Does Google+ make a huge difference?

[freebetinfo]

I run a website that's been ranked well for good keywords related to our business for some time. It was founded back in 2007 and has been there a while.

Recently a new site has popped up that ranks brilliantly for everything. It's a new site, and the only redeeming factor I can see is that it has an AddThis box showing the Facebook Likes and Google Plus Ones, and they are around 400 Facebook Likes and 80 Google+ (for every page that ranks).

Any other pages on their site which doesn't have any Facebook likes or Google Plus Ones, they don't rank.

Our site doesn't have any likes or pluses. Is this making the difference? I stress that other than this our sites are very similar, other than the fact we've been around over 5 years.

[freebetinfo]

Just to follow up on this, today the competitor's site has disappeared from Google.

Again one up for decency! Glad to see things like this being punished.

[loopyal]

Yes, all I am saying is the numbers are double. I have my own problems with google, so I am the last one to say how it really works, but maybe their ugly links don't fit the spam profile that would get them squashed.

Remember, google is not perfect. They can screw up just as any of us can. There must be hundreds of thousands or even millions of examples where people are looking at results and saying "why is that crap ahead of my site?"

[freebetinfo]

I get most of what you say, except that they have put betting in their subheads. When looking at "sportsbet" as a google.com.au search term, I really don't understand why they should be ranked SO far ahead of us.

Regarding the linking domains, again, it's just spam. The links aren't real natural ones, and I don't want to go down that road.

I'm really losing faith/interest, call it what you will, in this game when a site like this is, to me, pretty clearly using dodgy tactics and is having this success

[loopyal]

You competitor's site does have a lot of likes and a lot of G+ hits.

The numbers of the G+ are very close for each page.

That may mean they just bought 70 G+ hits or maybe they made their visitors hit up all their pages for some benefit.

I've had G+ on my site all this year. We've done almost nothing to get people to like or G+ us - they just do it on their own.

We have just over 1000 likes and 40 G+

So for that site to have 70 G+ on most pages and 100 on the front page, seems very suspicious to me.

It could be they have fooled google. They have also done some great keyword stuffing in the text near the bottom of the front page. Many of our stories only get 5 to 8 G+ hits. I think maybe one page has 12. Google WMT says we don't have enough for them to show any stats. Also, it doesn't appear that we get much - if any - benefit from G+ hits. To begin with, G+ was a liability as all it did was slow down our pages.

They also have bold and put Betting in their subheads.

They also have double the linking domains you have

Looks close to over-optimization, but maybe its not quite enough for the google algorithm to flag it.

So all of that said, I think they are beating you because of their onpage  and offpage effort. You have done something similar to them, but they just did it better.

[Gyi]

I mean the corresponding links to that specific page, which I agree, are spammy.

[freebetinfo]

When you say corresponding links, do you mean spam? External links?

[Gyi]

.02 on quick glance:

It probably has more to do with the fact that they're specifically targeting "sportsbet" on that page and have built corresponding links. Unfortunately, doesn't look like Penguin has got to this one...yet...

Again, this is my opinion after a very brief look.

[freebetinfo]

Ok, here are the websites in question.

• My site: http://bit.ly/MvT3gI
• Competitior: http://bit.ly/N5fS0N

Here's an example of a search term that we are nowhere for - "sportsbet", and they are ranked around #4, which is a very good ranking: http://bit.ly/Mjwe4v

The rankings are very similarly good for all his pages which refer to each bookmaker. All have lots of Facebook likes and Google+.

The reason I think he's paid for the social likes is because the sites really aren't the sort to become viral, and get links in a "real" way.

Appreaciate any input into this!

[Gyi]

Mark,

You can post URLs, however, you might consider using a URL shortener service. If you're willing to share the searches and sites, I'd be happy to offer my .02.

[KyleChamp]

Social has/is becoming a increasing factor in rankings and will only become bigger in the future. I would strongly recommend getting into the social aspect. As for the "paying" for likes and such, defiantly stay away from that. Social is not all about trying to get higher in the ranking but about Brand Recognition and Reputation, Communicating with your fan base, customers and clients.

I know businesses that get around 50% of their customers from social networks such as Facebook and twitter. Its defiantly worth getting into and from what I have seen in the past 2 years, it’s no longer an option.

[freebetinfo]

Thanks for that. I'm not sure what the rules are regarding putting URLs on here? That's why I haven't put the addresses up yet.

I know the site hasn't got good real social interactions, purely because of the type of site it is. I'm 99% sure that the owner has gotten these likes/pluses through paying people to like/plus the site, or something similar.

I don't want to go along the lines of fighting fire with fire, but if it works as well as it appears to with their site, then it's sure tempting.

[KyleChamp]

It’s hard to tell since I can't see and compare both sites that you're talking about but that could very well be a contributing factor. It’s no secret that Google is putting more and more weight on social signals such as likes, followers, and social interactions. It sounds like that site has good social interaction and is getting rewarded in the rankings by Google but I can’t be 100% since I can’t compare the two.