SEMLogic Study - Part 3
Part I
,Part II
,Part III
Keyphrase Analyzed: "vacation rentals"
Search Engines Analyzed: Google™, Yahoo™, MSN™
Sample Size: Top 100 search results
Date Analyzed: August 15th
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 "vacation rentals" 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 MSN™ place the same level of relative importance on this factor, slightly less so than Yahoo™.
* In-Bound Link Anchor Keyword Density. Google™ and MSN™ assign similar levels of importance here. Yahoo™ places less importance here than do the others.
* In-Bound Link Title Keyword Density. Google™ and MSN™ place equal level of importance on this factor, and to a greater degree than Yahoo™ does.
In-Bound Link Quantity. Google™ and Yahoo™ place equal importance on this factor, and to a lesser degree than MSN™ does. IBL Quantity is of least relative importance among the off-page factors across the board.
Title Tags and Body Proximity:. These are the two most influential on-page factors for the competitive landscape in all three search engines. Body proximity is a proximity measurement for the terms that make up the keyphrase in question.
* 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 Quality |
| 2 | IBL Title KWD | IBL Relevance | IBL Title KWD |
| 3 | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Title KWD | IBL Anchor KWD |
| 4 | IBL Relevance | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Relevance |
| 5 | Body Proximity | ||
| 6 | Body Proximity | Title KWD | Body Proximity |
| 7 | Title CNT | Anchor KWD | |
| 8 | Body KWD | ||
| 9 | Content Relevance | Content Relevance | IBL Quantity |
| 10 | Body KWD | Title CNT | |
| 11 | Title KWD | ||
| 12 | Anchor KWD | Title CNT | |
| 13 | Title KWD | Body KWD | |
| 14 | Content Relevance | ||
| 15 | Anchor KWD | ||
| 16 | IBL Quantity | IBL Quantity |
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 IBL Quality has substantially more influence than IBL Quantity.
We can see that IBL Quality is 55 times more important than IBL Quantity. It is roughly 12.5 times more important than IBL Title KWD.
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.
Google™
| Factor Name | Importance | Compared with IBL Quantity |
|---|---|---|
| IBL Quality | 1 | 55 times more important |
| IBL Title KWD | 0.0798 | 4.3 times more important |
| IBL Anchor KWD | 0.0394 | 2.16 times more important |
| IBL Relevance | 0.0382 | 2.09 times more important |
| IBL Quantity | 0.0182 |
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™ as well as found in at least the Top 20 in either Yahoo™ or MSN™.
| Yahoo | MSN | Competitor | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 9 | 1 | http://www.vacationrentals.com/ |
| 2 | 16 | 5 | http://www.vrbo.com/ |
| 3 | 3 | 2 | http://www.vacationhomerentals.com/ |
| 4 | 8 | 18 | http://www.cyberrentals.com/ |
| 6 | 5 | 9 | http://www.triphomes.com/ |
| 8 | 15 | http://www.choice1.com/ | |
| 9 | 13 | *3 | http://10kvacationrentals.com/ |
*the 10kvacationrentals URL contains www in MSN™
Just as with the competitive landscapes for "laptop" and "auto insurance", the pages which have achieved this coveted trifecta have strong values in at least the 2 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 | 12.77% |
| IBL Relevance | 28.21% |
| IBL Anchor KWD | 53.22% |
| IBL Title KWD | 23.43% |
| IBL Quantity | 0.35% |
| Title CNT | 20.00% |
| Title KWD | 100.00% |
| Body KWD | 81.67% |
| Content Relevance | 56.52% |
| Anchor KWD | 90.29% |
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 a 10% greater overlap in the competitive landscapes for 'vacation rentals' than there was for 'auto insurance'. In this competitive landscape, one of the more important factors, IBL Quality, has one of the smaller degrees of overlap (12.77%). 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 Relevance, which has 28.21% overlap.
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 vacation rentals. 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. It is measured in what we call agon units (AU). ("Á • gon" is derived from ancient Greek (α γ ω ν), meaning "struggle, contest, or a place of contest.")
A distance of 400 AU is relatively close. (e.g. In Google™, #27 has a SEMDistance™ of 336.95 AU from the Top10; #44 has a SEMDistance™ of 5,433.61 AU 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 AU 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 highlighted 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 #29 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 #29 is a threat to #2. A few improvements on a few factors could put #29 in a position to overtake #2, or at least put it in the Top 10.
Ranking # (2) => http://www.vrbo.com/
Ranking # (29) => http://prwest.com/ (SEMDistance. from #2 = 185.13 AU)
On-Page Factors
| Rank | Title KWD | Title Cnt | Body KWD | Body CNT | Body PROX | Anchor KWD | Content Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (2) | 33.33% | 12 | 10.30 | 777 | 183.94 | 11.52% | 0.06 |
| #(29) | 13.33% | 15 | 2.44 | 614 | 154.31 | 3.33% | 0.06 |
Off-Page Factors
| Rank | IBL Quantity | IBL Quality | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Title KWD | IBL Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (2) | 10,600 | 65.45 | 103 | 680 | 1420 |
| #(29) | 23 | 94.55 | 103 | 655 | 1361 |
Next, we see that the competitor ranked #37 is a threat to the competitor ranked #5. The tables show how they compare head-to-head with respect to on-page and off-page factors. This reveals why #37 is a threat to #5. A few improvements on a few factors could put #37 in a position to overtake #5, or at least put it in the Top 10.
Ranking # (5) => http://www.greatrentals.com/
Ranking # (37) => http://www.findrentals.com/ (SEMDistance from #5 = 391.58 AU)
On-Page Factors
| Rank | Title KWD | Title CNT | Body KWD | Body CNT | Body PROX | Anchor KWD | Content Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (5) | 62.50% | 8 | 3.99 | 526 | 183.48 | 10.56% | 0.06 |
| #(37) | 50.00% | 6 | 574 | 574 | 183.81 | 16.84% | 0.06 |
Off-Page Factors
| Rank | IBL Quantity | IBL Quality | IBL Anchor KWD | IBL Title KWD | IBL Relevance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| # (5) | 3,020 | 69.45 | 532 | 325 | 1546 |
| #(37) | 4,260 | 315.12 | 490 | 103 | 1674 |
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 closely scrutinized by SEO practitioners. So from that perspective, a threat from outside the top 20 is hidden.
These are the kind of competitors that once they improve in the areas where they are weak seem to come out of nowhere, blindsiding 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™ |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| vacation rentals | % of Top10 Threatened | 70% | 30% | 90% |
| # of Competitors threatening the Top10 | 14 | 7 | 21 | |
| 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 70% of the top 10 competitors for 'vacation rentals' in Google™ have hidden threats. Whereas, only 50% of the top 10 competitors for 'auto insurance' in Google™ have hidden threats, and just 30% of the top 10 competitors for 'laptop' in Google™ have hidden threats. This shows that 'vacation rentals' is a more intense competitive landscape than 'auto insurance', followed by 'laptop'. It also means that the top 10 competitors for 'vacation rentals' have rankings that may not be as stable as they think.
Optimization Potential (OPI)™
In the SEMasphere™, the hypercube demarcates the top contenders statistically in a competitive landscape. This is the hot zone and it is where you want to be to rise above your competitors for the keyphrase in question. Geometrically, the hypercube is a cube in high dimensional space. In high dimensions the vast majority of the volume of a solid is concentrated in a thin shell near its surface! In addition, every time you add another dimension, there's more room for points to be farther apart.
This gives rise to extremely large values for the volume of n-cubes in high dimensions. That is why the volume values for the hypercubes in the table below are so large. The hypervolume of the hypercube for the keyphrase vacation rentals in Google™, for example, is a very large number indeed 2,603,895,388,597,510,000,000 AU (2.6039 x 1021).
| Keyphrase | Hypervolumes (in AU) - OPI™ | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Google™ | Yahoo™ | MSN™ | |
| vacation rentals | 2.6039 x 1021 | 2.5890 x 1020 | 1.3108 x 1021 |
| auto insurance | 2.5119 x 1021 | 2.1632 x 1023 | 5.7942 x 1020 |
| laptop | 5.0207 x 1018 | 8.1223 x 1020 | 2.1518 x 1018 |
The higher the hypervolume of the hypercube, the more possibilities there are for squeezing in and improving your ability to compete with the top contenders in a competitive landscape. Think of this as an optimization potential index (OPI)™. Let's suppose you had to choose between keyphrases with relatively equal potential for revenue generation and whose most important metrics were pretty much the same but wanted to choose those where your optimization efforts would have the most impact. You would want to go for the keyphrases that had the highest OPI™.
Higher OPI™ scores often, but do not always, coincide with greater instability in rankings for the Top 10. Obviously, if it is easier to squeeze in, you might expect to find more hidden threats. The present study shows that in Google™, the competitive landscape for 'vacation rentals' has more optimization potential than 'auto insurance' or 'laptop' because it has a higher OPI™ than the competitive landscapes for the other keyphrases.
Summary of SEMLogic™ Analysis
For the keyphrase "vacation rentals," 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 "vacation rentals".
- However, one of the more important factors, IBL Quality, has no three-way overlap. Successful link building will require varying levels of effort for each search engine.
- IBL Quality was the most important factor across the board for "vacation rentals" as it was for "auto insurance" and "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 "auto insurance" and for "laptop."
- The competitive landscape for 'vacation rentals' is a more intense competitive landscape than 'auto insurance', followed by 'laptop.'
- The top 10 competitors for 'vacation rentals' have rankings that may not be as stable as they think.
- Achieving the coveted trifecta of ranking well across the search engines requires strong values in the 2 most important influential factors for each search engine. The same was true in the competitive landscapes for "auto insurance" and "laptop."
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.