Useful infographic explaning the YouTube ranking factors

[hcetiny]

Here is an infographic explaning the YouTube ranking factors. I have found it on the German blog from Simon Rueger and thought that it may be interesting for you. The original content is in German, so I edited it with MS Paint. Please forgive the poor editing quality, but it was quickly done.



The content is four years old, but I think it is quite accurate. A couple of notes:

• The factor "Views" is not replaced by "Watch Time" and it probably has a larger weight.
• Video responses do not exist anymore so I stroke it through.
• Social Media is probably a stronger factor today.
• I am not sure, whether file name has an SEO impact.

What are your thoughts about it?

 

[Munchito696]

Here is an infographic explaning the YouTube ranking factors. I have found it on the German blog from Simon Rueger and thought that it may be interesting for you. The original content is in German, so I edited it with MS Paint. Please forgive the poor editing quality, but it was quickly done.

View attachment 33438

The content is four years old, but I think it is quite accurate. A couple of notes:

• The factor "Views" is not replaced by "Watch Time" and it probably has a larger weight.
• Video responses do not exist anymore so I stroke it through.
• Social Media is probably a stronger factor today.
• I am not sure, whether file name has an SEO impact.

What are your thoughts about it?

In my experiments the Title seems to be very important, maybe even more so than any other factor. Here's a thread I did the other day about an experiment I did with a video that has less than 2,000 views:
http://yttalk.com/threads/seo-exper...more-important-than-tags.196911/#post-1820866[DOUBLEPOST=1452893489,1452893394][/DOUBLEPOST]

In my experiments the Title seems to be very important, maybe even more so than any other factor. Here's a thread I did the other day about an experiment I did with a video that has less than 2,000 views:
http://yttalk.com/threads/seo-exper...more-important-than-tags.196911/#post-1820866

Whoa, the weird thing is I just now tried to be way less specific with my search, I simply searched for "dog barks at TV" and one of my newer videos with under 200 views is right near the top. WTF!? I didn't even really optimize it like the video in my experiment thread. Maybe I have to re-think this...

 

[WeiseGamer]

1) Where is your source? Infograph is pretty, but that's all it is without sourcing your data points.

2) You misspelled "Title" to "Titel" - not a big deal if this is just a test, but yeah...

3) File name as well as metadata on a file MEANS NOTHING and has been a myth for ages. YouTube's terms/help documentation says it means nothing, Tim Schmoyer has talked about it meaning nothing in his "top myths" video, etc.

4) Honestly I kinda covered this, and please don't take offense to my direct approach, but who the heck are you to make an infograph about this? I mean that as in that's what viewers would ask. Why do you want to make it, what input, value, experience do you think you have to justify why I should take any of this into consideration? What's unique about this that I can't find in a BILLION topics on YouTube?

I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but if you want to brand yourself as an expert (which I kind of think you are wanting with this) then you may want to consider those questions that your audience will be asking.

 

[hcetiny]

In my experiments the Title seems to be very important, maybe even more so than any other factor. Here's a thread I did the other day about an experiment I did with a video that has less than 2,000 views:

Very helpful thread. Thank you for sharing. I am going to try to long-tail keywords approach.

1) Where is your source? Infograph is pretty, but that's all it is without sourcing your data points.

I wrote in my first paragraph that it is from a German blog (simonrueger.de). This infographic is as well mentioned in a book about YouTube, which I took from the library. So, I regard the source as reliable.

2) You misspelled "Title" to "Titel" - not a big deal if this is just a test, but yeah...

Sorry about that. I just translated (edited via MS Paint) the infographic. I missed this word.

4) Honestly I kinda covered this, and please don't take offense to my direct approach, but who the heck are you to make an infograph about this? I mean that as in that's what viewers would ask. Why do you want to make it, what input, value, experience do you think you have to justify why I should take any of this into consideration? What's unique about this that I can't find in a BILLION topics on YouTube?

I'm honestly not trying to be mean, but if you want to brand yourself as an expert (which I kind of thing you are wanting with this) then you may want to consider those questions that your audience will be asking.

Indeed, I am a bit offended from your direct approach and the style of your message. I never wrote that I made the infographic myself or I am an expert on this. I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

 

[WeiseGamer]

Indeed, I am a bit offended from your direct approach and the style of your message. I never wrote that I made the infographic myself or I am an expert on this. I don't know how you come to that conclusion.

1) Don't be offended, that's why I said I'm not trying to be mean at all, if you still take it offensively, I can't do much more.

2) I somehow missed the first part above the image for sourcing, my apologies.

3) To paraphrase what I read when I see the topic:

• Forum Area: You posted this in articles, resources, tutorials, for marketing and SEO information. This isn't a place for questions its for tutorials, guides, articles, etc.
• Title: A useful infographic... (saying its useful and such makes me think you are presenting this as useful info you stand behind, have used, are sharing with others, etc).
• Infograph: Usually used by people trying to market something, internet has kind of made this a thing with squeeze pages and such.
• Feedback/Thoughts request: Asking for input on improvement (is how I took it), I honestly felt like you were going to use it on a website/blog/post/video and, as such, directed my questions as a viewer/reader would.

The origin for all of this, too, I should add is that there are a LOT of "experts" on here, and while I appreciate everyone's opinion, I just wish people would give some more sources, experience, results, and just plain proof of what they are saying. That's a subject outside the scope of this topic.

Bottom line - As stated previously in my original post and here, I didn't mean it offensively and I'm not one to argue online with someone I don't know, some of it is extremely outdated, and I don't like people sharing content without testing it out or having a reason to share. I think a better approach would have been "here's an infograph I found, I tried focusing on this stuff and it worked, what do you think?" or "I tried focusing on these larger areas more and it failed.."

 

[subversiveasset]

As others have commented, the credibility of this infographic is hurt by it mentioning things that definitely have no relevance on Youtube SEO -- file name has no impact.