Is it wise for employees to be tied to a company's content with rel=author?
-
We're an e-commerce company that sells consumer goods. We are launching a blog that will have advice, tips, etc. on topics related to our industry. I'd like for us to implement rel=author on the content. If we rel=author the content to an employee, what are the possible repercussions if that employee leaves the company? I know the markup is pretty new and hasn't been widely implemented, but has anyone dealt with this?
-
You know it Brian!
-
Dana,
I'm looking forward to seeing that happen. Hope you're composing a blog piece on that topic now: when it's announced that publisher's brand images will appear in SERPS, you'll be able to publish that news and get the lion's share of news cycle traffic.
-
You are correct. No head shot. But I have it on good authority that very soon Google will begin using a thumbnail of the brand image that's been uploaded to the Google+ brand page. They have a vested interest in doing so. It makes the SERPs more attractive and it also makes Google+ more enticing.
-
I assume rel=publisher doesn't give you the pretty headshot on the SERP?
-
This is a great question. There is a lot of confusion about rel=author. It is my understanding that for e-commerce, if the "brand" is speaking, that rel=publisher is what would be most appropriate, not rel=author. I have the same scenario on our newly revived e-commerce blog. There are times when we will want to list someone specifically as rel=author, i.e. if they are an expert on a particular subject, but most of the time we will want to post as rel=publisher. This is done by creating a brand page in Google Plus as opposed to an author page. Still, Google+ has the problem that a brand page must be attached to a Google profile, which must be an individual person, not a company. I would be very interested to hear others address this whole issue.
Dana
-
It's really not about "lazy," in my opinion. It's about time and skill. When the boss is managing the company for 80 hours a week, and isn't a talented writer, the boss has someone else write. (I say this as the writer, not the boss.)
-
Brian, that's a really good point. When they leave, they can disown the authorship if they want to. Which could conceivably happen if they leave to start their own company or go work for a competitor.
-
What EGOL said. It's a given that almost any post author will eventually write elsewhere, and in all likelihood will leave your employ at some point while the post lives on.
"AuthoredRank" is going to be more important in some industry spaces than others. I can envision some "retainer" arrangement being necessary for continued company presence within an ex-employee's linked profile. That is, once the author leave said company, there's no reason they can't delete the reference/citation from their profile and remove the value of the rel="author" altogether, and of course the rich snippet disappears. If the author achieves enough of an audience or authority, and that helps with direct or search traffic, we may just see ex-employees needing some form of contract. It is their personal profile after all...
-
If you have an employee who is a kickass author think about the effect of saying.... "We don't want to give you credit for your work."..... or....
If you have an employee who does fairly good work what is the effect of saying.... "Your name and face are going to be on this."
The psychological effect can go to your advantage or not - depending upon how you play it and the mentality of the employee.
If an employee leaves your company how will you handle that. That kickass employee could become famous and you might enjoy their success through the rel=author association.... and it could go the other way.
So, if you are the type of place who hires top quality people and treats/pays them well enough to stay with you long term then give them credit for their work. Part of being a good place for your customers is having great employees who are good at their job.
If you can't keep employees very long then you should think carefully about how you handle this and other things too.
And... if you are askin' because the boss is to lazy to write his own blog posts then he needs a kick in the pants.
-
Well, if they are the ones writing it then I would be more willing to say go for it. If somebody else is and you just want a name associated then I would not. Your best bet would be to create a Plus page for the ceo or a owner of some sorts. And associate it with that account.
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 Plus Company Page Verification
Hi How do you test successful G+ company page/publisher integration/verification if using the less technical methods such as linking between the Home page and the G+ company page instead of adding code to the head section? Since i take it the google structured data testing tool cant work in these cases since no code on the head section ! Is it best to add the code anyway ? I note my clients still not achieving a knowledge graph card/section in the search results for a branded search but i have heard that doesnt come until you have at least hundreds of followers and/or G+ interactions. All Best
Social Media | | Dan-Lawrence
Dan0 -
Facebook experts, I need help: is this 'strategy' idea legit or nonsense?
Hi guys, I have a friend who works in a large university where each faculty has their own Facebook page. The pages are rarely maintained and experience very poor levels of engagement. The university's main Facebook page has a very large following (195,000+ likes), but again, the engagement is very poor - on average each post gets about 20 likes, 2 comments and 1-2 shares if that. Now, my friend works in one of the faculties and doesn't happen to have a Facebook page (his particular faculty is concentrating their efforts on other areas of inbound marketing). However, the social media manager for the university is insisting my friend’s faculty create a page and contribute to a wider ‘campaign’ being undertaken at the uni - however my friend is not convinced (and neither am I) that the logic behind this campaign makes sense. Here's how the campaign has been described: 1. The main university page (with 195k likes) posts a generic image ('whats happening this week at the uni'), which asks people to ‘look in the comments’ to see what's happening among all the different faculties 2. The faculty pages all at once submit comments on the post about 'what's happening' in their area 3. The faculty pages 'like' the main image post, share it, and like the other comments left by faculties The social media manager says this campaign approach will ensure the main post gets into the feed of the 195k followers (and more) and increase the reach of the other faculties’ pages because of the high level of 'engagement' and 'aggregation' on the post. My friend and I feel this idea is flawed for a number of reasons: 1. Routinely it’s the same people and faculties engaging with the post - so the vast majority of the 195k won't be reached virally anyway 2. The 195k have demonstrated they aren't engaged, due to the poor prior performance of the page – it’s unlikely the posts even make it to their feeds organically 3. The image is generic (it is literally a picture of a building which says 'what’s on this week') and doesn’t entice people to take an action - you can't see the comments as they're collapsed in the feed, so unless users actually are compelled by the image to click into the comments the post is useless 4. The message isn't targeted - a number of random faculties provide comments to the post, so it's very possible what's offered by the faculties isn't relevant to the wider audience. Anyway, I'd really hope someone with a deep understanding of Facebook could help provide some clarity on this campaign proposal. It seems like a flawed methodology which advocates manufacturing engagement and an ineffective use of time and resource. Many thanks
Social Media | | cos20300 -
Best strategy for Multilanguage Google+ Business Page(s) & rel publisher
Hello! I have many troubles defining a clear Google + strategy. Let's say I have one brand, say "reallycoolbarcelona" (because Barcelona is really cool!), 1 google place in Barcelona, and many websites with local ccTLD to promote the brand in different countries: reallycoolbarcelona.fr, reallycoolbarcelona.es, reallycoolbarcelona.co.uk, reallycoolbarcelona.it, reallycoolbarcelona.de. 1/ Now, how to handle that in Google+?
Social Media | | antoine.brunel
==> Shall I create one single page for all languages in Google+? (But then I cannot transfer Google Place to Google Local +?)
Then I would put the rel publisher of this page on all my websites? ==> Or shall I create one Google + page per language?
Then I would put the rel publisher of each language page on the corresponding website based on the language (french Google + page publisher on the french website only)? 2/ Now how did you manage to create a +SEOMoz page in Google+? By that, I mean a page with a clean url plus.google.com/+SEOMoz (that's so cool!) and not the scary url https://plus.google.com/b/1234567890 Thanks for enlighting my blurred mind about Google + multilingual strategies!0 -
Has anybody else noticed that Google has made a significant change to their SERP? There is a lot of social data reported from LinkedIn, Youtube and Facebook (includes page likes and activity) when you search by company name. Thoughts anybody?
Has anybody else noticed that Google has made a significant change to their SERP? There is a lot of social data reported from LinkedIn, Youtube and Facebook (includes page likes and activity) when you search by company name. Thoughts anybody?
Social Media | | rrad0 -
Google+'s +1 for business....
I'm thinking (and I could be wrong) that eventually the number of people that have +1'd a site will begin to impact search results. After all, it is Google's platform. What are your thoughts on this? And do you know if having someone +1 your site is different than having them "follow" you or add you to their circles? Should a business have more followers or +1's?
Social Media | | juliaritz0 -
Shared articles in the SERP's - who sees these shares?
Hi Folks, I am trying to find out a little more about how individuals need to be connected to see that someone 'shared' something and for this to then show up in my results when signed into Google. Can anyone shed a little more light on this please? I am just looking for extra clarification. Would we need to be connected through Google Buzz? Facebook? Twitter? Quora? LinkedIn? None of the above? With everyone you are connected to through your Google Account? What is Google using when it looks at how I am connected with others? This is from their Blog: "First, social search results will now be mixed throughout your results based on their relevance (in the past they only appeared at the bottom). This means you’ll start seeing more from people like co-workers and friends, with annotations below the results they’ve shared or created. So if you’re thinking about climbing Mt. Kilimanjaro and your colleague Matt has written a blog post about his own experience, then we’ll bump up that post with a note and a picture..." And... "Second, we’ve made Social Search more comprehensive by adding notes for links people have shared on Twitter and other sites. In the past, we’d show you results people created and linked through their Google profiles. Now, if someone you’re connected to has publicly shared a link, we may show that link in your results with a clear annotation (which is visible only to you, and only when you’re signed in). For example, if you’re looking for a video of President Obama on “The Daily Show” and your friend Nundu tweeted the video, that result might show up higher in your results and you’ll see a note with a picture of Nundu:" Many thanks, Andy
Social Media | | Andy.Drinkwater0 -
Let's talk about Facebook Comments!
Have you seen Jen's post on the SEO Blog today about Facebook? I am really interested in testing out Facebook comments. Are any of you guys using them? Here are my thoughts: Benefits: Will make it easy for people to comment (assuming they have a facebook account) Their comments are shared on their wall and on their friends' news feeds so you could potentially get a LOT of exposure and traffic. Potential Drawbacks: Who controls the content? If facebook decides to pull this feature will we lose all of our comments? What is the moderation like? Do I get to approve which comments are posted? Some people may be reluctant to comment if they know that their friends are going to see what they wrote. What do you guys think? Are you going to use FB comments?
Social Media | | MarieHaynes0