SEMLogic Study - Part 2
Part I
,Part II
,Part III
Keyphrase Analyzed: "auto insurance"
Search Engines Analyzed: Google™, Yahoo™, MSN™
Sample Size: Top 100 search results
Date Analyzed: July 18th
Executive Summary SEMLogic Findings
As part of our study to examine the differences in the competitive landscapes among the top three search engines, Fortune Interactive is using its proprietary SEMLogic technology to analyze competitive keyphrases and outline its findings. Here is what we've discovered for the keyphrase "auto insurance" and various on-page and off-page factors that influence success across Google™, Yahoo™, and MSN™. Keep in mind that these are keyphrase-specific findings. The various factors are listed according to the degree of relative influence in Google™ for the keyphrase. (Wherever you see verbiage like "a search engine is said to assign importance to" a particular factor, it should be understood to mean "the keyphrase-specific competitive landscape exhibits that level of importance for" the factor.)
(The aim here is studying the competitive landscape not reverse engineering algorithms. The latter is not only impossible but it is not necessary for the task at hand, nor would it be sufficient.)
In-Bound Link (IBL) Quality. This is a measurement of key elements on the page containing an in-bound link which, in combination, influence the link reputation for the target of the link. Google™ and Yahoo™ show the same level of relative influence for this factor and it happens to be the most influential in both cases.
In-Bound Link Relevance. This is a proprietary measurement of the topic/keyphrase relevancy of the content on the page containing the in-bound link. Google™ and Yahoo™ place the same level of relative importance on this factor, slightly more so than MSN™.
* In-Bound Link Anchor Keyword Density. Google™ and Yahoo™ assign different levels of importance here, Google™ more than Yahoo™. MSN™ places more importance here than the others, the most important overall among its other factors.
* In-Bound Link Title Keyword Density. Google™ and MSN™ place equal importance on this factor, and to a higher degree than Yahoo™ does.
In-Bound Link Quantity. Google™ and MSN™ place equal importance on this factor, and to a higher degree than Yahoo™ does. IBL Quantity is of least relative importance among the off-page factors across the board.
Title Count and Title Keyword Density. These are the most influential on-page factors for the competitive landscape in Google™, Title Count is in MSN™, and Title Keyword Density is in Yahoo™.
* The score used here is not the raw value for the measurement, but rather a proprietary formula based in part on the raw values for the keyword density.
Analyze your marketplace with SEMLogic™
Analysis of Competitive Landscape Differences Between the Top 3 Search Engines
A clear picture is developing that reveals how much the relative importance of various on-page and off-page factors can differ for the same keyphrase across search engines. (It is important to point out that these are not the only factors SEMLogic analyzes, but these are sufficient to demonstrate the point.)
The table below illustrates the relative degree of influence for various factors across the search engines. (Blank cells are inserted to visually convey the degrees of difference both between factors and across search engines.)
| Relative Influence | Yahoo | MSN | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | IBL Quality | IBL Quality | IBL Anchor KWD |
| 2 | IBL Relevance | IBL Relevance | IBL Quality |
| 3 | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Title KWD | IBL Relevance |
| 4 | IBL Title KWD | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Title KWD |
| 5 | IBL Quantity | IBL Quantity | |
| 6 | Body Proximity | ||
| 7 | Title KWD | ||
| 8 | Title CNT | Title CNT | |
| 9 | Content Relevance | ||
| 10 | Title KWD | Body KWD | |
| 11 | Anchor KWD | Content Relevance | |
| 12 | Body KWD | Title CNT | Body KWD |
| 13 | Content Relevance | Title KWD | |
| 14 | Anchor KWD | IBL Quantity | Anchor KWD |
| 15 | Body KP Proximity | Body KP Proximity |
We not only know the order of importance but also the degree of relative importance for on-page and off-page factors in a competitive landscape. The table below relays information about the landscape for Google. You can see for example, how the factor with ID #14 (IBL Quality) has substantially more influence than ID #15 (IBL Relevance).
We can see that IBL Quality is 90 times more important than IBL Quantity. It is roughly 13 3/4 times more important than IBL Relevance.
This is very useful actionable intelligence when you're trying to streamline and focus the efforts of your search engine optimization strategy. When deciding which factors to work on, you can know not only what is going to make a difference but also how much difference it will make.
| Factor Graph ID | Factor Name | Importance | Compared with IBL Quantity |
|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | IBL Quality | 0.991 | 90.75 times more important |
| 15 | IBL Relevance | 0.071990 | 6.59 times more important |
| 16 | IBL Anchor KWD | 0.071800 | 6.57 times more important |
| 17 | IBL Title KWD | 0.032990 | 3.02 times more important |
| 13 | IBL Quantity | 0.010920 |
Cross-Engine Optimization: The Coveted Trifecta
Another interesting and well known phenomenon is how a page can do well in one search engine but not in the others. Trying to gain high visibility across multiple search engines in multiple competitive landscapes can be a considerable challenge. In the table below, we have examined some pages that are in the Top 10 in Google™ that are also found in at least the Top 20 in either Yahoo™ or MSN™.
| Yahoo | MSN | Competitor | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 3 | http://www.geico.com/ | |
| 3 | 4 | http://www.progressive.com/ | |
| 4 | 2 | http://www.statefarm.com/ | |
| 7 | 11 | http://www.insure.com/ | |
| 8 | 9 | 19 | http://www.insweb.com/ |
| 10 | 4 | http://www.gmac123.com/ |
Just as with the competitive landscapes for "laptop", the pages which have achieved this coveted trifecta have strong values in at least the two most important influential factors for each search engine respectively even if they have weaker values in other areas. A strong value is a score for a particular factor that falls within the statistically optimal range for its competitive landscape.
Therefore, if you understand what the relative importance is of on-page and off-page factors by search engine and by keyphrase, you can target the two most important factors for each and achieve the coveted trifecta for a page.
When considering cross-engine optimization strategies, what the optimal range of values is for the various factors becomes very important. The more overlap there is across the search engines the easier your task will be. An optimal range of values for a factor is that range that is neither too high nor too low to achieve the main goal. That goal is to be strong enough in that area to put you ahead of your competitors. The table below shows what percentage of overlap between the three search engines there is in the optimal range of values for the factors listed.
| Factor | Degree of Overlap in Optimal Ranges Across Search Engines |
|---|---|
| IBL Quality | 7.92% |
| IBL Relevance | 36.85% |
| IBL Anchor KWD | 48.10% |
| IBL Title KWD | 38.34% |
| IBL Quantity | 0.96% |
| Title CNT | 18.00% |
| Title KWD | 72.65% |
| Body KWD | 65.92% |
| Content Relevance | 78.88% |
| Anchor KWD | 53.19% |
When there is more overlap in the optimal ranges across search engines, it makes the task of cross-engine optimization that much easier. There is much more overlap in the competitive landscapes for 'auto insurance' than there was for 'laptop'. In this competitive landscape, one of the more important factors, IBL Quality, has one of the smaller degrees of overlap (7.92%). The chart below illustrates the relative expanse of the optimal ranges for IBL Quality across the search engines.
Compare this to another important factor, IBL Anchor KWD, which has much more overlap (48.10%).
Competitive Opportunities and Threats
"Objects in mirror are closer than they appear."
Many SEO practitioners obsess over pages ranking in the top 10 or top 20 and forget what they can learn from a myriad of other competitors. It is often the case that the competitor you should be watching will seem to come out of nowhere and your myopic focus may cause you to be blindsided. Through the perspective we gain from SEMLogic™, we can see the competitors who have the potential to blindside clients. You can learn quite a bit from competitors who are doing very well in certain respects even if they have significant weaknesses in others. So, don't forget to look in your rearview mirror. When you do, remember that the competitors behind you may be closer than they appear.
We detect these potential threats using our SWOT Analysis module. SWOT is an acronym for Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats. A couple of examples are shown below.
SWOT Analysis
Here is a particular Threat scenario in Google™ for the keyphrase auto insurance. Below you will see a measurement called SEMDistance™. This is the distance between two competitors in the SEMasphere™. This is a distance in high dimensional space that takes into account an analysis of over 100,000 data points from information about on-page and off-page factors in the competitive landscape.
A distance of 400 is relatively close. (e.g. In Google™, #12 has a SEMDistance™ of 675 from the Top10; #93 has a SEMDistance™ of 2,029 from the Top10). SEMLogic™ enables us to calculate a distance between competitors before even looking at the details for those competitors. Once we find close distances (typically 400 or less), we can then examine which on-page and off-page factors make the difference between those competitors.
This transforms what would otherwise be a daunting task into a simple matter of high school geometry - The Pythagorean Theorem. A significant leap in understanding and insight is made possible from simple steps in geometry. Einstein arrived at his Theory of Relativity by means of geometry in a similar manner.
The columns highlighed in orange are important factors where slight improvement can be made to make up the difference between the competitors.
Below, we see that the competitor ranked #23 is a threat to the competitor ranked #2. The tables show how they compare head-to-head with respect to on-page and off-page factors. This reveals why #23 is a threat to #2. A few improvements on a few factors could put #23 in a position to overtake #2, or at least put it in the Top 10.
Ranking # (2) => http://www.geico.com/auto/
Ranking # (23) => http://www.autoinsurancetips.com/ (SEMDistance™ from #2 = 355.67)
On-Page Factors
| Rank | Title KWD | Title Cnt | Body KWD | Body CNT | Body PROX | Anchor KWD | Content Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (2) | 66.67% | 3 | 13.82 | 550 | 183.89 | 44.12% | 0.08 |
| # (23) | 22.22% | 9 | 4.61 | 521 | 183.21 | 4.42% | 0.06 |
Off-page Factors
| Rank | IBL Quantity | IBL Quality | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Title KWD | IBL Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (2) | 147 | 2,238.92 | 1,015 | 622 | 1,425 |
| # (23) | 32 | 2,447.99 | 1,182 | 424 | 1,411 |
Next, we see that the competitor ranked #36 is a threat to the competitor ranked #9. The tables show how they compare head-to-head with respect to on-page and off-page factors. This reveals why #36 is a threat to #9. A few improvements on a few factors could put #36 in a position to overtake #9, or at least put it in the Top 10.
Ranking # (9) => http://www.insweb.com/
Ranking # (36) => http://www.safeco.com/ (SEMDistance™ from #9 = 192.29)
On-Page Factors
| Rank | Title KWD | Title CNT | Body KWD | Body CNT | Body PROX | Anchor KWD | Content Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (9) | 31.25% | 16 | 7.97 | 753 | 183.89 | 6.56% | 0.07 |
| # (36) | 37.50% | 16 | 15.80 | 823 | 171.31 | 39.26% | 0.06 |
Off-Page Factors
| Rank | IBL Quantity | IBL Quality | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Title KWD | IBL Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (9) | 20,400 | 236.80 | 103 | 355 | 1,332 |
| # (36) | 10,300 | 226.36 | 103 | 510 | 1,258 |
When someone is threatened by a competitor outside the top 20 results for a keyphrase, we call that a hidden threat. Typically, only the top 20 competitors are analyzed with very close scrutiny. So from that perspective, a threat from outside the top 20 is hidden.
These are the kind of competitors, once they improve the areas where they are weak, that seem to come out of nowhere, blind-siding you, and rising to the top. How many hidden threats to the top 10 there are in a competitive landscape is a very good indicator of how intense the competition is for that keyphrase.
| Keyphrase | Hidden Threats | Google™ | Yahoo™ | MSN™ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| auto insurance | % of Top10 Threatened | 50% | 40% | 90% |
| # of Competitors threatening the Top10 | 11 | 26 | 16 | |
| laptop | % of Top10 Threatened | 30% | n/a | 70% |
| # of Competitors threatening the Top10 | 4 | n/a | 18 |
In the table above, we can see that fifty percent of the top 10 competitors for 'auto insurance' in Google™ have hidden threats. Whereas, 30% of the top 10 competitors for 'laptop' in Google™ have hidden threats. This shows that 'auto insurance' is a more intense competitive landscape. It also means that the top 10 positions for 'auto insurance' have rankings that may not be as stable as they think.
Summary of SEMLogic™ Analysis
For the keyphrase "auto insurance", we have seen the following:
- There is significant overlap in the optimal ranges for key factors across the search engines.
- This makes cross-engine optimization more easily attainable for "auto insurance".
- However, one of the more important factors, IBL Quality, has one of the smallest degrees of three-way overlap.
- IBL Quality was NOT the most important factor across the board for "auto insurance" as it was for "laptop".
- IBL Quantity is of least importance relatively among the off-page factors across the board. The same was true in the competitive landscapes for "laptop".
- Achieving the coveted trifecta of ranking well across the search engines requires strong values in the two most important influential factors for each search engine. The same was true in the competitive landscapes for "laptop".
- The top 10 positions for 'auto insurance' have rankings that may not be as stable as they think.
Analyze your marketplace with SEMLogic™
About the Study
This study was conducted using Fortune Interactive's SEMLogic technology and was led by Michael Marshall, co-founder and vice president of technology. Any questions relating to the details of this study can be directed to Cindy Akus at cakus@fortuneinteractive.com.