Has Google Authorship been completely removed from SERPs?
-
Noticed today that when I search (non-personalised search, incognito etc.) some of my pages on Google ALL references to authorship have now been completely removed.
Does anyone know when this change occurred? I might be a bit slow this week (or last week) with concentrating on projects.
I know like others that photos went some time back but now there are no author details being displayed. Just the page title and description.
David
-
Will do & thanks for the link.
David
-
drill down here on moz for Cyrus's blog post on same here - http://moz.com/blog/traffic-case-study
well worth the read!
-
Yup many thanks,
I guess I've been not been monitoring this one well. I was aware of these posts but not when the authorship was completely stopped.
David
-
I'm afraid it stopped way back at the end of August. You can see it here - http://algoroo.com/ & here http://searchengineland.com/goodbye-google-authorship-201975
ad finally here - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6083347
John Mueller said -
"I’ve been involved since we first started testing authorship markup and displaying it in search results. We’ve gotten lots of useful feedback from all kinds of webmasters and users, and we’ve tweaked, updated, and honed recognition and displaying of authorship information. Unfortunately, we’ve also observed that this information isn’t as useful to our users as we’d hoped, and can even distract from those results. With this in mind, we’ve made the difficult decision to stop showing authorship in search results."
author rank is still a thing though so still worth using your G+
(just to edit the date was 28th August 2014)
-
Many thanks
Yip I'v read these articles (except John's posting). I think though as EGOL is mentioning that the actual removal must have been pretty recent. I for instance could still see authorship details a few days ago.
Maybe it was today, maybe not
David
-
Yes, Google has completely dropped all authorship functionality from the search results and webmaster tools.
John Mueller of Google Webmaster Tools has announced in a Google+ post here- https://plus.google.com/+JohnMueller/posts/HZf3KDP1Dm8
Some more resources you may find helpful-
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2352147/Google-to-Remove-Author-Images-from-Search-Results
http://moz.com/blog/author-photos-are-gone-does-google-authorship-still-have-value-29334
http://searchengineland.com/goodbye-google-authorship-201975
-
Thanks for the info.
I checked GWMT tools for any related notifications to this but nothing that I can see.
I suppose there has been much talk of late about the actual effectiveness of authorship in SERPs influence and may be the decided to pull it.
-
Mine is missing too. Must have been pretty recently taken down or people at my office would have noticed.
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
-
Thoughts on Google's Autocomplete hurting organic SEO?
A client sent over an article about how Google's Autocomplete eliminates your chance for clicks. Saying that if your competitor is higher than you, the user will bypass the page one organic rank and click on a specific business from the autocomplete which in turn presents an entire page one result for that business. So in a sense they are wondering why they're doing organic SEO if potential customers are just going to bypass the page one organic results. I would love to hear thoughts from like minded people on this as I have to start proving my case with articles, facts, data, and research.
Algorithm Updates | | MERGE-Chicago0 -
Is it possible that Google may have erroneous indexing dates?
I am consulting someone for a problem related to copied content. Both sites in question are WordPress (self hosted) sites. The "good" site publishes a post. The "bad" site copies the post (without even removing all internal links to the "good" site) a few days after. On both websites it is obvious the publishing date of the posts, and it is clear that the "bad" site publishes the posts days later. The content thief doesn't even bother to fake the publishing date. The owner of the "good" site wants to have all the proofs needed before acting against the content thief. So I suggested him to also check in Google the dates the various pages were indexed using Search Tools -> Custom Range in order to have the indexing date displayed next to the search results. For all of the copied pages the indexing dates also prove the "bad" site published the content days after the "good" site, but there are 2 exceptions for the very 2 first posts copied. First post:
Algorithm Updates | | SorinaDascalu
On the "good" website it was published on 30 January 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 26 February 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 30 January 2013! Second post:
On the "good" website it was published on 20 March 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 10 May 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 20 March 2013! Is it possible to be an error in the date shown in Google search results? I also asked for help on Google Webmaster forums but there the discussion shifted to "who copied the content" and "file a DMCA complain". So I want to be sure my question is better understood here.
It is not about who published the content first or how to take down the copied content, I am just asking if anybody else noticed this strange thing with Google indexing dates. How is it possible for Google search results to display an indexing date previous to the date the article copy was published and exactly the same date that the original article was published and indexed?0 -
Fetch as Google - removes start words from Meta Title ?? Help!
Hi all, I'm experiencing some strange behaviour with Google Webmaster Tools. I noticed that some of our pages from our ecom site were missing start keywords - I created a template for meta titles that uses Manufacturer - Ref Number - Product Name - Online Shop; all trimmed under 65 chars just in case. To give you an idea, an example meta title looks like:
Algorithm Updates | | bjs2010
Weber 522053 - Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop The strange behaviour is if I do a "Fetch as Google" in GWT, no problem - I can see it pulls the variables and it's ok. So I click submit to index. Then I do a google site:URL search, to see what it has indexed, and I see the meta description has changed (so I know it's working), but the meta title has been cut so it looks like this:
Electric Barbecue Q 140 Grey - Online Shop So I am confused - why would Google cut off some words at start of meta title? Even after the Fetch as Googlebot looks perfectly ok? I should point out that this method works perfect on our other pages, which are many hundreds - but it's not working on some pages for some weird reason.... Any ideas?0 -
Google Reconsideration - To do or not to do?
We haven't been manually penalized by Google yet but we have had our fair share of things needing to be fixed; malware, bad links, lack/if no content, lack-luster UX, and issues with sitemaps & redirects. Should we still submit a reconsideration even though we haven't had a direct penalty? Does hurt us to send it?
Algorithm Updates | | GoAbroadKP0 -
Getting squeezed out of SERP by local results
Hi All, I wanted to get some opinions on a phenomenon that I know others are dealing with... We have a client who is an online-only business (though they do have an office/warehouse location). The on-page is great, and the site has good domain authority for its niche. The issue is that Google is localizing most of their search terms - And our client is getting squeezed down and out in the SERPs by the local listings. How is everyone dealing with this issue? It seems like we'll never get the site to out-rank the local listings in a given geo. Thanks, Lee
Algorithm Updates | | vectormedia0 -
Source for how many searches are done on Google per day?
Hi, All! The figure I've seen going around is 3 billion and is attributed to ComScore, but in the comScore press release that was linked to (actually the one from Rand's article - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/21-tactics-to-increase-blog-traffic-2012) all I could find was percentage of market share, but no total numbers of searches. Anyone have a source on that? Thanks, Aviva
Algorithm Updates | | debi_zyx0 -
Related Searches in Google
Hello, We're helping a client remove/minimize some negative information about their brand in Google's search results. Just curious about your take on if the related searches that appear at the bottom of Google search results can in any way be influenced or if it is more a combination of so many factors that any one person or organization wouldn't be able to change very easily? I've heard the related results could be influenced if enough queries generated overtake the "negative" queries done initially but I feel like that is venturing into black hat land a bit. thanks -Mike
Algorithm Updates | | mattmainpath0 -
Home page replaced by subpage in google SERP (good or bad)
SInce Panda, We have seen our home page drop from #2 in google.ie serp to page 3 but it has been replaced in the same position @#2 by our relevent sub page for the keyword that we ranked#2 for. Is this a good or bad thing from and seo point of view and is it better to have deep pages show in serp rather than the homepage of a site and what is the best line of action from here in relation to seo. Is it best to work on subpage or home page for that keyword and should link building for that phrase be directed towards the subpage or the homepage as the subpage is obviously more relevent in googles eyes for the search term. It is clear that all areas of the site should be looked at in relation to link building and deep links etc but now that google is obviously looking at relevancy very closely should all campaigns be sectioned into relevent content managed sections and the site likewise and treated on an individual basis. Any help that you may have would be very welcome. Paul
Algorithm Updates | | mcintyr0