Authorship's Back. Could a custom URL be why?
-
Hey Everyone,
First, thanks to everyone for providing me suggestions on how to get my authorship picture back. Sure enough, we did it get it back, but not for any reason that makes sense to me. We got it back within hours of changing our g+ url to a custom one (google provided us with one a few months ago, but I didn't like it, so I didn't change it). Well, now I figured, why not? We have to do something to get our authorship back, and after making that change within hours, we had our picture displaying again.
While I know this could be a coincidence, we haven't written anything new since we lost it in mid December. So, it can't be some influx of great content. And, since google is getting more strict about authorship, I don't see how we would have lost it in the first place, only to get it back without anything additional worked on yet. The only change is the custom URL. I know this is not ANY sort of scientific proof, but I figured I'd just throw my experience out there for others to see. Could this be the reason? Has anyone else had anything like this happen?
Good luck to everyone else who is working on getting their picture back! Though I can't tell you how to do it, I can tell you it can change back within a few weeks.
Best,
Ruben
-
Interesting - thanks. It's a bit hard to pin down, because Google has been changing the "volume" on authorship mark-up a lot these past two months, and that means both up and down on any given day. Authorship also seems to be page-based and probably query-based, which means any given site could have and not have the mark-up depending on the page and/or query in play. It's a real-time evaluation on Google's part.
-
Hi Ruben,
As it's been sometime since you were offered the new URL and you lost your image then it could potentially be an issue on Google's side. Let's not forget the social network is relatively new and has had it's fair share of issues.
Just an update for anyone who may of lost their picture on Google+, I would try and re upload it but rename it and possible adjust the size slightly to show Google it's a new image. I've had my image before the new URL structure and after and everything has worked fine to date
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
-
Vanity URL for Google+ page
Hello there, Our company has a Google + business page: https://plus.google.com/u/0/107077834998367309370/about We are trying to change the URL to something more friendly such as https://plus.google.com/wallpapered (Wallpapered being the name of our company) Can you please advise if we have set something up incorrectly? Thanks
Social Media | | roberthseo0 -
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 -
Does capliazations in url effect ranking?
I've read the info about how Twitter's bad seo effects ability to rank well for our twitter profile in some cases. I've been unsuccessful at getting my twitter profile to rank higher than it does, even though all metrics on OSE seem to indicate that it should. I've been linking to the non !#, non https, and non www, version of my profile, however it still is ranking as high as I'd like. I noticed today that the link URL has each letter of my name capitalized. I'm almost certain when I link to it I write out the name in all lower case. I was curious if you think this has any effect on it ranking? I'm wondering what the best steps would be moving forward. I could start linking to the url showing up in google (with upper case letters in the url) or I could go into my twitter profile and change my name to all lowercase and see if that changes the url in google, thus fixing all of the other backlinks to the profile. (At least I think it would.) What's everyone's thoughts on this? Thanks! [IMG]]([IMG]http://i.imgur.com/vGIbf.jpg[/IMG]) vGIbf.jpg vGIbf.jpg
Social Media | | NoahsDad0 -
Anyway to have a 'like' button for main page?
I have a Facebook like button on each of my individual posts and a box on my home page where people can 'like' my Facebook fan page..but is there any way to have a Facebook 'like' button on my home page so people can actually like the home page?
Social Media | | NoahsDad0 -
Is there such a concept as 'Social Juice'?
Hi, Sorry if this question appears a bit confused, but here goes ... My understanding is that the Google ranking algolrithm has three aspects: Content Links Social Activity (Tweets, FB shares etc) I recognise that I can increase my PR by posting comments on highly ranked pages that allow 'follow' links. I get that! After investigating Google+ I see I can tie together: The content I contribute to (e.g. my website, my blog) My social networking activity (My Twitter activity, my FB fanpage, Google+ activity) Suddenly Google has a view not just of my content, but also my social influence, almost like a Klout score. It also means they have the potential to build a matrix of other content producers & social media commentators. Therefore, can I gain what I'm calling 'Social Juice' (which would influence the ranking of my content) by: Getting highly ranked social media commenters to interact/comment on any of my content/social engagement By commenting on highly ranked content producers regardless of whether that comment contains a link back to my content. So for point 2, perhaps a prominent expert in my field has a blog that allows me to leave a comment via a Twitter login, but I can't leave a link back to my website (no link juice), however because Google+ knows the comment is attributed to me (as my accounts are linked in Google+) I get 'social juice'. The idea being if I'm permitted to interact with an expert in my field, then I too must have some credibility. (Perhaps that not quite accurate, because I could engaged in an argument with said expert, so perhaps it is more like Klout's idea of influencing people) If there is logic in point 2, then what might be the best way to 'login' to leave comments on something like a Disqus comment based system so that Google might gain access to this 'social jiuce'. I guess the best way would be to leave a comment via a Google+ account, but that doesn't seem to be option in lot of cases. Big post, I hope its relevant and makes sense.
Social Media | | PhilH0 -
What's affect more SEO between number of Facebook "Recommend" of number of fans of the facebook fan page?
I'm wondering what's the most important number in facebook that affect more the SEO of a site: It is the number of "Recommend" that your site have received or It is the number of fans the facebook fan page of the site have? Also does this really affect SEO or not? If you can provide some data, statistics, link to post or whatever it would be very nice. Thanks for your help
Social Media | | nuroa-2467120 -
Does the value of Twitter/FB shares change depending on the url used?
I have a really hard time wrapping my head around the use rel canonical. I just watched WBF and it brought up a question that I had. I had a situation where some of my pages could be accessed a couple of ways: www.mydomain/question1.php?id=24-keyword-rich-url, or www.mydomain/question1.php?id=24 I used rel canonical to tell the search engines that the keyword rich url was the one to index. Now, we all know that shares on Twitter, FB, etc. can add value to my site's SEO. So, if someone happens to be on the non-keyword-rich url and they click a button to share, do I still get the same seo benefit? Which brings me to a related question...if someone shares your content via a bitly or other shortened domain, is there any difference to the benefit you would get as compared to them sharing the full domain name?
Social Media | | MarieHaynes1