I even found a terms that return ‘not enough data’ in YouTube but gets 350 searches in Google monthly and the two of the top 3 results are Youtube Videos. While I am now the top video in YT for the term, the #2 Video is the one used in the Google SERPs. Any thoughts on why the Google SERPs choose lower ranking YT videos to show? I am leaning towards the lack of social signals but would love your input.
I read this post months ago. Now that I’ve got around 80 videos and 90 subs, I read it again with a different eye. Trying to really understand ‘keyword’. If I understand you, the keyword isn’t the ENTIRE title. It’s 2 or 3 words that you’re trying to make a video on, the rest is ‘filler’ so that the title makes sense. Is that correct? If so, I’ve been doing this all wrong. And should probably go thru and change all of my video titles. Oh, and I thought we were supposed to fill in all 500 characters of video tags. I’ve been trying to do that. Have I been stuffing without realizing it? Thanks for the great post!
Disclaimer: Google™ search engine and PageRank™ algorithm are the trademarks of Google Inc. CheckPageRank.net is not affiliated with Google Inc., but provides publicly available information about pagerank values of websites. We provide our services on "as is" and "as available" basis and we do not provide any guarantees regarding this service stability and/or availability.

Meh, I disagree with your theory about using less tags. You should use all 500 characters for optimal results. There is no proof that likes/dislikes does anything to the SEO. I’m sure that is more for the content makers info and viewers warning. The description can be up to 5000 characters. Best to post your other video links. You have no proof of anything, noone does, we can only guess how youtube seo works..


Don’t want sound negative you did put lot’s work into this post but the reality is???…..All this strategies our repeated over and over with many other’s and don’t work.. Truth is nobody really know the algorithm of You tube or Facebook. All this is helpful but not the Info that really is needed….Other then that as I said thumps up for the work you put into this..
It appears that the reason this page from a little-known website is able to rank amongst the bigger players is that the content itself is more focussed. It talks about how to name images for SEO, whereas most of the other pages are more general guides to image SEO—which all presumably mention the importance of naming images correctly, amongst other things.
×