Thoughts on Google+ influence on SERPs?
-
I just read this article over on Read Write Web: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_is_going_to_mess_up_the_internet.php
The part that made me raise an eyebrow is in the section "Google+ Hates the Internet". I just tested the exact term the author used and his article does show up first, followed by two G+ listings.
I don't have enough action going on in my G+ accounts to even test this, let alone see it, but was wondering if anyone else has seen it or tested it?
Perhaps this in fact, is Google's way of using "social proof" to drive valuable content up? Seems like it, which is good. However, I can also see how it can be abused to further game and manipulate SERPs.
Thoughts?
-
I know you may see it as a "cop out" and others might as well, but the recent stint was by a 3rd party, and was taken swift action upon the news..... So I am not sure How "Blackhat" gaining one follow link from a blog in the grand scheme of Google's over 400 million backlinks is......... But in this I understand we may not see eye to eye and it can be seen as hypocritical. And i agree in General that paying someone to review something and implying it should be a good review is unethical and un-helpful, but not really "Black-Hat" that is a word that gets thrown around alot.
The first reaction from any client/CEO to anything new usually is "Ugh"... come on man.
When do challenges in business ever stop...?
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this
But i will definitely research the other Blackhat claims as I had not heard of them.
And I was not trying to say you do not do well in SERPS, just that alot of people seem to have an axe to grind with Google cause they feel they should be doing better, even though there are millions of other sites out there. So that brings alot of anti Google sentiment that really is just all about competition.
Have A great Night!
Shane
-
Hey, leave my mama outta this
What I'm saying in regards to that, and I thought I was being quite clear, is that Google would stand a much better chance of dominating the social networking niche if they re-adjusted their priorities, and lost the boner they have for conquering Facebook. Unless they can figure out a legitimate way of allowing people to copy their entire FB profile over in one click, they won't ever be able to grab the entire, existing, FB user-base. It just won't happen. People have invested waaaaay too much time uploading thousands of photos and videos, engaging in countless conversations/emails/messages, and creating their network of friends and family. I'm just saying that their initial thought process of trying to convert people was hopeless from the get-go.
I don't disagree that they might be on to something in terms of the future of social networking; however, for every new idea they add to G+, FB can easily integrate the same idea to their site and they're back to being even. The same way Google does to every little competitive company that is even but a spec of dust on Google's radar. Google leaves no room for competition, so why should Facebook?
For the record, I could care less either way. My days of being over-actively involved in my own personal Social media have come and gone. And I offer both solutions to any clients that inquire.
Oh, and, I do quite well in the SERP's, actually. Google, Bing, and so on. I've seen a ~500% increase in traffic over the last 2 months to several of my websites, so let's not go there.
Come on now... Google has been caught a handful of times doing the very things they penalize websites for. Case in point (and these blackhat tactics are as recent as this past week!):
http://www.seobook.com/post-sponsored-google
http://www.seroundtable.com/google-caught-for-paid-links-14539.html
I could post many more resources/articles to other's they've done in the past, but they're be no fun in that
Their shady tactics don't stop there, however:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/07/25/google.street.view.now.known.to.have.seen.devices/
Just because I don't use Google+ personally, doesn't mean it's not offered to any clients of mine. But the reaction of theirs is overwhelmingly the same: "Ugh, another social network? When is it going to stop!?" in reference to FB, Twitter, G+, LinkedIn, and so on. 'Cause you can't just replicate your content over them all to be successful, so that's where the "Ugh" comes into play.
-
We can talk about who uses what all day long, but your "mother" is not the only game in town, nor will she always be the user base (figuratively of course)... As time progresses more and more people will begin using technology more and more... As they always have...
Sounds like you have been jaded by not seeing the results you want to see in Google. Also I am not sure what Blackhat tactics you talk about that Google uses... We all have gripes, but just because you do not like something does not make it blackhat or non useful.
And G+ Does not automatically affect SERPS for everything, it has a very small subset that it influences, and I believe it only influences if you are Logged.
I personally think this is a step in the right direction for social, but we all have our own opinions
And also from a business perspective not using something that is a marketing tool on principle that you dont't like it, is not necessarily in my opinion the best decision for your clients as you are not giving them all available "ammo" to succeed.
But of course that is PURELY my opinion
Have a great day!
-
A step in the right direction for whom, Google? Of course. But not necessarily for the end-user by any stretch of the imagination.
To be honest, my care for Google, it's products, it's advice on SEO, and so on, have completely sizzled over the last year or so as they continue to practice the very black-hat techniques that us webmasters get in sh*t for. Sorry Goog's, but I won't use your second-tier G+ anytime soon, that's for sure.
Even Google's search has lost its relevance for me as they're opting to give more SERP real estate to big name brands (which is just a nice way of saying that they're giving more SERP real estate to companies that spend millions in AdWords, let's not kid ourselves here). Just because a company has a recognizable brand name, and spends millions on advertising, doesn't necessarily make their product any more relevant, or of better quality, than the little guys.
To the original post... of course G+ directly influences the SERP's. Do you think for a second that Google would have it any other way? Like I said, they are desperate to get people using their Social network, and this is one way to at least get webmasters involved.
Side boob: Google should re-focus their Google+ into a business oriented social network. Their reach does not extend to half of FB's user-base in that your typical, non web savvy (ie. my Mother) is not ever going to use Google Plus, so why market it to them. They're lucky if they have a FB account, and that's as far as they'll go because their entire family is already setup on it. These are the people that actually click on the adwords sponsored ads at the top of the SERP's, even thoughm the majority of the sites in adwords are irrelevant to the search term in question (at least their landing page is).
Watch for more Google (in)direct user-influence tactics coming soon... too bad for them it's race they lost the day Mr. Zuckerberg bought the Facebook.com domain name.
-
Yes, In my opinion this is the exact game of G+...
Google's way of using "social proof" to drive valuable content up
If you are really an expert in "insert trade/industry here" then you would obviously have many people with relevant friends, posts ect about "example trade/industry"
And when you post something within your "industry realm" and it has you as the rel=author, then Google can begin to give you preference as an expert in your field for further content if you have large amount of industry relevant followers
I think this is their answer to spam and manipulation, as an SEO/SMM agency will have issues without actually having meaningful content and strategy of gaining industry relevant followers. Of course there are always ways around these sorts and I am sure someone will begin gaming it (if not already)
But overall i think the author is being a little over dramatic (probably on purpose for exposure reasons)
But nevertheless, I think this is a step in the right direction for a more genuine user experience in the Social World.
-
Hi Angie. There's a lot being said about social influence and SERPs right now. Although I can't answer your question specifically, I can wonder logically why Google would flirt with +, likes, shares etc as an indicator of relevance, trustworthiness or reliability etc.
Facebook likes are already abused by outfits offering incentives for "liking". Curious to watch this evolve.
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
-
Question about understanding Google Ranking System
Hi, I have too many question that I need answer to understand Google ranking system. I have been analyzing different website in different niche, but puzzling to understand how Google rank actually. Some websites have good number of backlinks with good SEO metrics, but some low SEO profiled websiites outrank good sites. I am here with my first question. I am working for one client website who sell sex toys online. So we are optimizing keywords like sex toys, buy sex toys, sex shop, sex toy store and too many keywords to rank on google.ca. My client website is cupidboutique.com. We have some competitors that I want to mention below: 1. PinkCherry: This is one of our big competitor. They have 2 domain one is for US and one is for Canada. Both websites ranking well for different keywords. Basically .ca domain is more successful than .com domain. But I am surprise why Google consider the websites for rank. If you see, both websites are identical, that means both website have same product, same category structure, and the most important all products description are duplicate on each domain. On google webmaster guideline, google mention that if 2 domain have identical content, then Google ignore the duplicate one in ranking. But still both websites ranking for different search term. I compare the SEO metrics of our domain and their .ca domain, there is not big difference. Our websites also have good number of links, good PA/DA, even more good number of social sharing than them. But our rankings are not even comparable with them. They are ranking within 20-30th on Google for different product category keywords, but not our. 2. Hushcanada: This is another website ranking well, but I a surprise how? This website is ranking on very high competitive keyword with very fewer number of backlinks. Their PA/DA, number of backlinks, social sharing all metrics are very few. Their business also established recently that is 2013, which I found through archive.org, whereas our client business has been running since 2003-2004. As a Ecommerce business website their homepage is not showing any product , their catalog can be found under "shop online" page only. There are even some more websites ranking well with very low SEO metrics in this niche. If Google is not looking for these SEO staff, then what other staff Google looks to rank website? Hope I will get some favorable answer of my question.
Social Media | | moonheart0 -
Google+ pages in search results
I have a simple question - I've read a lot about how google+ pages are ranking well in google searches, and that it's a good idea to incorporate google+ into your strategy. So I was on a call this morning, talking to a client about this. The client brought up the fact that in all his google searches, he's NEVER seen a google plus page in the search results. I realized that I never have either. After some searches, I still don't see any google plus pages, at least not on page 1 or 2. Am I missing something? Needless to say, the client was not convinced about the value of having a G+ page, and I came away not sure what I was missing. So how do people measure the impact of using google+ on their main website? -Jim
Social Media | | jimr4511 -
Should I use a Google Plus page or Google Plus for my business?
I am looking to write regular good quality blog posts about the niche subject my business is in. Should these blog posts come from a Google Plus page or my personal Google Plus profile? These blog posts will feature on our company website. How does that effect Google Authorship etc... Thanks
Social Media | | roberthseo1 -
What if an employee leaves and removes Rel=Author verification from their Google Plus profile?
What if someone leaves your company and removes your site from their Google Plus profile (under "Contributor To"). Does that kill all the rel=author on the pages written by this former employee? (Should you use the email verification with employees to avoid this scenario? Email verification is a big hassle for us.)
Social Media | | ProjectLabs0 -
Explanation of Facebook referral paths in Google Analytics
In the past month I have seen a huge increase in the visits + conversions from Facebook (which is obviously great). However, from Google Analytics it appears that most of my visits are not coming from my brand page. Is there an explanation of what these referral paths mean? Top Facebook referral paths: / /l.php /home.php /ajax/emu/end.php /brand - much less visits than above URLs
Social Media | | theLotter1 -
Should I adopt Google Plus Custom URLs?
Google Plus have just released Custom URLs, see here So instead of the messy https://plus.google.com/b/012345679 you can have http://www.google.com/+{yourbrandname}. This would be much better for memorizing. But any opinions on added or future perceived SEO benefit?
Social Media | | RobertChapman0 -
Are there any proven SEO benefits of presence and popularity on Facebook, just as there is supposedly benefit from Google+?
How much does visibility on Facebook (or for that matter, Twitter) impact search engine results? I did see a post recently on SEOMoz recently related to that--- but do others have similar experience/ have data to show strong correlation between FB shares/ Likes and search engine results (on Google)? The second, FB-related question is: what are your thoughts on the effectiveness of Facebook for a B2B audience, particularly in a rather niche sector - let's say industrial products? Look forward to your views and answers! Thanks.
Social Media | | ontarget-media0 -
Finding influencers
I am interested in finding people or websites that are influential in a particular industry. For example, in the finance world, who has "weight" when it comes to the keyword gold, or mining stocks. Not just for website hits but for social media influence too. Is there a tool to do that?
Social Media | | StreetwiseReports0