Google+ Account for Authorship: Personal vs. Corporate Account
-
Hi guys,
We are currently setting up Google+ accounts for our website www.troteclaser.com. We'd like to use them to indicate authorship of our content. As we provide content in 10 different countries, we have to set up a Google+ account for every office location.
Here my questions: Do we have to set up two separate accounts - one for the authorship (for the person who wrote the texts) and another one for our office location (to link with Google places)? Or would a single (unpersonal) corporate account do the job, too?
What's your experience with this?
Thomas
-
Happy to help! Let me know how it works out.
-
Hi Christy,
That's great news! Thanks for your help with this.
I'll set up the authorship link and bylines for the original authors then.
Thomas
-
Hi Thomas,
You shouldn't have an issue with pointing pages in different languages to your Google+ account (that is in German only.) Here's what Google has to say about this on its official blog for webmasters:
Q: If I use authorship on articles available in different languages, such as example.com/en/article1.html for English and
example.com/fr/article1.html for the French translation, should I link to two separate author/Google+ profiles written in each language?A: In your scenario, both articles: example.com/en/article1.html and example.com/fr/article1.html should link to the same Google+ profile in the author’s language of choice.
Hope that helps!
Christy -
Hi Thomas,
Is there any particular reason that your authors do not want their own Google+ accounts? Perhaps they do not understand the personal benefits of having an account and especially of claiming Authorship. Have you educated them about Authorship, and how it is a win-win for the publisher and writers? I'm with you, though, you shouldn't set accounts up for them unless they are on board and going to take ownership of them.
As far as claiming Authorship with your personal Google+ account, you should definitely do this -- but only on pages that contain articles or posts that you created (with your byline.) In most cases, this means you should not claim Authorship for your home page, product pages, and definitely not contact forms, terms and conditions, etc.
I'm not sure if the fact that your Google+ account is in German is relevant or not. I will definitely look into this, though. Going to ping a colleague right now.
Cheers,
Christy -
Hi Christy,
Thanks for the tipps. We wanted to make it easy for ourselves, but it didn't quite work out that way
The thing is that our authers do not have personal G+ accounts and I'm afraid just setting one up for them for the purpose of linking to it for authorship won't work either. I read that the accounts need a minimum of activity to be considered valid by Google.
I thought about claiming authorship with my personal G+ account as the author for all pages of the troteclaser.com, but I'm unsure if there will be issues as my account is in German while the troteclaser.com pages are available in all languages. What's your thought about this?
Thomas
-
Hi Thomas, it's great to hear from you. There are actually a few ways to do this. The most important things to remember are to only install the code on pages with relevant content (e.g. blog posts, articles and in-depth reviews, -not- product pages, -not- every single page of your site) and use the two-way or three-way linking method to link one relevant page to the individual Google+ account of its author. (Don't link to the brand page.)
Did you happen to see this recent Moz post on Authorship? It gives great advice for multi-author sites. Here are instructions from Google for installing Rel=Author code on individual pages.
Thanks for the update -- and please let us know if that works! Cheers, Christy
-
Hi Christy,
Sorry for my late reply. Having the entire site link back to the G+ account didn't work at all. It seems that we need to add the author tags and information to each single page to make it work.
Thomas
-
Hi Thomas, I'm just checking in to make sure she saw my response about linking Rel=Author to individual people's accounts, and Rel=Publisher to brand pages. Please confirm, thanks! Christy
-
Hi Thomas, I see that you have set up a Google+ local page and linked your entire site back to it using the rel=author tag. I am curious as to what results you have had with this, as the rel=author tag is intended to link content to the individual Google+ profiles of authors (and show author head shots, not brand logos.) Would love to hear what you have discovered!
-
Thanks for the advice. Our goal definitely is to boost the click through rate.
We do not have any high profile writers among our staff, but I thought that a nice portrait of a colleague next to the search results would boost CTR more than our company logo.
So the bottom line seems to be that without a high profile author it won't matter if we set up individual accounts or corporate accounts. I'll guess we'll do some tests in different countries and see what'll work best.
-
It all depends on what your overall goal is. If you have no problem promoting others in your company, feel free to do it, however if you don't want to promote your individuals you are not going to want to do this. (We always suggest promoting the faces within the company, but that's our humble opinion and not always acceptable depending on the company/field. )
As others have said if you are having "high profile individuals" write on your website/blog we would definitely suggest applying authorship to these pages, however if Joe schmo is writing the blog posts I would not worry about it.
Keep in mind as well, Google+ authorship doesn't improve rankings, it does however improve click through rate.
-
I can understand how it would be attractive for a company to "own" the content that it publishes.
However, it is possible, if you are getting articles from very high profile individuals in your field, to obtain value from having those individuals associated with the content. The author also gets credit for the content that they write for you. This could be "win-win" in many ways and be very different in an author's mind from "they own".
-
You definitely want to have a company account that is independent of users, as they might come and go. I don't think setting up personal authorships makes sense unless you publish a lot of authoritative content. IMO this is more relevant if you are news publishers or frequent bloggers. Otherwise I think a corporate account does the job.
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.com showing as backlink provider in Webmaster Tools?
Hi Everyone 🙂 Looking in the 'Links to your site' section of webmaster tools today and my top backlinking domain is google.com which is apparently giving me 113 links. The second top referring site is googleapis.com which apparently isn't even a site when I type it into my browser? Does anyone else get Google.com as a site linking to them? and why would Google be linking to us, where would these links be coming from? Any info appreciated 🙂 Regards
Link Building | | O2C0 -
Penguin,No warning message from Google
I'm losing traffic & I have been since April. I'm pretty sure it's Penguin but I have not received any messages from Google. Should I proceed with the disavowal tool to remove some of the spammy directory links? PS Submit Edge is owned by the Devil
Link Building | | KrisPhoto0 -
5th failed Google reconsideration attempt, can you help? (are scraper/related news sites the issue?)
(sorry for the long question - I thought it would be useful to give the background!) I am really struggling a Google's reconsideration request for my site, and although we thought we had removed almost all the 'bad' backlinks I am still getting no-where... We are really wanting to focus on building our brand, and establishing our site as an authority but this penalty is really holding us back. The latest response from Google: There are still many inorganic links pointing to your site. At this point, we believe we’ve evaluated these links appropriately, and no further action from us is required. In order for your site to have a successful reconsideration request, we will need to see a substantial, good-faith effort to remove the links, and this effort should result in a significant decrease in the number of bad links that we see. We do not recommend that you submit another reconsideration request until you have been able to make a good amount of progress. Once you’ve been able to get the links removed, please reply to this email with the details of your clean-up effort. My Website: http://bit.ly/KXg8y1 History: This is a new domain - approx 6 months old Old domain received a Google links warning We decided to start a new website, launch a new brand and start from the beginning We 301 re-directed the old domain so we didnt lose customers We then got a Google links warning for the new site We assumed this was related to links from the old site and so removed the 301 redirect on the 20th August Our old sites links still show in Google webmaster tools Reconsideration History 1st re-consideration request: Explained the 301 redirect had been removed, assured we would now be focussing on high quality content/brand building and after 2 weeks received a standard message to say that still had inorganic links 2nd Request: Went through the new sites links (using open site explorer, AHREFs, SEO Majestic and GWM) and removed those we identified as low quality (mostly directories built by an SEO company we had started working with). We complied a spreadsheet with all the links in it (including 301 redirect links) and explained which had been removed, webmaster contact details etc. We also uploaded our template email and screenshots showing contact with webmasters. 3rd, 4th and 5th Request: We went through the new site links and were able to remove a few more links which were thin or could be seen as inorganic, and the end result is that apart from 6 links we have removed all those we have identified as inorganic. Links The old site had some pretty poor links We have done no paid linking, no blog networks, no spammy web 2.0 sites on this site. We've added good quality content to our blog, focussed on social media, published an infographic, and are committed to long-term brand building The links mostly come from guest blog posting. An SEO company (who told us they were 100% content based) built some directory links - but 99% of these have been removed There are some links from Scraper/related news sites (ones that have related blog posts or scrape images etc) Press releases which were picked up and re-published (some of these include anchor text) My Question/s: Do you think Google is still seeing the links from the previous 301 redirect in Google webmasters and including these still? Are these scraper/related post sites causing the issue? (organic links - but some dubious sites) Are sites re-publishing our press releases causing the issue? (organic links - but includes some anchor text I really appreciate your time on this one, I have tried really hard to identify and remove links, but am now struggling! Many Thanks
Link Building | | twhite0 -
What linkbuilding techniques are working right now after google's recent update?
I'm facing some issues after the google's recent update, been using blog networks, blog comments, web 2.0 submissions, directory submissions etc What techniques works now? i don't see any improve from web 2.0 these days may be we need to get enhance ? may be curated content? to what extent i understand this, i think they all are low quality backlinks which all the other blackhat markets use previous, and it even gets worst if we keep on doing this --- for the last 1-2 weeks i've stoped linkbuilding just searching for something concrete with this regard, because backlinks that are DoFollow is necessary to have! any thoughts on working techniques that won't harm my rankings?
Link Building | | caspiauk1 -
Do affiliate links count for Google?
Hi, I have been reading about affiliate links - links with a tracking code in the URL (i.e.: www.xxx.com/?aff=123456) and I can't find a definitive answer. Does Google count them as natural links or maybe they do not even pass any link juice? And if they don't, what if I get a natural link from a website (without tracking code) and later that website becomes my affiliate? Would the first link still count? I guess that there can't be any certainty about all this, but I would love to know your expert opinions 🙂 Thanks!
Link Building | | jorgediaz0 -
When is Google going to sort their act out?
I work with a couple of clients in the finance and debt area. I've been doing loads of work examining the link profiles of the commercial sites at the top of the rankings and 70% of the links I am seeing are low value directories and sites obviously built for links with multiple outgoing links to completely unrelated sources! When I examine the other links their isn't enough value in them to outweigh what looks to me like very obvious and spammy low quality link building. Why can't Google see what I'm seeing - it's so obvious? I know there are multiple factors at play but links like these should offer no value or get a site penalised (isn't that what Google tell us) but these sites still seem to be ranking because of them rather than despite them!
Link Building | | SearchEngineRescue0 -
Why isnt google picking up my backlinks?
Over the last 2 months, my company has had almost 10 articles placed on very established websites. When I search for my company's backlinks on Google Advance Search, its not picking them up. Why?
Link Building | | BYSM0 -
Website dissapeared out of Google
Hi Everyone, About 2 months ago i launched a website called http://spelenroulette.nl, i did some linkbuilding for this website in the meantime with other roulette/gaming related websites and the website got a bit up in Google. But when i was checking my rankings today the frontpage of this website doesn't show up on the first 80 pages? Only some subpages are still on the same positions. Could this be for a rank-update like these happens all the time and your site dissapears from Google for several days, or could this be because of wrong/too many backlinks or something completely different? Regards, Yannick
Link Building | | iwebdevnl0