Google’s 200 Ranking Factors: Detailed Explanations with Examples (Factors 41-50)

41. Number of Outbound Links

What it means: This factor examines the total number of outbound links (links pointing from your page to external websites) and suggests that having too many dofollow outbound links can potentially dilute the PageRank that flows through your page, which may negatively impact your rankings. The concept is rooted in how PageRank works as a mathematical algorithm where each page has a finite amount of ranking authority to distribute. When you link to external sites with dofollow links (links that pass SEO value), you’re essentially sharing a portion of your page’s authority with those external sites. The more outbound links you have, the more thinly that authority is divided among them. Additionally, Google’s Quality Rater Guidelines explicitly state that pages with an excessive number of links can be problematic, potentially “obscuring the page and distracting from the Main Content.” The guidelines suggest that when a page has “way, way too many links,” it becomes difficult for users to navigate and may indicate lower quality. However, it’s important to understand the nuances here. Having a reasonable number of outbound links to relevant, quality sources is generally positive and can even help your SEO by demonstrating thoroughness and providing value to users. The problem arises with excessive linking, particularly when many links go to low-quality sites, irrelevant destinations, or when the sheer volume of links overwhelms the content and user experience. There’s no magic number, but pages with hundreds of outbound links likely face issues, while pages with 10 to 20 relevant outbound links are typically fine.

Example: Two comprehensive guides about “digital marketing strategies.”

Page A – Reasonable outbound links:

A 3,000-word comprehensive guide that includes:

• 15 carefully selected outbound links to authoritative sources
• Links to original research studies supporting key claims
• References to industry authority sites like Moz, Search Engine Journal, HubSpot
• Links to tools mentioned in the guide (Google Analytics, SEMrush)
• Each link serves a clear purpose: supporting a claim, providing additional depth, or directing to a recommended tool
• Links are naturally integrated into content where relevant
• The link-to-content ratio is balanced and doesn’t overwhelm the user

Result: The outbound links enhance credibility, provide additional value to readers, and demonstrate well-researched content. The modest number means PageRank isn’t excessively diluted. Users appreciate the curated references. Google views this as quality content with helpful citations.

Page B – Excessive outbound links:

A 2,000-word guide that includes:

• 127 outbound links scattered throughout
• Multiple links in almost every paragraph
• Many links to marginally related topics
• Several links to the same external sites repeated multiple times
• Links to competitors’ pages
• Some links to low-quality or questionable sites
• The page feels more like a link directory than a focused guide
• User experience is degraded as readers constantly encounter blue underlined text

Result: The excessive linking dilutes PageRank significantly, spreading the page’s authority across 127 external destinations. Users find the constant links distracting and may question why the page links so heavily to other sites rather than providing its own authoritative content. Google may view this as a lower-quality page where links obscure the main content. The page likely ranks lower than it would with more focused, selective linking.

Page C – Link directory format (different purpose):

A resource page specifically designed as a curated directory: “100 Best Digital Marketing Resources.” The entire point is to provide many links to valuable tools, articles, and resources. Contains 100+ outbound links organized by category.

Result: This page type has a different purpose and user expectation. Users specifically want many links. However, even here, Google may not rank this as highly for informational queries about digital marketing because it’s a link collection rather than substantive original content.

Strategic guidance: Include outbound links when they genuinely add value—citing sources, referencing research, recommending tools, or providing complementary information. Avoid excessive linking that dilutes your authority or overwhelms users. Quality and relevance of outbound links matters more than quantity.

42. Multimedia

What it means: Multimedia refers to the inclusion of various types of content beyond plain text, including images, videos, audio clips, infographics, interactive elements, animations, diagrams, charts, slideshows, and other visual or interactive media formats on your webpage. The presence of multimedia elements may serve as a content quality signal to Google, suggesting that the page provides a richer, more comprehensive, and more engaging user experience compared to text-only pages. The reasoning is straightforward: high-quality, professionally produced content often includes multiple content formats because creators invest effort into explaining concepts through multiple modalities. A detailed tutorial with step-by-step photos or video demonstrations is generally more valuable than text instructions alone. A data-driven article with interactive charts provides better understanding than text describing statistics. However, the critical factor is that multimedia must be relevant, high-quality, and genuinely enhance the content rather than being added merely for SEO purposes. Random, irrelevant images or low-quality videos that don’t add value won’t improve rankings and may actually harm user experience. Additionally, multimedia affects other ranking factors including page load speed (large, unoptimized media slows pages), user engagement metrics (good multimedia increases time on page and reduces bounce rate), and accessibility (multimedia should include alt text, captions, or transcripts). Google has increasingly featured rich results (video carousels, image results, featured snippets with images) in search results, making multimedia not just a ranking factor but also essential for capturing attention and clicks in modern search results.

Example: Two articles about “how to change a bicycle tire.”

Article A – Text only:

A 1,500-word article that provides step-by-step written instructions for changing a bicycle tire. The instructions are clear and comprehensive, covering all necessary steps. However, the page contains only text with no images, diagrams, or videos. Users must visualize each step based solely on written descriptions.

Result: While the content may be accurate, users struggle to follow certain steps that are difficult to describe in words alone. How exactly do you position the tire lever? What does “hook the bead” mean visually? Users may become confused, spend less time engaged (because they leave to find visual instructions elsewhere), or bounce back to search results to find content with images or video. Despite quality writing, the lack of multimedia limits usefulness and engagement.

Article B – Rich multimedia:

A 1,500-word article with the same clear written instructions, enhanced with:

• 15 high-quality photographs showing each step from multiple angles
• A 3-minute embedded video demonstrating the complete process
• Diagrams labeling bicycle tire components (bead, rim, valve stem, etc.)
• Before/after images showing common mistakes vs. correct technique
• An infographic summarizing the process in a quick visual reference
• All images have descriptive alt text for accessibility
• Video includes captions for hearing-impaired users

Result: Users can follow instructions through their preferred learning style (reading, watching video, or referencing images). The multimedia significantly enhances comprehension, particularly for visual learners. Time on page increases dramatically as users watch the video and carefully examine photos. Bounce rate decreases because users find everything they need on one page. The page gets shared more on social media because the visual content is more engaging and shareable. Users are more likely to link to this comprehensive resource from their own blogs or forums. All these positive engagement signals tell Google this page provides superior value, leading to better rankings. Additionally, the video may appear in video search results, and images may rank in image search, providing additional traffic sources.

Article C – Poor multimedia implementation:

A 1,000-word article with:

• 30 stock photos of bicycles that don’t show specific repair steps
• An autoplay video advertisement
• Generic images unrelated to tire changing
• Massive, unoptimized image files that slow page loading to 12 seconds
• No alt text on any images
• A distracting animated GIF sidebar

Result: The multimedia doesn’t enhance understanding and actually harms user experience. Page load speed penalties hurt rankings. Irrelevant images don’t improve engagement. Users become frustrated with the slow-loading, cluttered page despite the presence of “multimedia.” This demonstrates that multimedia quality and relevance matter more than mere presence.

Best practice: Include relevant, high-quality multimedia that genuinely helps users understand your content better. Optimize file sizes for fast loading. Ensure accessibility with alt text and captions. The goal is enhanced user value, not checkbox SEO.

43. Number of Internal Links Pointing to Page

What it means: This factor examines how many internal links (links from other pages within the same website) point to a specific page, using this as a signal of that page’s relative importance within the site’s overall structure and hierarchy. The logic is that pages receiving more internal links are likely more important or valuable pages on the site. For example, a pillar content page or key landing page that you want to rank well should naturally receive many internal links from related articles, blog posts, navigation menus, and other pages throughout the site. This concept is rooted in how PageRank distributes authority: when many pages on your site link to a particular page, they collectively pass more ranking authority to that page, strengthening its potential to rank well. It’s essentially a way of telling both Google and your visitors, “This page is important.” However, the relationship isn’t purely quantitative. Having 500 internal links to a page doesn’t automatically make it rank better if those links come from low-value pages or irrelevant contexts. Quality and relevance of internal links matter alongside quantity. Strategic internal linking is one of the most underutilized SEO tactics because it’s entirely within a site owner’s control. By thoughtfully structuring internal links, you can channel authority toward your most important pages, help Google understand your site’s topical architecture, and improve user navigation. Conversely, important pages that receive few internal links may not rank as well as they could because they’re not receiving their fair share of internal PageRank.

Example: An outdoor gear website with 500 total pages.

Scenario A – Homepage (high internal links):

The homepage receives internal links from:

• Footer of all 500 pages (site-wide footer link)
• Logo/header of all 500 pages (clicking logo returns to homepage)
• Main navigation menu (on all pages)
• “Return to home” links in breadcrumb navigation
• Promotional banners on category pages
• Total: ~1,500 internal links pointing to homepage

Result: The homepage has the strongest internal linking profile on the site, which is typically appropriate. It accumulates significant internal PageRank and typically ranks well for brand-name searches and general site-related queries. The massive number of internal links signals to Google that this is the most important page on the site.

Scenario B – Important product category page with poor internal linking:

“Hiking Boots” category page (a key revenue category the site wants to rank well):

• Receives links only from the main navigation menu
• A few links from related blog posts (3-4 articles)
• No links from other category pages
• Not featured in any promotional sections
• Not linked from the footer
• Total: ~15 internal links pointing to this page

Result: Despite being strategically important for the business, this page receives minimal internal linking, suggesting to Google it’s not particularly important within the site’s structure. It doesn’t accumulate much internal PageRank and may rank lower than it could for “hiking boots” searches. Competitors with better internal linking to their hiking boot pages may outrank it.

Scenario C – Comprehensive pillar content with strategic internal linking:

“Complete Guide to Hiking Gear” (evergreen educational content):

• Linked from main navigation under “Resources”
• Featured in sidebar on all 50 hiking-related product pages
• Linked from 25 related blog posts about hiking
• Referenced in footer resource section
• Linked from “Getting Started” beginner guides
• Featured in email newsletter and referenced in multiple promotional areas
• Cross-linked with related guides (camping gear, backpacking tips)
• Total: ~200 internal links pointing to this page

Result: The strong internal linking profile signals this is valuable, important content. The page accumulates substantial internal PageRank, helping it rank well for informational queries like “hiking gear guide” or “what gear do I need for hiking.” The internal links also drive significant traffic directly from other pages on the site. Users frequently discover this comprehensive resource through multiple pathways.

Strategic implementation: Audit your site to identify important pages that should rank well, then ensure they receive abundant internal links from relevant contexts throughout your site. Use techniques like:

• Including links in navigation and footer
• Cross-linking related content
• Creating content hubs or pillar pages that naturally attract internal links
• Linking to important pages from high-traffic pages
• Using contextual links within blog content
• Implementing related content suggestions

This concentrates internal PageRank on your priority pages and helps them achieve their ranking potential.

44. Quality of Internal Links Pointing to Page

What it means: While the quantity of internal links pointing to a page matters (as discussed in the previous factor), the quality or authority of the linking pages is equally or more important. This factor recognizes that not all internal links carry equal weight. An internal link from a high-authority page on your site (one that has strong rankings, many external backlinks, and high PageRank) passes more SEO value than a link from a low-authority, rarely visited page deep in your site’s architecture. This mirrors how external backlinks work, where a link from a highly authoritative external site like Wikipedia or The New York Times carries more weight than a link from an unknown blog. The same principle applies internally: if your homepage (typically your highest authority page) links to a specific product page, that internal link is extremely valuable. If an obscure, rarely accessed page from your site’s archives links to that same product page, the value passed is much smaller. This creates opportunities for strategic internal linking where you can boost important pages by ensuring they receive links from your most authoritative pages. It also means that not every page needs hundreds of internal links if the links it does receive come from strong, authoritative pages. Understanding this principle helps prioritize where to place your most strategic internal links. Rather than obsessing over sheer quantity, focus on getting links to important pages from your strongest pages: homepage, popular articles, well-ranking guides, and pages with many external backlinks.

Example: A technology blog with 1,000 articles.

Scenario A – Links from low-authority pages:

“Best Laptops 2025” page receives 50 internal links, but they all come from:

• Archived blog posts from 2015-2018 that no longer rank or receive traffic
• Pages deep in the site structure that have no external backlinks
• Low-quality, thin content pages that were never successful
• Pages that Google has essentially devalued or de-prioritized

Result: Despite having 50 internal links, the cumulative SEO value passed to the laptop page is minimal because the linking pages themselves have little authority. The quantity looks impressive but the quality is poor. The page doesn’t accumulate significant internal PageRank from these weak sources.

Scenario B – Links from high-authority pages:

“Best Laptops 2025” page receives only 15 internal links, but they come from:

• The homepage (highest authority page on the site)
• A viral article about “Future of Computing” that has 500 external backlinks and ranks #1 for multiple keywords
• The popular “Tech Buying Guide” that consistently ranks in top 3 for major queries
• An authoritative review roundup that gets thousands of monthly visits
• The “Most Popular” section featured on many pages
• Several other well-ranking, high-traffic articles about technology

Result: Despite having fewer internal links (15 vs. 50), this page receives significantly more SEO value because each link comes from a page with substantial authority. The high-authority pages pass meaningful PageRank to the laptop page, helping it rank much better than in Scenario A. Quality overwhelms quantity.

Scenario C – Balanced approach with strategic placement:

“Best Laptops 2025” receives 40 internal links from a mix:

• Homepage link from featured “Top Guides” section
• Links from 5 high-authority articles (major PageRank contributors)
• Links from 15 moderately successful articles (decent PageRank)
• Links from 20 newer or less successful articles (minimal PageRank)

Result: The page benefits from the concentrated authority of the top-tier links while also getting quantity and breadth from the numerous lower-authority links. This represents a realistic, effective internal linking strategy that prioritizes quality sources while building overall quantity.

Strategic implementation:

1. Identify your highest-authority pages using tools like Ahrefs, Moz, or SEMrush (look at URL Rating, Page Authority, or similar metrics)
2. Ensure your most important target pages receive internal links from these high-authority pages
3. Add contextual links from popular blog posts to key landing pages or product pages
4. Feature important pages in high-visibility areas of high-traffic pages
5. Don’t neglect building many internal links, but prioritize securing links from your strongest pages

This approach maximizes the SEO value passed to your priority pages through strategic internal linking architecture.

45. Broken Links

What it means: Broken links are hyperlinks on a webpage that point to destinations that no longer exist or are no longer accessible, typically resulting in 404 error pages or other error responses when clicked. Having too many broken links on a page may serve as a signal to Google that the site is neglected, poorly maintained, or potentially abandoned, which can negatively impact perceived quality and rankings. Google’s Quality Rater Guidelines explicitly mention broken links as one of the factors human evaluators should consider when assessing a homepage’s quality, suggesting that broken links contribute to quality assessments. The reasoning is straightforward: high-quality, well-maintained websites regularly audit and fix broken links, while abandoned or low-effort sites accumulate broken links over time as external sites change URLs, content gets deleted, or pages are restructured without proper redirects. From a user experience perspective, broken links create frustration and signal unprofessionalism, potentially increasing bounce rates and decreasing user engagement. From Google’s algorithmic perspective, broken links might indicate outdated content where the information itself may no longer be accurate or relevant. However, it’s important to maintain perspective: one or two broken links on a large site won’t trigger penalties or significantly harm rankings. The concern is when broken links are pervasive throughout a site or particularly concentrated on important pages. Sites should regularly audit for broken links using tools like Google Search Console, Screaming Frog, or other crawlers, and either fix the links by updating to current URLs, remove links that are no longer relevant, or implement proper redirects.

Example: Two comprehensive resource guides about “web development tools.”

Page A – Multiple broken links:

A detailed 3,000-word guide that was well-researched and comprehensive when published in 2019. However, it hasn’t been updated since and now contains:

• 15 broken links to tools that no longer exist or have changed domains
• Links to documentation pages that have been restructured (404 errors)
• References to services that have shut down
• Links to articles that have been removed from external sites
• Embedded images from external sources that no longer load

When users click on recommended tools or additional resources:

• They encounter multiple 404 error pages
• They get frustrated and question the guide’s currency and reliability
• Many users abandon the page and return to search results (high bounce rate)
• Users lose trust in the site’s maintenance and expertise

Google’s algorithms observe:

• Multiple broken links suggesting neglected content
• High bounce rates and low engagement (negative user signals)
• Content that references non-existent resources (quality concern)
• No recent updates despite broken link accumulation (abandoned content signal)

Result: Despite originally being high-quality content, the broken links signal poor maintenance. Rankings gradually decline over time. Google may view this as outdated, low-quality content that no longer deserves top positions. The page that once ranked #2 for “web development tools” has dropped to page 3 or lower.

Page B – Well-maintained, no broken links:

A similar 3,000-word guide also published in 2019, but regularly audited and updated:

• All links checked quarterly and updated as needed
• Broken links are either fixed (updating to new URLs) or removed (if resource no longer exists)
• New tools are added to replace discontinued ones
• External resource links are verified and functional
• Images are hosted internally or verified from stable sources
• Last updated date clearly shows: “Updated January 2025”

When users click on recommended tools or resources:

• All links work perfectly
• Users successfully access valuable additional resources
• They spend more time on the page exploring recommendations
• They trust the site’s professionalism and current maintenance
• They’re more likely to bookmark, share, or link to the guide

Google’s algorithms observe:

• Zero broken links indicating active maintenance
• Strong user engagement metrics (low bounce rate, high time on page)
• Regular updates keeping content current
• Professional, well-maintained site signals

Result: The page maintains or improves its rankings over time because it’s demonstrably current and well-maintained. Google rewards the ongoing investment in content quality. The page remains in top 3 positions for “web development tools” and related queries.

Best practices:

1. Audit your site regularly (quarterly or bi-annually) using automated tools
2. Fix broken internal links immediately (these are entirely within your control)
3. Update or remove broken external links
4. Implement proper 301 redirects when restructuring your own site
5. Monitor Google Search Console for crawl errors
6. Focus particularly on high-traffic and high-priority pages
7. Consider tools like Ahrefs, Screaming Frog, or broken link checker plugins

Maintaining a broken-link-free site signals professionalism, active maintenance, and content quality, all of which support better rankings and user experience.

46. Reading Level

What it means: Reading level refers to the complexity and sophistication of the language, sentence structure, and vocabulary used in your content, typically measured by various readability formulas like Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level, Gunning Fog Index, or SMOG Index. Google has confirmed it can estimate the reading level of webpages, and at one point even displayed reading level statistics in search results (basic, intermediate, advanced), though this feature was later removed from public view. The debate within the SEO community centers on what reading level is optimal for rankings. One school of thought argues that basic reading levels perform better because simpler content appeals to the widest audience, is more accessible, and tends to keep users engaged without overwhelming them with jargon or complexity. This perspective suggests that Google wants content that the average person can understand. The opposing view associates very basic reading levels with low-quality content mills (like the old Ezine Articles) that produced simplistic, shallow content at scale. This perspective argues that expert-level content for specialized topics should naturally have more sophisticated vocabulary and higher reading levels. The reality likely depends heavily on the query intent and topic. A medical research paper targeting healthcare professionals should have an advanced reading level, while a guide explaining “how to tie your shoes” should be simple and accessible. Google probably doesn’t apply a universal reading level preference but rather evaluates whether the reading level matches the expected audience and topic sophistication. The key is writing appropriately for your target audience and subject matter rather than trying to game a reading level score.

Example: Three articles about “investing in stocks.”

Article A – Very basic reading level (4th-5th grade):

“Stocks are parts of companies. When you buy stocks, you own a small part of a company. If the company does well, your stocks go up. If the company does bad, your stocks go down. You can buy stocks to make money. Many people buy stocks. Stocks can be good. You should learn about stocks before you buy them. Stocks are bought on the stock market.”

Characteristics:

• Extremely simple sentences (mostly 5-10 words)
• Basic vocabulary with no financial terminology
• Repetitive phrasing
• Very short paragraphs
• No depth or sophistication

Result: While accessible, this content lacks the depth and expertise expected for an investing topic. Users searching for stock investing information likely want more substantive guidance than this extremely simplified approach provides. The content reads as if written for children or potentially as thin content from a content mill. It’s unlikely to satisfy serious investor queries, leading to poor engagement metrics and lower rankings.

Article B – Appropriate intermediate reading level (9th-11th grade):

“Stock investing involves purchasing shares of publicly traded companies, giving you partial ownership and potential for returns through price appreciation and dividends. Successful investing requires understanding fundamental analysis, market trends, and risk management strategies. Before investing, consider factors like your risk tolerance, investment timeline, and financial goals. Diversification across sectors and asset classes helps mitigate risk while maintaining growth potential. Research companies thoroughly by examining financial statements, competitive positioning, and industry dynamics.”

Characteristics:

• Mix of simple and complex sentences
• Appropriate financial terminology explained in context
• Sophisticated concepts made accessible
• Detailed but readable
• Matches expectations for a general audience interested in learning about investing

Result: This reading level appropriately serves the target audience (general public interested in stock investing, not professional traders or complete beginners). The content provides depth and expertise while remaining accessible. Users feel they’re learning valuable information without being overwhelmed. Engagement metrics are strong, and Google recognizes this as quality content that matches user intent.

Article C – Advanced reading level (college/graduate level):

“Equity securities represent fractional ownership instruments in publicly traded corporate entities, conferring upon shareholders proportional claims to residual assets and distributed earnings. Valuation methodologies encompassing discounted cash flow analysis, relative valuation multiples, and precedent transaction comparables facilitate quantitative assessment of intrinsic value. Portfolio optimization via mean-variance analysis enables efficient frontier construction, maximizing risk-adjusted returns through correlation-driven diversification strategies.”

Characteristics:

• Complex, lengthy sentences
• Dense academic/professional terminology
• Assumes significant background knowledge
• Would score very high on reading level assessments

Result: For a general audience query like “how to invest in stocks,” this advanced content alienates most users. They feel overwhelmed, don’t understand the terminology, and quickly bounce back to search results seeking more accessible explanations. However, if the query were “advanced equity valuation techniques” or this content appeared in an academic journal context, the sophisticated reading level would be entirely appropriate and expected.

Strategic approach:

1. Know your audience: Write at the appropriate level for who you’re trying to reach
2. Match topic sophistication: Simple topics warrant simpler language; complex topics may require more sophisticated treatment
3. Explain jargon: When technical terms are necessary, provide clear explanations
4. Test readability: Use tools like Hemingway Editor or readability score checkers
5. Prioritize clarity: Regardless of reading level, clear communication serves all audiences
6. Don’t dumb down expertise: If you’re writing for professionals or advanced users, sophisticated language is appropriate

The goal isn’t to hit a specific reading level score for SEO purposes, but to write appropriately for your audience and topic, which naturally leads to the right reading level.

47. Affiliate Links

What it means: Affiliate links are special tracking links that, when clicked and result in a purchase, generate commission revenue for the site linking to the product or service. These links are a legitimate monetization strategy used by many quality content sites. However, Google has expressed concerns about “thin affiliate sites,” which are websites that exist primarily or solely to generate affiliate revenue, often featuring little original content beyond product descriptions copied from manufacturers or merchants, minimal value-added analysis, and aggressive promotion. The presence of affiliate links themselves won’t hurt your rankings—many authoritative review sites and content publishers use affiliate links appropriately. However, if your site has too many affiliate links relative to original content, or if it appears to be a “thin affiliate site” that provides little unique value beyond funneling traffic to merchant sites, Google’s algorithms may scrutinize it more carefully. The key distinguishing factors are the depth and originality of your content, whether you provide genuine value and expertise beyond just affiliate promotions, and whether the affiliate links serve user interests or exist purely for revenue generation. Sites that survive and thrive with affiliate monetization typically feature comprehensive original reviews, detailed comparisons based on actual testing, expert analysis that helps users make informed decisions, and content that would be valuable even if the affiliate links didn’t exist. The affiliate links should feel like helpful recommendations rather than the primary purpose of the content.

Example: Three websites reviewing cameras.

Site A – Thin affiliate site:

Page structure:

• Brief 200-word description copied from manufacturer’s website
• Bulleted list of specifications (no analysis or context)
• Large “BUY NOW” buttons with affiliate links (appear 5 times on page)
• Minimal original content or insights
• No actual testing or hands-on experience evident
• Similar thin pages exist for 500+ products
• Pop-ups and banners aggressively promoting purchases
• No genuine expertise or value-added analysis

User experience:

• Users quickly recognize this as a sales funnel rather than helpful information
• They bounce back to search results seeking actual reviews
• No one shares or links to these pages because they provide no unique value

Google’s assessment:

• Identifies this as a thin affiliate site providing little unique value
• Content appears designed to generate commissions rather than help users
• May apply algorithmic filters reducing visibility
• Rankings are poor despite the site technically having content about cameras

Site B – Quality affiliate review site:

Page structure:

• Comprehensive 3,000-word review based on weeks of hands-on testing
• Detailed analysis of image quality with sample photos taken by the reviewer
• Comparison to competing cameras based on actual experience
• Discussion of both strengths and weaknesses (balanced, not just promotional)
• Specific use-case recommendations (landscape vs. portrait photography)
• Technical explanations in accessible language
• Original photography and videography demonstrating capabilities
• Thoughtful buying advice considering different budgets and needs
• Affiliate links are present but not aggressive, appearing naturally in context
• Site features dozens of similarly detailed reviews demonstrating expertise

User experience:

• Users spend 5-8 minutes reading the comprehensive review
• They feel confident making purchasing decisions based on expert analysis
• Many bookmark or share the review
• Some cite the review on forums or in their own blogs
• The affiliate links feel like helpful purchasing options rather than primary focus

Google’s assessment:

• Recognizes substantial original content providing genuine value
• User engagement metrics are strong (low bounce rate, high time on page)
• Natural backlink acquisition from people referencing the expert review
• Affiliate links don’t trigger concerns because the site clearly provides expertise
• Rankings are strong for camera-related review queries

Site C – No affiliate links (pure editorial):

Similar comprehensive 3,000-word review with expert analysis and hands-on testing, but contains no affiliate links or monetization. Links only go to manufacturer specifications for reference.

Result: This page might rank slightly better than Site B due to absence of any commercial intent, but the difference is likely minimal if Site B’s affiliate links are handled appropriately. Many authoritative sites use affiliate links without ranking penalties.

Best practices for affiliate sites:

1. Create substantial, original content (1,500+ words for product reviews)
2. Provide genuine expertise based on actual experience or testing
3. Offer balanced analysis, not just promotional content
4. Make content valuable even without the affiliate links
5. Use affiliate links naturally in context, not aggressively or repetitively
6. Disclose affiliate relationships transparently
7. Focus on helping users make informed decisions, not just driving clicks
8. Differentiate yourself with unique insights, comparisons, or specialized knowledge

Sites that follow these practices can successfully use affiliate monetization without SEO penalties, while thin affiliate sites face algorithmic scrutiny and poor rankings.

48. HTML Errors / W3C Validation

What it means: This factor examines whether a webpage’s HTML code contains errors, is poorly structured, or fails to validate against official web standards established by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium). The debate around this factor has been longstanding and somewhat controversial within the SEO community. Some practitioners believe that clean, well-coded HTML that validates without errors serves as a quality signal to Google, suggesting professional development and attention to detail. The theory is that sites with sloppy, error-ridden code are more likely to be low-quality overall, while sites with clean code demonstrate professionalism. However, many major, high-ranking websites have HTML validation errors, and Google has never explicitly confirmed that W3C validation is a ranking factor. The counterargument is that Google cares about user experience and content quality, not technical code purity. A page can have minor HTML errors but still provide excellent content and user experience. That said, severe HTML errors or sloppy coding can indirectly harm SEO by causing rendering issues, affecting page load speed, creating accessibility problems, or preventing proper indexing of content. Broken or malformed markup might prevent Google’s crawlers from properly understanding page structure or extracting content. So while perfect W3C validation probably isn’t necessary or directly rewarded, grossly invalid or problematic HTML can cause issues. The practical approach is ensuring your HTML is functional and doesn’t cause user experience or crawling problems, rather than obsessing over perfect validation scores.

Example: Three versions of the same product page.

Version A – Severe HTML errors:

The page contains:

• Unclosed tags that break page structure (<div> opened but never closed)
• Improperly nested elements (tags opened and closed in wrong order)
• Missing required attributes on elements
• JavaScript errors preventing interactive features from working
• Broken schema markup that can’t be parsed
• Images with malformed markup causing some not to display
• Form elements with structural problems causing submission issues

User experience:

• Page displays incorrectly in some browsers
• Some content doesn’t render properly
• Interactive elements don’t work as intended
• Mobile display is broken due to viewport meta tag errors

Google’s crawling:

• May struggle to parse page structure correctly
• Might not properly extract schema markup for rich snippets
• Could miss content hidden by malformed markup
• Page rendering in Google’s systems may be problematic

Result: Rankings suffer not necessarily because of HTML errors per se, but because those errors cause functional problems that harm user experience and crawlability. Users bounce quickly when the page doesn’t work properly. Google can’t properly index and understand the content.

Version B – Minor HTML validation errors:

The page has a few technical validation issues when checked with W3C validator:

• Missing alt attributes on a couple of decorative images
• Minor semantic markup issues (using <b> instead of <strong>)
• A few unclosed tags that browsers auto-correct without display issues
• Some deprecated attributes that still function fine

User experience:

• Page displays perfectly in all browsers
• All functionality works as intended
• Content is fully accessible
• No visible problems or rendering issues

Google’s crawling:

• Successfully parses and indexes all content
• Properly extracts schema markup
• No issues understanding page structure
• Page renders correctly in Google’s systems

Result: Despite technical validation errors, the page ranks well because the errors don’t cause functional problems. Users have excellent experience, engagement metrics are strong, and Google can properly crawl and understand everything. The minor validation issues have no meaningful SEO impact.

Version C – Perfect W3C validation:

The page passes W3C validation with zero errors or warnings:

• All tags properly opened and closed
• Perfect nesting of elements
• All required attributes present
• Semantic HTML5 markup throughout
• Proper schema implementation
• Accessible markup (ARIA labels, proper heading hierarchy)
• No deprecated elements or attributes

User experience and crawling:

• Identical to Version B (functions perfectly)
• Possibly marginal improvements in edge cases or older browsers

Result: This page likely doesn’t rank meaningfully better than Version B despite perfect validation. The clean code is professionally satisfying and may prevent future issues, but doesn’t provide direct ranking advantages over functional pages with minor technical errors.

Practical guidance:

1. Focus on functional HTML that works correctly across browsers and devices
2. Ensure Google can crawl and render your pages properly
3. Fix errors that cause user experience problems or crawling issues
4. Implement proper semantic markup and schema
5. Don’t obsess over perfect W3C validation scores
6. Use validation tools to identify problems, but prioritize fixing issues that matter
7. Test how pages actually render and function rather than chasing validation scores

Clean code is good practice and may prevent problems, but minor validation errors probably won’t hurt rankings if the page functions well. Focus on user experience and crawlability over technical code perfection.

49. Domain Authority

What it means: Domain Authority (often abbreviated as DA) refers to the overall strength, credibility, and ranking power of an entire domain based on various factors including the quality and quantity of backlinks pointing to the domain, age of the domain, content quality, historical performance, and other trust signals. While “Domain Authority” is specifically a proprietary metric created by Moz (scored 1-100), the underlying concept of domain-level authority is a real factor in Google’s algorithms. Google doesn’t use Moz’s DA score specifically, but it does evaluate domain strength through its own internal metrics. The principle is that not all websites are created equal: all things being equal, a page on a highly authoritative domain like Wikipedia, The New York Times, or Mayo Clinic will rank higher than an identical page on a low-authority, unknown domain. This is because high-authority domains have proven themselves over time through accumulated trust signals: they have numerous quality backlinks from diverse sources, they consistently produce quality content, they have strong user engagement metrics, and they’ve established expertise in their fields. New or low-authority sites face an uphill battle when competing against established authoritative sites because they lack these accumulated trust signals. However, domain authority isn’t absolute: a highly relevant, comprehensive page on a lower-authority domain can outrank a thin, less relevant page on a high-authority domain if the content quality and relevance differences are significant enough. Domain authority creates a baseline advantage but doesn’t override all other factors.

Example: Three websites publish articles about “symptoms of diabetes.”

Site A – Very high domain authority:

MayoClinic(.)org (major medical authority):

• Domain established for 20+ years
• Thousands of backlinks from medical institutions, universities, government health sites
• Recognized medical expertise and institutional authority
• Millions of monthly visitors
• Publishes content written and reviewed by credentialed medical professionals
• Consistently produces comprehensive, evidence-based medical information

They publish a 1,500-word article about diabetes symptoms, well-researched and accurate but relatively standard medical information.

Site B – Medium domain authority:

HealthBlogger(.)com (established health blog):

• Domain established for 5 years
• Hundreds of backlinks from various health-related sites
• Written by a certified nutritionist with credentials
• Tens of thousands of monthly visitors
• Regularly publishes quality health content

They publish a 2,000-word article about diabetes symptoms with similar information, slightly more detailed than Mayo Clinic’s version.

Site C – Low domain authority:

DiabetesInfo2025(.)com (brand new site):

• Domain registered 2 months ago
• Zero backlinks from external sites
• Unknown author with unclear credentials
• Minimal traffic
• New site with limited content library

They publish a 2,000-word article about diabetes symptoms with accurate information similar to the other sites.

Ranking results for “diabetes symptoms”:

1. Mayo Clinic’s article ranks #1-3 despite being slightly less comprehensive than the others, because the enormous domain authority, medical institutional trust, and established expertise give it a significant advantage. Users and Google both recognize Mayo Clinic as a definitive medical resource.
2. HealthBlogger’s article ranks #8-12 on page 1 or top of page 2. The content quality is good and slightly more comprehensive than Mayo Clinic, but the medium domain authority means it can’t quite compete with medical institutions for highly competitive health queries. However, it does rank respectably.
3. DiabetesInfo2025’s article struggles to rank on page 1-3 despite having accurate, similar content. The lack of domain authority means Google doesn’t yet trust this unknown site for important health information (a “Your Money or Your Life” topic). The site needs to build authority through time, backlinks, and establishing expertise before it can compete for competitive queries.

Important nuance:

For a less competitive, more specific query like “how to tell the difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes symptoms in teenagers,” the new Site C might rank better if it has uniquely comprehensive content on this specific subtopic, while the high-authority sites have only brief mentions. Domain authority creates advantages but doesn’t make competition impossible.

Building domain authority:

1. Consistently produce high-quality, expert content over time
2. Earn backlinks from reputable, relevant sites in your niche
3. Establish topical expertise in specific subject areas
4. Build brand recognition and direct traffic
5. Maintain site for years (age and consistency matter)
6. Achieve strong user engagement metrics across the site
7. Get mentions and citations from authoritative sources

Domain authority develops gradually but provides compounding benefits as it grows, making individual pages easier to rank over time.

50. Page’s PageRank

What it means: PageRank is Google’s original and foundational algorithm, developed by Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, that calculates the authority and importance of individual webpages based on the quantity and quality of links pointing to them. The core concept is that links function as votes of confidence: when Page A links to Page B, it’s essentially vouching for Page B’s quality and relevance. However, not all votes are equal—a link from a high-authority page counts more than a link from a low-authority page. PageRank operates recursively, meaning pages pass their authority to the pages they link to, creating a network effect where authority flows through the web’s link structure. While Google stopped publicly displaying PageRank scores (the famous green toolbar with 0-10 ratings) in 2016, PageRank absolutely still exists as an internal metric and remains a fundamental ranking factor. Pages with higher PageRank, accumulated through quality backlinks, tend to outrank pages with lower PageRank, all else being equal. However, the relationship is “not perfectly correlated” as the document states, meaning PageRank is one important factor among hundreds. A page with massive PageRank but completely irrelevant content won’t outrank a highly relevant page with lower PageRank. Similarly, freshness, user experience, content quality, and other factors can override pure PageRank advantages. PageRank is essentially the quantification of link equity, and building it remains central to SEO through earning quality backlinks.

Example: Three pages competing for “best project management software.”

Page A – High PageRank:

A comprehensive guide on ProjectManagementTools(.)com:

• Has 250 backlinks from authoritative sources including:
  • Harvard Business Review article about productivity tools
  • Forbes list of business software
  • TechCrunch review roundup
  • Links from various established business blogs and publications
  • Some links from .edu domains (universities teaching project management)
  • Links from software review authorities like G2 and Capterra
• Many of these linking pages themselves have high PageRank
• The cumulative link equity flowing to this page is substantial

Page B – Medium PageRank:

A solid guide on ProductivityBlog(.)com:

• Has 45 backlinks from diverse sources including:
  • Several smaller business blogs
  • Some social media mentions that gained traction
  • A few industry-specific websites
  • Personal blogs from project managers
  • Most linking pages have moderate authority

Page C – Low PageRank:

A new guide on PMSoftwareReviews2025(.)com:

• Has 3 backlinks, all from low-authority sources:
  • Owner’s personal blog
  • A friend’s website
  • One directory submission
• Essentially no link equity

Content quality: All three pages have similar comprehensive content (2,500 words, detailed software comparisons, pros/cons, pricing analysis). The content quality is roughly equivalent.

Ranking result:

1. Page A ranks #2-4 on page 1. The high PageRank from authoritative backlinks gives it significant ranking power. Google recognizes that authoritative sources are vouching for this content, suggesting it’s trustworthy and valuable.
2. Page B ranks #8-12 (bottom of page 1 or top of page 2). The moderate PageRank from decent backlinks provides some ranking strength, but can’t compete with Page A’s superior link profile. Still achieves page 1 or near-page 1 visibility.
3. Page C ranks on page 4-6 despite having similar content quality. The lack of PageRank (almost no backlinks) means Google has limited external validation of the content’s quality. The page hasn’t earned trust signals from other sites.

Key insight:

PageRank/link equity is one of the few ranking factors that’s largely external to your site and requires other webmasters to “vote” for your content by linking to it. This makes it challenging but also valuable—it’s hard to manipulate and represents genuine external validation. Two pages with identical on-page optimization and content quality will likely rank in order of their PageRank.

Building PageRank:

1. Create genuinely valuable, linkworthy content
2. Earn editorial links from reputable sites in your industry
3. Get featured in industry publications and news sites
4. Produce original research or data that others cite
5. Build relationships with influencers and authoritative sites
6. Create resources (tools, guides, infographics) that naturally attract links
7. Guest post on authoritative sites (where appropriate and valuable)
8. Get mentioned in roundup posts and resource lists
9. Promote content to relevant audiences who might link to it

PageRank accumulation is often the difference between ranking on page 1 versus page 3 for competitive queries, making link building remain central to SEO success despite the algorithm’s evolution.