Do CTR manipulation services actually work to improve rankings?

[AdamThompson]

I've seen a variety of services on the fringe of the SEO world that send a flow of (fake) traffic to your website via Google, to drive up your SERP CTR and site engagement. Seems gray hat, but I'm curious as to whether it actually works.

The latest data I've seen from trustworthy sources (example and example 2) seems mixed on whether CTR has a direct impact on search rankings. Google claims it doesn't. I think it's possible it directly impacts rankings, or its possible Google is using some other metric to reward high engagement pages and CTR correlates with that.

Any insight on whether CTR manipulation services actually work?

[PatrickDelehanty]

Hi there

No idea if it works or doesn't, but I'd be interested in hearing about it from a curiosity standpoint. My thought is if someone has thought to make a service / try it, Google is five steps ahead in preventing it from working in their algorithm. But yeah, would love to hear thoughts if someone has used it as well!

Thanks for starting what could be a really interesting discussion dude!
P

[becole]

Generally speaking, these types of schemes don't work, as Google is quite aware of people trying to do this. With the latest Google algorithm updates in the past few years, we've seen it become tougher and tougher for black hat SEO or gray hat SEO to be successful by trying to manipulate clicks, etc. and faking traffic.

We are aware of other techniques that have been manipulating Google suggest, though, and while that doesn't specifically influence rankings, it can lead to people searching for keywords that they wouldn't normally search for.

[AdamThompson]

I generally agree with you that Google is getting better at detecting tricks, but Google is far from perfect and there are a lot of tricks that still work. I'm looking for specific results/data specifically on the CTR manipulation services...

Have you done any tests with CTR manipulation services work?

This is not a tactic white hat SEOs would use, but it's still good for us to know whether it works, so we can respond correctly if our competitors use it, to figure out white hat ways to combat it, to answer client questions, to have a better understanding of Google's algorithms, etc.

[AdamThompson]

Yeh, I think this is a good topic to be aware of, even if we wouldn't use it. That way we can respond correctly if our competitors use it, figure out white-hat ways to combat it, have a better understanding of Google's algorithms, etc. All else failing, it wouldn't be expensive to test them out.

[EGOL]

Google is really smart about manipulation. They have teams of PhD engineers looking out for it and racks of servers watching for it.  These guys are so into it that they don't go home at night.  And, the guys who offer these clicking services are not very smart.  If they were smart they would be making big bucks in cushy jobs like Google Engineer and riding hoverboards around their offices.   The intersection between really smart people and really dumb people isn't a good place to get involved.

[AdamThompson]

I think you over-estimate how smart Googlers are and how dumb shady SEOs are. I've seen blatant tricks that have been working for years. I don't use such tricks because they are very risky, but I don't think we should dismiss them as useless - I think it's worth understanding which work and which don't, especially if our competitors are using them. We have competitors who are using very shady SEO tactics and winning with them. Understanding what they are doing and what is working helps us determine which white hat tactics to deploy against them. That's why I'm asking for data on CTR manipulation.

[seanginnaw]

I've definitely heard of this working with people using crowd-sourcing websites (such as Crowdflower) to pay next to nothing for thousands of people to Google a keyword and click on a specified listing.

Whilst the effects of CTR manipulation are pretty instant and it definitely works, it's often short lived and Google is quick to pick this up as an anomaly, rather than data of statistical significance.

In short, it works and it works pretty quickly but if you can't sustain the CTR metrics, you're going to fall back down the rankings.

[AdamThompson]

Good info, thanks!

[EGOL]

**We have competitors who are using very shady SEO tactics and winning with them. **

I think that it is more Google being slow to identify problems and conservative about what they penalize.  When SEOs go into the manuipulative zone they are taking their chances that Google will not find them or penalize them.   SEOs who do this often do not fully inform the client that risks are being taken and that they could be slapped with a penalty that will permanently ban them from google, or in the case of Penguin, have their site demoted in the SERPs for nearly two years.

[AdamThompson]

Also Googlers a) have to fight pretty much only with algorithms and b) have to minimize collateral damage. That gives black hatters an advantage, and makes it impossible for Google to completely win. What annoys me is the fact that almost every single SEO company claims to be 100% white hat and Google-approved, while many are buying links, doing link networks, etc. I can't figure out if they are really that ignorant of the rules or if they are just lying.

[EGOL]

I can't figure out if they are really that ignorant of the rules or if they are just lying.

Probably both!  And, they say anything that makes the best story to gain a client, hold a client or make themselves look innocent when things go wrong.

[seanginnaw]

No problem, hope it helps!