Why Isn't Google Authorship Showing My Picture?
-
I have several clients and the Google Authorship images used display in the search results for all of them. About a month ago all of the images disappeared, however it still displays "by <name>, indicating that Google Authorship is working -- it just doesn't show the image (see screenshots). The image follows the guidelines, and we've got the rel author tag in place, with a link back to Google. </name>
When I use the Google Structured Data Testing Tool it shows that authorship is properly functioning. I'm completely stumped. Does anyone have any ideas why this may not be working?
Here's two examples of the sites with Authorship not working properly (screenshots below):
criminalattorneylongislandny.com
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3786946/Screen Shot 2014-01-03 at 12.53.10 PM.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3786946/Screen Shot 2014-01-03 at 12.44.12 PM.pngattorneytonyadderley.com https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3786946/Screen Shot 2014-01-03 at 12.52.36 PM.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3786946/Screen Shot 2014-01-03 at 12.52.52 PM.png -
It happened to me, too! This is what people said to my question http://moz.com/community/q/my-g-picture-stopped-showing-up-on-my-rankings-what-do-i-do
The one thing I don't understand is how people who have written far fewer articles than I have still have their picture. They all seemed to be in a lot more circles on g+ than I do, but that could just a coincidence.
I hope this helps you.
Ruben
-
I'm not sure of the specific answer to your situation but it does seem that Google is kind of finicky when (and how) it comes to displaying authorship images in SERPS. I feel like it is still in a Beta phase and they are experimenting with it. Some things to check might be:
1. Were you logged into Google when you checked? Have you tried with different Google accounts? In other words what it shows when you are logged in as the author with the author's account might be different than a different Google user might see.
2. They seem to be very particular about what images are used. They don't want any logos or words. They want head shots specifically and seem to drop the image sometimes if the image isn't what they detect is appropriate. Try changing up the image on the authors account. I've heard even the cropping matters, if the head/face isn't a certain % of the whole image. They really seem to want a recognizable face in the small icon from what I've seen.
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 ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Google Parsing jQuery Links as Real Links
While trying to diagnose a recent Google penalty I found out that links were being parsed by Google even though they were made using jQuery. I had the linkify plugin on my site and configured it to convert URLs to links on all of my pages. Today I found links to other sites of mine from sites that should not have been linking to them and found that the links came from pages whose links were generated via jQuery. This makes me wonder, how do I know if Google is counting javascript generated links? Is it possible that my native ad widgets are creating links that Google might count? Since I don't own any of the sites that advertise via the widgets I don't know how to tell if they are getting link juice or not. It used to be that Google didn't parse javascript, so you could add as many links to your site via javascript as you wanted without being seen by Google as linking to those sites. Does anyone know of a jQuery plugin that does turn URLs into clickable links that Google won't parse as real links?
On-Page Optimization | | STDCarriers0 -
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
Schema and Rich Snippets What's the difference?
Sorry if this is a daft question but... what is the difference between Rich snippets and Schema markup? Are they one and the same? They seem to be used interchaneably and I'm confused. If someone could give a brief sentence or two about the differences between them that would be great. Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | AL123al1 -
Short URL's vs Optimised URL's
Howdy Mozzers! What are your thoughts on short URL's vs Optimised URL's. For example if a website currently sells wood furniture and wants to target the keyword "Wood Furniture For Sale", which URL would be preferable: Short URL: www.domain.com/wood-furniture Optimised URL: www.domain.com/wood-furniture-for-sale The website also uses facet navigation and selected attributes are added in a fixed order sequence after the category. For example if Cane is selected as wood type: Short URL: www.domain.com/wood-furniture/Cane Optimised URL: www.domain.com/wood-furniture-for-sale/Cane Which one do you prefer (between the short URL and optimised URL) and why? Cheers! MozAddict
On-Page Optimization | | MozAddict0 -
I have seen zero movement in my Google keyword rankings.
I have seen zero movement in my Google keyword rankings, but I have seen movement on the other search engines. I must be doing something wrong. Any tips?
On-Page Optimization | | LindaWolfe0 -
Does Google give any (negative) weight to .info domains?
Hi, All! We're working with a client on setting up a support blog for their site (not hosted on-site because it's a related topic, not directly about their business). We're thinking about a few domain possibilities, but for some of the ones we'd like the .com is already taken. .info (as well as others) are available, and the client is interested in using a different TLD, but I'm shying away from it because of the concern that: a) people will look at it more suspiciously (exactmatch.info? must be spam) - but maybe that's just because I'm an SEO b) does Google have anything against exact match domains with endings like .info, .net, etc.? (I know there's never any guarantee that the exact match domain will continue to hold its weight in the algorithm at all, but taking that as a given for now - and we are planning on putting decent quality original content on it). Thanks in advance for the input! Aviva
On-Page Optimization | | debi_zyx0
