Bing Opens Up About Organic Ranking Factors
Search engine optimization isn’t magic; search marketers have a fairly good idea as to how search engines organically rank websites, but we haven’t explicitly been told by any of the big search engine companies exactly how they rank websites.
Duane Forrester, Sr. Product Manager for Bing’s Webmaster Program, recently gave us a little insight as to how Bing might be organically ranking websites. I say “might be” because he didn’t really say, “This is how Bing ranks websites in the organic search index,” but he did hit on some nuggets on what content publishers might want to focus on when creating & publishing content.
And frankly, I’m keen on believing what the Sr. Product Manager of Bing’s Webmaster Program says content publishers should focus on.
Obviously, before I get into it, I want to state: Bing is different than Google. Two different search engines – two different algorithms. However, search engines are focused on serving the most relevant results possible for any given search query. So, I’d like to think that if whatever Bing is doing is serving better results for their users, Google and other search engines might see what they may be doing and incorporating into their own ranking algorithm in some fashion.
Anyway, enough of that – let’s get to the good stuff. So I mentioned that Duane Forrester – Sr. Product Manager for Bing’s Webmaster Tools service – recently opened-up a bit into how Bing is organically ranking websites. The two main points that were hit on during the interview:
- Bing places a fairly significant weight (more-so than what we all thought) on user interactions with the search engine results page as a ranking factor. I’m thinking this kind of parallels with how Google handles Quality Score in AdWords: the more likely a user is going to click on the result, the better of a position that result will have. What does that mean, for you, the content publisher? You should have an optimized title tag for every page of your site and meta description tag that encourages click through. Don’t make it super-sensationalist or USE ALL CAPS OR SOMETHING SILLY LIKE THAT; write a unique meta description tag that succinctly states what the page is about so the searcher knows what the page will contain if he / she clicks through.
- Duane Forrester ranked priorities that publishers should be concerned with like so: 1) Content. 2) Social media. 3) Links. Social media being the second priority isn’t quite as surprising as links being the third priority. So it would appear that Bing potentially skews more priority towards social media signals for a page than how many external links are pointing to it. And again – Mr. Forrester didn’t outright say this was how Bing ranks websites organically. But I’m going to pay attention to his rankings of priorities when I’m looking to get a ranking over at Bing.
There are some other really fascinating items that Duane hits on during the interview:
- “Bing does not use page performance as a rankings factor. This is because a page with a 4 second load that has all the content someone wants may very well be a better experience than a page with 1 second load time that does not answer the question as well.”
- “Your sitemaps need to be clean. We have a 1% allowance for dirt in a sitemap. Examples of dirt are if we click on a URL and we see a redirect, a 404 or a 500 code. If we see more than a 1% level of dirt, we begin losing trust in the Sitemap.”
It was an interesting interview and definitely will make us tweak our search engine optimization service for Bing. What do you think about those two main points that were hit on in the interview? Do you feel as though Bing is doing bigger and better things in search or do you regard that search engine as a “backup” to Google? Let us know in the comments section!

















Any insight on Bing is helpful, sheesh!
I love it that Forrester calls redirects, 400 and 500 errors “dirt.” It’s such an accurate way to describe the junk that comes between a person and the information they’re searching for. I also love the take on page-load times. It makes sense that a page with lots of valuable content would load more slowly than a well-optimized parking lot.
The interview does make for interesting reading, and it is something worth paying attention to for reasons you noted; at the same time, in my client’s Analytics accounts, Google Organic accounts for far, far more traffic than Bing or any other engine, so while certainly online marketers want to “squeeze every drop of juice out of the orange” when it comes to optimizing, I can’t see rational justification for spending much time being concerned with a low-volume traffic source.
That said, your point that the engines are in essence watching each others doings in order to produce the best user experience means that every insight an engine will provide is worth lapping up.
With regard to social being second ahead of links – hmm, Bing and Facebook are in bed together, so that math is pretty easy to do, no?
David
@Adam & @Aliza – thanks for the comments!
@David – I see the same in my client’s analytics. Truth be told, Bing’s search engine share isn’t very high… but it has been slowing ticking upwards.
It’s certainly an interesting perspective of seemingly placing more significance towards social signals than links – something that, to me, seems particularly easy to possibly game. Then again, links were easy to game when Google came into town… but they’ve figured out how to weed out the spammers (to a degree).
Thanks for your comment!
I think David’s right – Bing probably places more importance on Facebook signals because they’ve got a relationship with Facebook. Google does not. Some tests/experiments are starting to show Google+ influence on Google rankings as well (and there’s plenty of correlation data about social sharing and it’s influence on Google rankings already). The logic is obvious – it’s a lot easier for people to share links en masse via social than it is to gain a ‘traditional’ link. Search engines may miss great, authoritative, timely content if they don’t take those social signals into account.