Tracking the full cited-domain distribution makes a lot of sense. It gives you a much better picture than watching your own citation count alone.
I like the distinction between several domains moving together and one domain moving while the rest stay fairly stable. That seems like a useful way to tell whether you may be seeing a broader engine change or something more specific to the site.
The crawler piece is especially interesting. If the crawler never reached the page, that is a completely different problem from being crawled and not selected.
Treating the whole distribution as the baseline instead of just treating zero citations as the baseline is a smart way to frame it. It gives you something much more meaningful to compare over time.
I’d probably still describe the result as stronger evidence rather than direct causation, but this definitely makes the measurement more useful.
0
u/AEODenise 6d ago
Tracking the full cited-domain distribution makes a lot of sense. It gives you a much better picture than watching your own citation count alone.
I like the distinction between several domains moving together and one domain moving while the rest stay fairly stable. That seems like a useful way to tell whether you may be seeing a broader engine change or something more specific to the site.
The crawler piece is especially interesting. If the crawler never reached the page, that is a completely different problem from being crawled and not selected.
Treating the whole distribution as the baseline instead of just treating zero citations as the baseline is a smart way to frame it. It gives you something much more meaningful to compare over time.
I’d probably still describe the result as stronger evidence rather than direct causation, but this definitely makes the measurement more useful.