Page 70 - SEO Mad Scientist 2020 Report

Test Results: July 17, 2020

With all of our tests we continued to see no results in organic, images, or maps for our made up
terms. This result didn’t really surprise us.

EXIF data isn't visible to the end-user, so it’s unlikely for Google to use this data for indexing
purposes. This also means that our tests were flawed - they didn’t really test impacts on actual
terms with EXIF. We also failed to test GEO signals which could be where EXIF data’s power
comes from for local rankings.

Our previous test data leads us to believe these tests could have a positive outcome, which is
important to note as these GMB tests are just throwing things and seeing what sticks (based on
the previous findings).

Remember, just because Google doesn’t show something 100% based on EXIF data, doesn't
mean you won’t see a signal boost. Many SEOs attest to the impacts of EXIF data on organic or
local, and some have even produced “test” data to show their case. However, we feel much of
this data is skewed as very few single variable tests have been done on this, and most tests that
have been done have not been replicated to confirm their results. We will need to test more in
order to get strong, conclusive evidence.

Linking Tests

What Type of Contextual Reference Carries the Most Authority?

Test Setup: June 19, 2020

To explore the difference in authority for contextual reference on the page, we created a series of
micro tests based on how the text is optimized. We tested one concept with 31 different variations
to ensure the best test results for our question...

What type of contextual reference carries the most authority? Is it a plain contextual reference, a
contextual reference with an inner link, or a contextual reference with an outbound link?

We had observed a lot of mixed data on this previously, where inner linking pages cannibalized
target pages or the long-discussed belief that linking out to an "authority site" helps page

70