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
-
Google Indexed Images: Website Vs Social Media
I use Pinterest, Twitter and Instagram to post images that are already featured on my website. I have been following a routine of uploading the images to these social media platforms only after I can see Google has indexed the image from my original site. My website is ecommerce and the product images drive sales more than any other factor. The thinking behind my method was that when these images are posted on Pinterest, Twitter and the various Instagram crawler sites (I realise Instagram images aren’t indexed directly), Google would recognise that the image was already attributed to my website. The ‘duplicate’ image would not therefore be indexed and the originally uploaded website image would remain in ‘Google Images’. After completing various searches and reviewing other Q&A’s on Moz, it seems as though this is in no way guaranteed and images reposted on social media platforms may still replace the already indexed image from the website. I am assuming this is because Google views these platforms as more authoritative than mine. I usually change the image by adding logos, text, backgrounds, borders etc before posting on Pinterest and this seems to have worked most of the time (both the original and ‘amended for Pinterest’ versions are often indexed) but images posted on other platforms are usually identical. Does it make sense to continue with my method or am I shooting myself in the foot by reposting these images on social media at all? I obviously want customers searching for products, who then click on an image, to be directed to my site rather than one of my social media pages or worse, an image reposting site. Additionally, If I post images on social media before they are uploaded to my website (for example to tease a product launch), would Google likely class these images as the ‘original’ and therefore be less likely to index the website version of the image once it is uploaded? Any thoughts are appreciated.
Social Media | | g3mmab2 -
Is google plus really useful?
Hi guys first of all i am really thankful for such an opportunity to test such a wonderful app and i didnt know there is a Q&A community here 🙂 i was actually searching on google about google plus and end up here but the thread i bumped into is a bit outdated anyway a little background on what i am doing. Our company have a 15 local branches, its a service that we provide on our local clients. I am totally new to SEO like 6 months and i am really learning a lot and i am now learning on how to build my own backlinks and my 1st struggle is on google+ actually i am dismayed that its too confusing (at first) but somehow i manage to understand but still unsure please correct me. So google+ has 2 type 1 is for personal and 1 is for brand am i correct? So since we have 15 local branches what i did is create a personal page and make it as our business page and then claimed all the 15 branches on google maps and all is verified now. You think im correct on creating a personal page and make it as our main business page? I asked because i want to create brands page on each branch or do I even need brand pages for my branches? Was thinking of this custom URLS for our main page (which is our personal page) +OurBusiness for the branch brand page +OurBusinessCity you think it would be cool? 🙂 then on about sections (brand page) where i can add links on tag line description i will put the dedicate branch page of our website www.ourbusiness.com/city, then on that website page i will also put our google plus brand page +OurBusinessCity so its a 2 way link. Please bare with me as i am fairly new to this and i am not really sure if my ideas are stupid so please dont laugh 🙂 By the way my another question is about the ABOUT ME section of google+ personal page, when i add link on the description its a nofollow, i know cause i have this extension on my browser that detects do/nofollow links but on the link section its a dofollow. On the other hand google+ brand page has no links section so if you have a link and want to include it on your google+ brand page easy way to do it is put it on description and i just found out its a do follow HOWEVER it seems like the links on both pages (personal, brand) are not seen by search engines i tried it on several google search simulator and also checked the source code of the pages and i cant seem to find the links so my question is, is google really that useful when it comes to backlink building? Another question is that when i build brand pages i have to use our brand name and so all the branches have the same brand names includes our personal page so all of those 16 pages have the same name, will it be ok? Another question is that is there anyway that i can edit its meta description? 🙂 please i am really new to google so bare with me. Thank you so much in advance and hope to hear from the gurus 😉
Social Media | | Bamservices1 -
How long it takes for Twitter carousel to appear under your website in google results
Dear Moz community, Not later than 7 days ago I did impelement twitter markup to a website including : as well as twitter markup to all blog/article posts The question: I mentioned Moz (when you search for this brand name in Google) it shows a recent tweets carousel, how long it takes for it appear on our website and should I do any additional fixes for it to appear ? BWctKyu
Social Media | | admiral990 -
Gain Access to Google+ Profile
We are having trouble accessing a Google+ profile for a client. We know the profile we want to gain access to, but the client doesn't remember the email or password. The marketing company they worked with before also doesn't know what the email or password is to claim the profile. We have tried contacting Google to gain access to the email, but they were unable to give us the login email due to privacy issues. If you have any suggestions to gain access to this profile, it is greatly appreciated. Please take in mind the following: We do not know the email nor have access to obtaining it We do know the profile we want to gain access to
Social Media | | flowsimple0 -
Google+ Author Troubleshooting Advice
Buon Giorno from wetherby 🙂 Ok a week or so ago i went thhrough the hoops of seeting up a Google+ authorship link with the hope my beautifull & click worthy face would appear in the serps. But after following the following steps: 1. Link from www.davidclick.com to https://plus.google.com/u/0/114149997094688010790 using rel author e.g.: [https://plus.google.com/u/0/114149997094688010790](<a href=)" target="_blank">Find me on Google+ 2 Link back from Google plus by pointing back to www.davidclick.com in the Google+ contributor section Nothing has happened ie no picture in my SERP listing, click here for illustration:
Social Media | | Nightwing
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/zymurgy_bucket/authorship-tested-but-no-imagecopy.jpg So my question is please..."Have i done anything wrong? I put the code in place i think about two weeks ago" Any insights welcome 🙂0 -
YouTube Video Rich Snippet in SERP
Today I was going through one of my sites and I noticed a rich snippet that had a screenshot of a YouTube video for this page: http://www.betheboss.ca/GoTireFranchise.cfm. When I click on the video it went to my site… almost like authorship. I have never noticed this before, what markup would make it show up? Schema? And what else have you seen this with? I can't find answers anywhere… I attached a screenshot. Sidenote: I looked again and now the rich snippet doesn't show up… bizarre. youtube-rich-snippet.png
Social Media | | BeTheBoss0 -
Facebook Open Graph Tags: Thoughts on OG:Type
I am wondering how Facebook uses the data enclosed in OG Type tags? Facebook wants you to stick to the types listed though it's fairly limited in scope. Our pages are in the accommodation space but they are not HOTELS. In this instance would you list as COMPANY or go with HOTELS. Curious to hear your thoughts - thanks!
Social Media | | Jeff_Lucas0 -
Google analytics now showing social signals
Looking through Google analytics today and noticed that there is a section under top content that shows number of Facebook likes & shares, tweets, diggs, delicious book marks, etc. Anyone else seeing this? [staff note: see answers, this came from a Chrome extension]
Social Media | | prima-2535090