifled competition. Steve Kroft killarney10mile.comd: Sep 18,Download