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

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

References

  1. Akincilar A, Dagdeviren M (2014) A hybrid multi-criteria decision making model to evaluate hotel websites. Int J Hosp Manag 36:263–271

    Google Scholar 

  2. Atanassov KT (1986) Intuitionistic fuzzy sets. Fuzzy Sets Syst 20(1):87–96

    MATH  Google 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 237–250

  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):64–70

    Google 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):6–31

    Google 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):1181–1197

    MATH  Google 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 220:69–77

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. Buyukozkan G, Guleryuz S (2016) Multi criteria evaluation of logistics firms’ web site performance. J Fac Eng Archit Gazi Univ 31(4):889–902

    Google 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, Berlin

    Google 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):2783–2793

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  13. Dubois D, Prade H (2000) Fundamentals of fuzzy sets. Springer, New York

    Google 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):758–782

    Google Scholar 

  15. Egri G, Bayrak C (2014) The role of search engine optimization on keeping the user on the site. Procedia Comput Sci 36:335–342

    Google Scholar 

  16. Enge E, Spencer S, Stricchiola JC (2015) The art of SEO mastering search engine optimization, 3rd edn. O’Reilly Media Press, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  17. Evans MP (2007) Analysing Google rankings through search engine optimization data. Internet Res Electron Netw Appl Policy 17(1):21–37

    Google Scholar 

  18. Ferraz R (2015) Exploring web attributes related to image accessibility and their impact on search engine indexing. Procedia Comput Sci 67:171–184

    Google 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):351–364

    Google 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):15–34

    Google 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):379–400

    Google 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):131–144

    Google 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 211–218

  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):241–260

    Google 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):6439–6445

    Google 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):263–278

    Google 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 25:2809–2819

    Google 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 42:53–65

    Google 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):301–314

    Google 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 50:23–33

    Google 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):279–298

    Google Scholar 

  34. Levene M (2010) An introduction to search engines and web navigation. Wiley, New Jersey

    Google 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

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lin HF (2010) An application of fuzzy AHP for evaluating course website quality. Comput Educ 54:877–888

    Google 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 219–224

  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

    Article  Google 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 196:1681–1704

    Google 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 67:141–163

    Google 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):1–25

    Google 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):1–11

    Google 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 363–369

  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 30:190–204

    Google 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):801–813

    MATH  Google 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):11764–11771

    Google 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 15:6–28

    Google 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 124:125–138

    Google Scholar 

  57. Torra V (2010) Hesitant fuzzy sets. Int J Intell Syst 25(6):529–539

    MATH  Google 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):936–952

    Google 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

    Google Scholar 

  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 7:119–130

    Google 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):321–341

    Google 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 9:487–493

    Google 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 42:2835–2848

    Google 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):3550–3557

    Google Scholar 

  67. Zhang L, Zou H, Yang F (2011) Web service composition algorithm based on TOPSIS. J China Univ Posts Telecommun 18(4):89–97

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

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

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Eren Özceylan.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 23 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Özkan, B., Özceylan, E., Kabak, M. et al. Evaluating the websites of academic departments through SEO criteria: a hesitant fuzzy linguistic MCDM approach. Artif Intell Rev 53, 875–905 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-019-09681-z

Download citation

Keywords

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