Google+ profiles and Rel Author. Extensive question
-
A bit of a mammoth question for discussion here:
With the launch of Google+ and profiles, coupled with the ability to link/verify authorship using rel=me to google+ profile - A few questions with respect to the long term use and impact.
As an individual - I can have a Google+ Profile, and add links to author pages where I am featured. If rel=me is used back to my G+ profile - google can recognise me as the writer - no problem with that.
However - if I write for a variety of different sites, and produce a variety of different content - site owners could arguably become reluctant to link back or accredit me with the rel=me tag on the account I might be writing for a competitor for example, or other content in a totally different vertical that is irrelevant.
Additionally - if i write for a company as an employee, and the rel=me tag is linked to my G+ profile - my profile (I would assume) is gaining strength from the fact that my work is cited through the link (even if no link juice is passed - my profile link is going to appear in the search results on a query that matches something I have written, and hence possibly drain some "company traffic" to my profile). If I were to then leave the employment of that company - and begin writing for a direct competitor - is my profile still benefiting from the old company content I have written?
Given that google is not allowing pseudonyms or ghost writer profiles - where do we stand with respect to outsourced content? For example: The company has news written for them by a news supplier - (each writer has a name obviously) - but they don't have or don't want to create a G+ profile for me to link to. Is it a case of wait for google to come up with the company profiles? or, use a ghost name and run the gauntlet on G+?
Lastly, and I suppose the bottom line - as a website owner/company director/SEO;
Is adding rel=me links to all your writers profiles (given that some might only write 1 or 2 articles, and staff will inevitably come and go) an overall positive for SEO? or, a SERP nightmare if a writer moves on to another company? In essence are site owners just improving the writers profile rather than gaining very much?
-
Just within the past few weeks I've started to see lots of "author photos" showing in the SERPs. A couple people who I trust tell me that they are getting big traffic improvements where their author photo is showing.
I still don't have an author page (I don't like to build content on other websites unless I enjoy it or am being paid) but am starting lean towards making one.
I think that it is a mistake not to have one. It's on my job list.
-
It's been a few months, I'm curious to see if you've stepped into the Google+ world, and if so, how you handle those rel=author issues as a company. I am facing a very similar situation as described above and landed here in my research.
-
I don't have a google profile as I post anonymously and they don't allow anonymous profiles (those dummies!).
I own a website where most articles are written by staff and no author is listed. (guest content does have author information)
I have thought about creating author pages on the site and pointing author links to them with rel=me. However now it seems that google wants their Google profile pages as the target for rel=me links. (what a way to demand links!)
Eventually, if I see that people are getting definite ranking benefits from Google profile pages, I will create a real profile page on Google. I have tons of content that I could point to it.
-
Thanks for your input EGOL, I was hoping you would spot this and chip in having seen your comments on Cre8asite.
Do you use g+ profiles in this fashion on any sites your run/manage? (or anyone else reading this for that matter?)
For those that have got it implemented - have you seen a rise in traffic from plus.google as a result? and/or a rise in ranking?
It might of course be a little early to tell yet - and googles promise of company profiles on g+ might have a workaround built in.
-
Thank you for this question. I think that it is interesting from multiple perspectives.
I think that we have a technology perspective in... "How will Google handle this?"....
But we also have an employer perspective in... "What do they think that they own and what will they permit?"
As an author I would like to think that I "OWN" the simple fact that I authored an article. The employer might own the article, however, I would like to have credit for writing it.
Some employers would have no problem linking to my profile page with rel=me.
However, other employers might insist that they paid me for the article and "own" all credit for it - since they funded the time that I used to produce it. Some will not want to display a link to my profile page because they worry about losing visitors through it... or PR through it.... and other might allow a link to a profile page but insist that the profile page be located on their domain.
This is a mucky problem, made sticky with issues of ownership, ego and more.
I think that the only solution for authors who write for multiple websites is to be sure that your expectation of a credit link is made very clear when you make a contract for work. That will at least establish your expectation formally but there is no guarantee that a IT person, designer or an SEO will remove your link or the rel=me at some time in the future.
If you are an established author you might be able to explain how the link to your profile page will benefit the websites where your articles appear - as the search rankings for your articles might benefit from your personal authority as an author.... and if they want to control the benefit then they should be the buyer for all of your work.
The best solution (and my personal favorite) is to write only for your own websites where you have total control.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Using Google Reviews for non local business
Hi All, We are deciding on what site is best to capture reviews from customers and I'm just not sure what is the ideal option. We are a SaaS business with multiple offices in different locations but the specific geographies are not really relevant to our customers. Is it worth focusing on google reviews so that when our brand is searched there are plenty of nice shiny stars (plus maybe they can be added into adwords adverts as well...). Search volume for the keywords we don't yet rank for are not massive although still important. Alternatively should we be thinking about something like G2Crowd. None of our competitors are doing anything so there's no real need to our muscle them on a review website and I don't think our end user will visit these sites before buying but we would point to them and say 'hey, look at all these great reviews'. Finally I searched my old company recently who and just under news results were facebook reviews. Maybe that's another option. All advice welcome. All advice appreciated.
Industry News | | jafayeh1 -
Error found. not really a question
Consideration After they a little more confortable section from: http://moz.com/academy/marketing-funnel it might be better if it is written correctly. makes the site more trusted. 🙂
Industry News | | ClaytonKendall0 -
Google still showing sitelinks from old website
Hi guys, we relaunched our website www.segafredo.com.au a few weeks ago, however google is still showing site links from our old page that no longer exist... Is there anything we can do about this? Sit back and wait or try demoting the old urls in webmaster tools? Looking forward to see your tips! Ciao, Manny.
Industry News | | Immanuel0 -
100's of versions of the same page. Is rel=canonical the solution???
Hi, I am currently working with an eCommerce site that has a goofy set up for their contact form. Basically, their are hundreds of "contact us" pages that look exactly the same but have different URLs and are used to help the store owner determine which product the user contacted them about. So almost every product has it's own "contact us" URL. The obvious solution is to do away with this set up but if that is not an option, would a rel=canonical tag linked back to the actually "contact us" page be a possible solution? Or is the canonical tag only used to show the difference between www vs non-www? Thanks!
Industry News | | RossFruin0 -
I need some help with google please
Hello i am trying to remove google partial penalization to my website since july 2012 I have removed link, used disallow tools, wrote letters Last comunicacion was a letter send on 12/2012 that they responded 3/2013 web in cuestion is www.propdental.com I have not answered yet because i am looking for a good profesional help they responded saying that i still have unnuturall links wich is pretty probably but i dont nkow wich ones remove. Site authority has dropped from 43 to 32 with all links removed traffic dropped from 48000 to 15.000 Please profesional contacts needed
Industry News | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Is this still Google?
My niche, my concern.
Industry News | | webfeatus
http://www.google.com/search?q=jimbaran+villa
My site just dropped out of the rankings completely. But if you look at the Google search above you will notice 2 things:
1. First page: 75% of space above the fold is dedicated to Google making money
2. Subsequent pages: It is like you don't actually search "Google" If you flip through a few pages what you actually search is:
agoda.com
flipkey.com
tripadvisor.com
homeaway.com Do I have a point or am I simply having a cynical day?1 -
How do I keep my question coming up to the top (first page) of SEOMoz?
I'd like to get more replies to my questions. I'm getting a decent amount of views. I'm making an offer and call to action. Do I need to just keep on tweaking the headline question? Or are SEOMoz'ers not necessarily looking for work?
Industry News | | karlseidel0 -
Chrome blocked sites used by Googles Panda update
Google's Panda update said it used Chrome users blocked sites lists as a benchmark for what they now term poor quality content. They said the Panda update effectively took about 85% of them out of the search results. This got me thinking, it would be very nice to discover what are the exact sites they don't like. Does anyone know if there is an archive of what these sites might be? Or if none exists, maybe if people could share their Chrome blocked sites on here we might get an idea?
Industry News | | SpecialCase0