This correlation line might, for example

[zihadhasan019]

We've looked in the past at the quality of metrics like PageRank, Yahoo! Site Explorer's Link Counts, Alexa Rank, etc. The short answer is that they're barely better than random guessing. Google's PageRank score was (around February of 2009) approximately 16% better than random guessing for predicting ranking page (N+10 aka ranking page 1 vs. page 2) and less than 5% better than random guessing for predicting ranking position (N+1 aka ranking position 1 vs position 2).


The chart below shows correlations for a number of popular SEO metrics: Correlation of Various Metrics with Google Rankings from February 2009 Since then, Nick, Ben and Chas have all been hard email lists australia at work on improving the value and quality of Linkscape's index as well as the usefulness and signaling provided by the metrics. This next chart shows how we're progressing: The correlations above map in the 35-50% better than random guessing range (though it's not a 1-to-1 comparison with the numbers above - watch for that in a future post) for the first result.





Looking at this graph suggests that external mozRank (which represents the quantity of link juice to a page from external links) and external followed links correspond well to current rankings is interesting and certainly lends an additional data point for link builders. , suggest that in the "average" rankings scenario, earning links from high mozRank/PageRank pages with few links on them (so the links pass more juice) as well as higher raw quantities of external, followed links are both very important.