Advertisement

Evaluating the websites of academic departments through SEO criteria: a hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM approach

  • Barış Özkan
  • Eren ÖzceylanEmail author
  • Mehmet Kabak
  • Metin Dağdeviren
Article
  • 45 Downloads

Abstract

Search Engine Optimization (SEO) is the process of managing web content in a manner that elevates page rankings in search engines. Among other sectors, academic world is one of the number-one categories for search based on the percentage of web traffic generated through search engine referrals. However, SEO includes a number of factors grouped into two as ‘on page’ and ‘off page.’ To obtain maximum benefit from SEO, relevant factors/criteria should be considered using multi-criteria decision making (MCDM) methods. The focus of this paper is to consider SEO criteria evaluation as a MCDM problem in which the criteria are in different priority levels and the criteria values take the form of hesitant fuzzy linguistic term sets to facilitate the elicitation of information in hesitate situations. A three-step solution approach is developed: (i) determination of 21 SEO criteria, such as page loading time, page size and meta-keyword (ii) prioritizing the criteria using hesitant fuzzy analytic hierarchy process, and (iii) ranking 70 Turkish websites of the industrial engineering departments using Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution. The results show that trust flow and XML sitemap are the determinant criteria among others. Using the proposed method, web designers can approach SEO from weighted criteria perspective.

Keywords

AHP Hesitant fuzzy linguistic term set Search engine optimization TOPSIS Website evaluation 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier version of this paper.

Supplementary material

10462_2019_9681_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 23 kb)

References

  1. Akincilar A, Dagdeviren M (2014) A hybrid multi-criteria decision making model to evaluate hotel websites. Int J Hosp Manag 36:263–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Auinger A, Brandtner P, Großdeßner P, Holzinger A (2012) Search engine optimization meets e-business—a theory-based evaluation: findability and usability as key success factors. In: International conference on e-business, pp 237–250Google Scholar
  4. Aydin S, Kahraman C (2012) Evaluation of e-commerce website quality using fuzzy multi-criteria decision making approach. IAENG Int J Comput Sci 39(1):64–70Google Scholar
  5. Baye MR, Santos BD, Wildenbeest MR (2016) Search engine optimization: what drives organic traffic to retail sites? J Econ Manag Strategy 25(1):6–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bilsel RU, Buyukozkan G, Ruan D (2006) A fuzzy preference-ranking model for a quality evaluation of hospital web sites. Int J Intell Syst 21(11):1181–1197CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Bustince H, Fernandez J, Kolesarova A, Mesiar R (2013) Generation of linear orders for intervals by means of aggregation functions. Fuzzy Sets Syst 220:69–77MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Buyukozkan G, Guleryuz S (2016) Multi criteria evaluation of logistics firms’ web site performance. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 31(4):889–902Google Scholar
  9. CHE (2017) Council of higher education of Turkey. http://www.yok.gov.tr/web/guest/universitelerimiz. Access date 18 Sept 2017
  10. Ching-Lai H, Yoon K (1981) Multiple attribute decision making: methods and applications. Springer, BerlinzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Chitika (2013) The value of Google result positioning. https://chitika.com/google-positioning-value. Access date 18 Sept 2017
  12. Chou WC, Cheng YP (2012) A hybrid fuzzy MCDM approach for evaluating website quality of professional accounting firms. Expert Syst Appl 39(3):2783–2793MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dubois D, Prade H (2000) Fundamentals of fuzzy sets. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Ecer F (2014) A hybrid banking websites quality evaluation model using AHP and COPRAS-G: a Turkey case. Technol Econ Dev Econ 20(4):758–782CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Egri G, Bayrak C (2014) The role of search engine optimization on keeping the user on the site. Procedia Comput Sci 36:335–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Enge E, Spencer S, Stricchiola JC (2015) The art of SEO mastering search engine optimization, 3rd edn. O’Reilly Media Press, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  17. Evans MP (2007) Analysing Google rankings through search engine optimization data. Internet Res Electron Netw Appl Policy 17(1):21–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ferraz R (2015) Exploring web attributes related to image accessibility and their impact on search engine indexing. Procedia Comput Sci 67:171–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Garg R, Jain D (2017), Fuzzy multi-attribute decision making evaluation of e-learning websites using FAHP, COPRAS, VIKOR, WDBA. Decis Sci Lett 6(4):351–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gasparotto M (2014) Search engine optimization for the research librarian: a case study using the bibliography of U.S. Latina lesbian history and culture. Pract Acad Librariansh Int J SLA Acad Div 4(1):15–34Google Scholar
  21. Gil P (2017) The best search engines of 2017. https://www.lifewire.com/best-search-engines-2483352. Access date 18 Sept 2017
  22. Giomelakis D, Veglis A (2016) Investigating search engine optimization factors in media websites. Digit Journal 4(3):379–400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gok C, Percin S (2016) DEMATEL-ANP-VIKOR approach for assessing the e-service quality of electronic shopping (e-shopping) sites. Anadolu Univ J Soc Sci 16(2):131–144Google Scholar
  24. Google (2018) Search engine optimization starter guide, https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/7451184?hl=en. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  25. Gregurec I, Grd P (2012) Search engine optimization: website analysis of selected faculties in Croatia. In: European conference on information and intelligent systems, pp 211–218Google Scholar
  26. Hsu TH, Hung LC, Tang JW (2012) The multiple criteria and sub-criteria for electronic service quality evaluation: an interdependence perspective. Online Inf Rev 36(2):241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hu YC (2009) Fuzzy multiple-criteria decision making in the determination of critical criteria for assessing service quality of travel websites. Expert Syst Appl 36(3):6439–6445CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ip C, Law R, Lee HA (2012) The evaluation of hotel website functionality by fuzzy analytic hierarchy process. J Travel Tour Mark 29(3):263–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kabak M, Ozceylan E, Dagdeviren M, Genc T (2017) Evaluation of distance education websites: a hybrid multicriteria approach. Turk J Electr Eng Comput Sci 25:2809–2819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kang D, Jang W, Park Y (2016) Evaluation of e-commerce websites using fuzzy hierarchical TOPSIS based on E-S-QUAL. Appl Soft Comput 42:53–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaya T (2010) Multi-attribute evaluation of website quality in e-business using an integrated fuzzy AHP-TOPSIS methodology. Int J Comput Intell Syst 3(3):301–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim G, Park CS, Yoon KP (1997) Identifying investment opportunities for advanced manufacturing systems with comparative-integrated performance measurement. Int J Prod Econ 50:23–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kostoglou V, Papathanasiou J, Moschidis O, Ladopoulou P (2014) A comparative analysis of Greek universities’ presence on the World Wide Web using an analytical MCDM methodology. Int J Multicrit Dec Mak 4(3):279–298Google Scholar
  34. Levene M (2010) An introduction to search engines and web navigation. Wiley, New JerseyCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Li J, Wang J, Hu J (2018) Multi-criteria decision-making method based on dominance degree and BWM with probabilistic hesitant fuzzy information. Int J Mach Learn Cybern.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13042-018-0845-2
  36. Lin HF (2010) An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput Educ 54:877–888CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Markaki OI, Charilas DE, Askounis D (2010) Application of fuzzy analytic hierarchy process to evaluate the quality of e-government web sites. In: Developments in e-systems engineering, pp 219–224Google Scholar
  38. Moz (2018) On-site SEO. https://moz.com/learn/seo/on-site. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  39. MSPC (2017) Results of undergraduate placement exam. http://dokuman.osym.gov.tr/pdfdokuman/2017/osys/LYS/SayisalBilgiler11072017.pdf. Access date 18 Sept 2017
  40. Nie R, Tian Z, Wang X, Wang J, Wang T (2018a) Risk evaluation by FMEA of supercritical water gasification system using multi-granular linguistic distribution assessment. Knowl-Based Syst 162:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2018.05.030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Nie R, Tian Z, Wang J, Zhang H, Wang T (2018b) Water security sustainability evaluation: applying a multistage decision support framework in industrial region. J Clean Prod 196:1681–1704CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pamučar D, Stević Ž, Zavadskas EK (2018) Integration of interval rough AHP and interval rough MABAC methods for evaluating university web pages. Appl Soft Comput 67:141–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Petrescu P (2014) Google organic click-through rates in 2014. https://moz.com/blog/google-organic-click-through-rates-in-2014. Access date 18 Sept 2017
  44. Qi S, Law R, Buhalis D (2017) Comparative evaluation study of the websites of China-based and international luxury hotels. J China Tour Res 13(1):1–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roy S, Pattnaik PK, Mall R (2017) Quality assurance of academic websites using usability testing: an experimental study with AHP. Int J Syst Assur Eng 8(1):1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Saberi S, Saberi G, Mohd M (2013) Past, present and future of search engine optimization. In: The second international conference on informatics engineering and information science, pp 363–369Google Scholar
  47. Sang X, Liu X, Qin J (2015) An analytical solution to fuzzy TOPSIS and its application in personnel selection for knowledge-intensive enterprise. Appl Soft Comput 30:190–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sembodo ME (2007) Knowing black hat SEO. https://moz.com/ugc/knowing-black-hat-seo. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  49. Seoptimer (2018) Analyze websites with our free SEO audit and reporting tool. https://www.seoptimer.com. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  50. Seositecheckup (2018) SEO tools, software and articles. https://seositecheckup.com. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  51. Seotesteronline (2018) SEO tester online—SEO analysis online for your website. https://www.seotesteronline.com. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  52. Shih HS, Shyur HJ, Lee ES (2007) An extension of TOPSIS for group decision making. Math Comput Model 45(7–8):801–813CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Siteanalyzer (2018) Site analyzer. https://www.site-analyzer.com/en/dashboard. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  54. Sun CC, Lin GTR (2009) Using fuzzy TOPSIS method for evaluating the competitive advantages of shopping websites. Expert Syst Appl 36(9):11764–11771CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Terrientes LD, Cavia JF, Huertas A, Moreno A, Valls A (2015) Official tourist destination websites: hierarchical analysis and assessment with ELECTRE-III-H. Tour Manag Perspect 15:6–28Google Scholar
  56. Tian Z, Wang J, Zhang H, Wang T (2018) Signed distance-based consensus in multi-criteria group decision-making with multi-granular hesitant unbalanced linguistic information. Comput Ind Eng 124:125–138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(6):529–539zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  58. Tsai WC, Chou WC, Lai CW (2010) An effective evaluation model and improvement analysis for national park websites: a case study of Taiwan. Tour Manag 31(6):936–952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tsuei HJ, Tsai WE, Pan FT, Tzeng GH (2018) Improving search engine optimization (SEO) by using hybrid modified MCDM models. Artif Intell Rev.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-018-9644-0
  60. Vatansever K, Akgul Y (2018) Performance evaluation of websites using entropy and grey relational analysis methods: the case of airline companies. Decis Sci Lett 7:119–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang XK, Peng HG, Wang JQ (2018) Hesitant linguistic intuitionistic fuzzy sets and their application in multicriteria decision-making problems. Int J Uncertain Quantif 8(4):321–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Woorank (2018) Website review tool and SEO checker. https://www.woorank.com. Access date 08 Nov 2018
  63. WWW (2017) The size of the World Wide Web. http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/. Access date 18 Sept 2017
  64. Yalcin N, Kose U (2010) What is search engine optimization: sEO? Procedia Soc Behav Sci 9:487–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Yavuz M, Oztaysi B, Onar SC, Kahraman C (2015) Multi-criteria evaluation of alternative-fuel vehicles via a hierarchical hesitant fuzzy linguistic model. Expert Syst Appl 42:2835–2848CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Yu X, Guo S, Guo J, Huang X (2011) Rank B2C e-commerce websites in e-alliance based on AHP and fuzzy TOPSIS. Expert Syst Appl 38(4):3550–3557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Zhang L, Zou H, Yang F (2011) Web service composition algorithm based on TOPSIS. J China Univ Posts Telecommun 18(4):89–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Barış Özkan
    • 1
  • Eren Özceylan
    • 2
    Email author
  • Mehmet Kabak
    • 3
  • Metin Dağdeviren
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Industrial EngineeringOndokuz Mayıs UniversitySamsunTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Industrial EngineeringGaziantep UniversityGaziantepTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Industrial EngineeringGazi UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations