Sitewide rel author for rich snippets a disaster waiting to happen?
-
Hi,
I've been looking at how various sites handle rel author tags linking to Google+ accounts to get rich snippets results. I've found more than a few that have the same code on every page, even though those actual pages clearly have different authors and some may not even mention the rel author's name.
A site I'm working on has different authors for different pages. Although the convenience of putting the same rel author on every page seems dreamy, it also seems like a disaster waiting to happen, since it would appear to be trickery about who the author is and possibly one Google update away from disaster.
Can you call a site owner or employee an author on pages that to the reader appear to be written by others?
Am I being too cautious or what?
Thanks!
Cheers... Darcy
-
Hi Gianluca,
All good info - thanks!
One followup question; What is the point of the rel="publisher" link? If a site is linked to it's Google+ page, aren't all pages in effect rel publisher? Also, does it do anything rich-snippets-wise?
Thanks.. Darcy
-
Hi Darcy,
as Samuel correctly said, it is against the authorships' guidelines to assign the authorship via rel="author" to a owner who isn't.
At the same time, it is against the guidelines assigning authorships via rel="author" to pages that actually aren't posts, articles, white papers, long-forms or pages containing videos, which authorship can be attested.
That means that using rel="author" in the home page, product pages, listings and "institutional" pages (i.e.: about us) is not how Google thinks authorships should be used. For those pages the only "ownerships" allowed is the rel="publisher", which tells Google that the page has been published by the Business whose link in rel="publisher" is linking to.
The Samuel post is a great one, but I suggest you also to check out this official Google page (and the pages linked from that one).
Finally... right now Google is not penalizing the sites not properly using rel="author", but - as told me by an important Googler some time ago - it will come the day that it will something causing, if not a penalization, yes the "disappearing" of every authorships sign in the SERPs for the "cheating" site.
-
I highly suggest using rel=author only on pages and/or posts that have individually-authored content such as blog posts and white papers. Google specifically states that it is against Google+ rules to use rel=author on other general pages such as product pages and contact pages. I'd also not use one rel=author code when it is obvious that the page was written by someone else. It looks weird to website visitors, and it is an attempt to mislead Google.
So, yes, companies that use rel=author sitewide or do other such things to manipulate Google are likely one update away from disaster. I personally think that Google+ abuse is one of the reasons that we've seen a decline in the appearance of authorship in the SERPs and that we have yet to see a concrete "author rank." I'd take a look at this Moz post of mine (and see the linked sources and comments) on one way webmasters may unintentionally be applying authorship in a hurtful way -- and when this is fixed, some people who had lost authorship in the SERPs regained it a few days later.
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
-
How to gain or build high authority backlinks without content?
P.S. please suggest me the latest tips and tricks along with the known and lesser known facts regarding the niche question.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HuptechWebseo0 -
Google stopped showing rich snippets - what does warning mean?
Hi, for our site prams.net, Google stopped showing the rich snippets yesterday. We got the following warning in Webmastertools "Data with spam structures http://www.prams.net/ may be removed from the search results" As we have not changed anything for months, I do not know what the reason could be. Here a sample url from our site http://www.prams.net/brevi-ovo-twin Does anybody have experience with this and can give me a tip what to change? Thanks in advance. Dieter Lang Here the full message. Google has found some of your pages markup with structures that violate our quality guidelines for structured data. To provide users with high quality search results, we show detailed search results only for content with markup that meet our quality guidelines. This manual action was against prams.net/ imposed. You should correct the markup and make a request for reconsideration. Having noted that the guidelines for the markup on the pages in question are complied with, we will remove this manual action. You can resolve this problem as follows: | 1 | Update your markup so that it no longer violates our guidelines for structured data Correct Incorrect markup or remove the markup that is not the content of your page properly. | See guidelines |
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Storesco
| 2 | Ask a reconsideration request Once you have corrected your website, you can submit a reconsideration request, so this manual action is canceled. Be specific so that we can understand what changes you have made to your site. | Reconsideration request | Need more help? | • | For more information on manual actions against data with spam structures can be found in our Help Center. |
| • | Refer to the section Guidelines for structured data about the problem. |
| • | Ask in our forum questions if you need more help. Make reference to the message type [WNC-632 900]. |0 -
Does this setup meet the ratings rich snippet guidelines?
Hey everyone, I am setting up a few product landing pages and hope to be able to see the star ratings via the search engine. I attached a screenshot of the SCHEMA code included on the page and results from the testing tool. On each landing page there are 3 reviews taken from the product page and the overall rating of the product. There are also 2 links directly to the product page. Google states that: Make sure the reviews and ratings you mark up are readily available to users from the marked-up page. It should be immediately obvious to users that the page has review or ratings content. Do you guys think the landing page set up I described above is sufficient to comply with google's guidelines? yafujZe.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TVape0 -
Rel=canonical
My website is built around a template, the hosting site say I can only add code into the body of the webpage not the header, will this be ok for rel=canonical If it is my next question is redundant but as there is only one place to put it which urls do I need to place in the code http://domain.com, www.domain.com or http://www.domain.com the /default.asp option for my website does not seem to exist, so I guess is not relevant thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | singingtelegramsuk0 -
Duplicate content, website authority and affiliates
We've got a dilemma at the moment with the content we supply to an affiliate. We currently supply the affiliate with our product database which includes everything about a product including the price, title, description and images. The affiliate then lists the products on their website and provides a Commission Junction link back to our ecommerce store which tracks any purchases with the affiliate getting a commission based on any sales via a cookie. This has been very successful for us in terms of sales but we've noticed a significant dip over the past year in ranking whilst the affiliate has achieved a peak...all eyes are pointing towards the Panda update. Whenever I type one of our 'uniquely written' product descriptions into Google, the affiliate website appears higher than ours suggesting Google has ranked them the authority. My question is, without writing unique content for the affiliate and changing the commission junction link. What would be the best option to be recognised as the authority of the content which we wrote in the first place? It always appears on our website first but Google seems to position the affiliate higher than us in the SERPS after a few weeks. The commission junction link is written like this: http://www.anrdoezrs.net/click-1428744-10475505?sid=shopp&url=http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/vango-calisto-600xl-tent.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gavinhoman0 -
Rel=alternate to help localize sites
I am wondering about the efficiency of the rel=alternate tag and how well it works at specifically localizing content. Example: I have a website on a few ccTLD's but for some reason my .com shows up on Google.co.uk before my .co.uk version of my page. Some people have mentioned using rel=alternate but in my research this only seems to be applicable for duplicate content in another language. If I am wrong here can somebody please help me better understand this application of the rel=alternate tag. All my research leads me to rel=alternate hreflang= and I am not sure that is what I want. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt
Chris Birkholm0 -
Rel Canonical Syntax
My IT department is getting ready to setup the rel canonical tag, finally. I took a look at the code on our test server and see that they are using a single quote in the tag syntax (see code block below). Should I be concerned? Will Google read those lines the same? <link rel='canonical' href='[http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits](view-source:http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits)' />VS. **versus** <link rel="canonical" href="[http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits](view-source:http://www.wholesalecostumeclub.com/easter-costumes/bunny-suits)" />
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | costume0 -
Rich Snippets Displayed in SERPs?
I've recently deployed rich snippets for a site that includes reviews on individual company profile pages. We passed the Rich Snippet Testing Tool and notified Google of our pages. It's been 2 months since we deployed this and still nothing. Does anyone have any feedback on the average time it takes Google to recognize these markup and include in on the SERPs? Or any articles that reference which industries they will include reviews in the SERPs for and which ones they won't? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DustinSEO0