Is an increased traffic to a site would help to increase search engine ranking?

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Jonathan Cross: I would like to know if there is any data to suggest, or deny, that increased traffic to a site would help to increase search engine ranking, all other factors remaining the same.  ;Basically, if a site suddenly gets lots of consistent organic traffic would Google think that the site is clearly more relevant and thus improve it's placement in the SERP's?
• 
  Matt Benson: I don't know of any hard data that supports or doesn't support that. But I don't think it does because if it did then there would be companies paying lots of money just pushing cheap, untargeted traffic at their sites instead of investing so much in expensive, targeted seo and ppc.
• 
  Devin Peterson: In my dumb opinion (sorry no data), I think that traffic levels can definitely be used as a ranking factor. The logic is just as you stated, but I don't think it makes a site more 'relevant' as that is strictly a 'query-dependent' metric. However it can indicate a site being more authoritative or trustworthy to have high levels of direct traffic. But this is of course dependent on other factors too, and certainly wouldn't be an overwhelmingly strong factor. +Matt Benson ;argues that it wouldn't be a reliable metric because it can be faked, but a search engine can use it as a factor without giving too much weight to it so that it wouldn't be worth paying loads of money for  ;tiny affect on rankings. EVERY metric can be 'manipulated' by paying people money to help boost it, but at some point the ROI is negligible or negative even. You wouldn't pay thousands of dollars every week to get a couple thousand useless visitors which MIGHT be just good enough to boost you 1 spot higher in the SERPS, would you?
• 
  Stefan Kristensson: I'm of the same opinion as +Devin Peterson in the question. Really think that site traffic is (one of many) factors involved in the SERP. But not only the amount of traffic but also the time Your visitors stays.
• 
  Matt Benson: Can it? Of course it can. Anything can. Google can make it so that you get a better ranking if there's a G in your domain. That doesn't make it so. Known brands get way, way, way more organic and paid traffic than non-brand sites. Have you never seen a brand site outranked by a non-brand? I have, lot's of times. That leads me to believe traffic is not a factor as it's own individual metric. If it's considered at all, it's only as part of a calculation to determine bounce rate or something more intuitive like that to measure user experience or quality score. And again, untargeted traffic is ridiculously cheap. It would just be too open to manipulation if it was a factor. You don't have to be an insider to know that Google isn't that stupid to allow such an easily faked metric to be an individual factor in the algorithm.
  
  And no, nobody would pay thousands of dollars to get a couple thousand useless visitors to gain 1 spot. That's because anybody can buy thousands of useless "visits" for a just a few bucks. It doesn't take thousands of dollars. ;
• 
  Devin Peterson: I think the key here is properly scaling the value of any metric. And it may seem on the surface it can be easily manipulated, but  ;'visits' can be analyzed as well, just like links from sites. Can't websites get thousands of really cheap fake links? Yet they still use links as a ranking factor in one way because there is a way to determine the value of a link. The traffic can be analyzed just the same and be given more or less value.
  
  Just curious, where can I get lots of visits to my site which can mimic "natural" visits in terms of behavior, location, etc.?
• 
  Matt Benson: There you go with the "can be" again. Lot's of things can be. That doesn't mean they are. In the absence of data, and neither one of us has any, revert to common sense and observation.
  
  Search for "buy traffic". All you would be buying is visits that can be counted. Behavior is something totally different.
  
  The last thing I'll say on this is I know people who buy traffic in blocks of 30,000+ visits for $10 per block to pad their stats in Google Analytics so they can charge higher ad rates to people who advertise on their site. I've seen the data in Analytics for those visits. Google counts them as real enough, tracks their location, where they came from, etc. It sees them as real visits, but they are garbage. The rankings of that site are never affected, good or bad. ;
• 
  Devin Peterson: What's wrong with a "can be"? I am merely offering insight to provide plausibility in the presence of uncertainty. And as was said, "just because they can be, doesn't mean they are." That's the point, I am not trying to say THEY ARE. But it can be... and then I go on to reason why. Which btw, the reason still stands.
  
  Direct traffic shall be analyzed before assigning value to it. Just like links. I can buy 30,000 links but we all know it won't help at all.
  
  Disclaimer: But maybe not.
• 
  Matt Benson: People who post here are looking for answers. Not hypotheticals that run counter to common sense or actual observation. Anybody can pull a "can be" out of their arse. That's what's wrong with "can be". Next time you want to throw out a can be this or can be that, think for second about whether you've actually ever seen any evidence that would back up your suggestion. If not, then keep it to yourself because otherwise all you're doing is adding more confusion to the subject. If you've seen something relevant, then instead of everything you say being a big maybe, everything you say becomes, "I've seen this". That's how unknown things actually get solved. Not by throwing in more unknown things.
• 
  Devin Peterson: Straightforward answers in SEO? That's pretty rare. Also, relax. There's clearly no answer unless you are a search engineer for Google? So the next best thing is to provide reasons why or why not, it's called conjecture. All SEO aside, this is how real analysis works to begin with in absence of data, and it was made clear that no data is available. I thought it fair to hear both sides, you provided reasons for one side and I provided reasons for the other side. Let the jury decide, but your opinion is just as opinion as mine.
  
  *Backs away slowly"
• 
  Matthew Strunk: I have to agree with +Devin Peterson ;on this one. ;I believe if you can filter irrelevant visits (and you can) then I don't see why this factor wouldn't be considered in gauging the offline impact (or branding) of a website, which is something of value when determining a site's quality and hence ranking.
• 
  Stefan Kristensson: Yes +Matt Benson anybody can pull a "can be" out of their arse. And anyone that like to post their opinion or "guessing" here I think should. +Devin Peterson was very clear that it was no fact or truth - a "can be". If the reader or the one who posted the question won't be satisfied with the answer - so what? You don't know. It's an open discussion and who are You to set up rules for How to answer?