Thoughts on Google+ influence on SERPs?
-
I just read this article over on Read Write Web: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_is_going_to_mess_up_the_internet.php
The part that made me raise an eyebrow is in the section "Google+ Hates the Internet". I just tested the exact term the author used and his article does show up first, followed by two G+ listings.
I don't have enough action going on in my G+ accounts to even test this, let alone see it, but was wondering if anyone else has seen it or tested it?
Perhaps this in fact, is Google's way of using "social proof" to drive valuable content up? Seems like it, which is good. However, I can also see how it can be abused to further game and manipulate SERPs.
Thoughts?
-
I know you may see it as a "cop out" and others might as well, but the recent stint was by a 3rd party, and was taken swift action upon the news..... So I am not sure How "Blackhat" gaining one follow link from a blog in the grand scheme of Google's over 400 million backlinks is......... But in this I understand we may not see eye to eye and it can be seen as hypocritical. And i agree in General that paying someone to review something and implying it should be a good review is unethical and un-helpful, but not really "Black-Hat" that is a word that gets thrown around alot.
The first reaction from any client/CEO to anything new usually is "Ugh"... come on man.
When do challenges in business ever stop...?
I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this
But i will definitely research the other Blackhat claims as I had not heard of them.
And I was not trying to say you do not do well in SERPS, just that alot of people seem to have an axe to grind with Google cause they feel they should be doing better, even though there are millions of other sites out there. So that brings alot of anti Google sentiment that really is just all about competition.
Have A great Night!
Shane
-
Hey, leave my mama outta this
What I'm saying in regards to that, and I thought I was being quite clear, is that Google would stand a much better chance of dominating the social networking niche if they re-adjusted their priorities, and lost the boner they have for conquering Facebook. Unless they can figure out a legitimate way of allowing people to copy their entire FB profile over in one click, they won't ever be able to grab the entire, existing, FB user-base. It just won't happen. People have invested waaaaay too much time uploading thousands of photos and videos, engaging in countless conversations/emails/messages, and creating their network of friends and family. I'm just saying that their initial thought process of trying to convert people was hopeless from the get-go.
I don't disagree that they might be on to something in terms of the future of social networking; however, for every new idea they add to G+, FB can easily integrate the same idea to their site and they're back to being even. The same way Google does to every little competitive company that is even but a spec of dust on Google's radar. Google leaves no room for competition, so why should Facebook?
For the record, I could care less either way. My days of being over-actively involved in my own personal Social media have come and gone. And I offer both solutions to any clients that inquire.
Oh, and, I do quite well in the SERP's, actually. Google, Bing, and so on. I've seen a ~500% increase in traffic over the last 2 months to several of my websites, so let's not go there.
Come on now... Google has been caught a handful of times doing the very things they penalize websites for. Case in point (and these blackhat tactics are as recent as this past week!):
http://www.seobook.com/post-sponsored-google
http://www.seroundtable.com/google-caught-for-paid-links-14539.html
I could post many more resources/articles to other's they've done in the past, but they're be no fun in that
Their shady tactics don't stop there, however:
http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/07/25/google.street.view.now.known.to.have.seen.devices/
Just because I don't use Google+ personally, doesn't mean it's not offered to any clients of mine. But the reaction of theirs is overwhelmingly the same: "Ugh, another social network? When is it going to stop!?" in reference to FB, Twitter, G+, LinkedIn, and so on. 'Cause you can't just replicate your content over them all to be successful, so that's where the "Ugh" comes into play.
-
We can talk about who uses what all day long, but your "mother" is not the only game in town, nor will she always be the user base (figuratively of course)... As time progresses more and more people will begin using technology more and more... As they always have...
Sounds like you have been jaded by not seeing the results you want to see in Google. Also I am not sure what Blackhat tactics you talk about that Google uses... We all have gripes, but just because you do not like something does not make it blackhat or non useful.
And G+ Does not automatically affect SERPS for everything, it has a very small subset that it influences, and I believe it only influences if you are Logged.
I personally think this is a step in the right direction for social, but we all have our own opinions
And also from a business perspective not using something that is a marketing tool on principle that you dont't like it, is not necessarily in my opinion the best decision for your clients as you are not giving them all available "ammo" to succeed.
But of course that is PURELY my opinion
Have a great day!
-
A step in the right direction for whom, Google? Of course. But not necessarily for the end-user by any stretch of the imagination.
To be honest, my care for Google, it's products, it's advice on SEO, and so on, have completely sizzled over the last year or so as they continue to practice the very black-hat techniques that us webmasters get in sh*t for. Sorry Goog's, but I won't use your second-tier G+ anytime soon, that's for sure.
Even Google's search has lost its relevance for me as they're opting to give more SERP real estate to big name brands (which is just a nice way of saying that they're giving more SERP real estate to companies that spend millions in AdWords, let's not kid ourselves here). Just because a company has a recognizable brand name, and spends millions on advertising, doesn't necessarily make their product any more relevant, or of better quality, than the little guys.
To the original post... of course G+ directly influences the SERP's. Do you think for a second that Google would have it any other way? Like I said, they are desperate to get people using their Social network, and this is one way to at least get webmasters involved.
Side boob: Google should re-focus their Google+ into a business oriented social network. Their reach does not extend to half of FB's user-base in that your typical, non web savvy (ie. my Mother) is not ever going to use Google Plus, so why market it to them. They're lucky if they have a FB account, and that's as far as they'll go because their entire family is already setup on it. These are the people that actually click on the adwords sponsored ads at the top of the SERP's, even thoughm the majority of the sites in adwords are irrelevant to the search term in question (at least their landing page is).
Watch for more Google (in)direct user-influence tactics coming soon... too bad for them it's race they lost the day Mr. Zuckerberg bought the Facebook.com domain name.
-
Yes, In my opinion this is the exact game of G+...
Google's way of using "social proof" to drive valuable content up
If you are really an expert in "insert trade/industry here" then you would obviously have many people with relevant friends, posts ect about "example trade/industry"
And when you post something within your "industry realm" and it has you as the rel=author, then Google can begin to give you preference as an expert in your field for further content if you have large amount of industry relevant followers
I think this is their answer to spam and manipulation, as an SEO/SMM agency will have issues without actually having meaningful content and strategy of gaining industry relevant followers. Of course there are always ways around these sorts and I am sure someone will begin gaming it (if not already)
But overall i think the author is being a little over dramatic (probably on purpose for exposure reasons)
But nevertheless, I think this is a step in the right direction for a more genuine user experience in the Social World.
-
Hi Angie. There's a lot being said about social influence and SERPs right now. Although I can't answer your question specifically, I can wonder logically why Google would flirt with +, likes, shares etc as an indicator of relevance, trustworthiness or reliability etc.
Facebook likes are already abused by outfits offering incentives for "liking". Curious to watch this evolve.
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 Indexed Images: Website Vs Social Media
I use Pinterest, Twitter and Instagram to post images that are already featured on my website. I have been following a routine of uploading the images to these social media platforms only after I can see Google has indexed the image from my original site. My website is ecommerce and the product images drive sales more than any other factor. The thinking behind my method was that when these images are posted on Pinterest, Twitter and the various Instagram crawler sites (I realise Instagram images aren’t indexed directly), Google would recognise that the image was already attributed to my website. The ‘duplicate’ image would not therefore be indexed and the originally uploaded website image would remain in ‘Google Images’. After completing various searches and reviewing other Q&A’s on Moz, it seems as though this is in no way guaranteed and images reposted on social media platforms may still replace the already indexed image from the website. I am assuming this is because Google views these platforms as more authoritative than mine. I usually change the image by adding logos, text, backgrounds, borders etc before posting on Pinterest and this seems to have worked most of the time (both the original and ‘amended for Pinterest’ versions are often indexed) but images posted on other platforms are usually identical. Does it make sense to continue with my method or am I shooting myself in the foot by reposting these images on social media at all? I obviously want customers searching for products, who then click on an image, to be directed to my site rather than one of my social media pages or worse, an image reposting site. Additionally, If I post images on social media before they are uploaded to my website (for example to tease a product launch), would Google likely class these images as the ‘original’ and therefore be less likely to index the website version of the image once it is uploaded? Any thoughts are appreciated.
Social Media | | g3mmab2 -
How long it takes for Twitter carousel to appear under your website in google results
Dear Moz community, Not later than 7 days ago I did impelement twitter markup to a website including : as well as twitter markup to all blog/article posts The question: I mentioned Moz (when you search for this brand name in Google) it shows a recent tweets carousel, how long it takes for it appear on our website and should I do any additional fixes for it to appear ? BWctKyu
Social Media | | admiral990 -
Google Plus Company Page Verification
Hi How do you test successful G+ company page/publisher integration/verification if using the less technical methods such as linking between the Home page and the G+ company page instead of adding code to the head section? Since i take it the google structured data testing tool cant work in these cases since no code on the head section ! Is it best to add the code anyway ? I note my clients still not achieving a knowledge graph card/section in the search results for a branded search but i have heard that doesnt come until you have at least hundreds of followers and/or G+ interactions. All Best
Social Media | | Dan-Lawrence
Dan0 -
Benefit of Comments in SERPs
I found the posts with comments are ranking much better for my blog. But most of the users are commenting on Facebook, when I share my content. Thats bad, because I don't have this discussion on my site. I am using the standard WordPress commenting system. No a good commenting option for my would be Facebook comments (or Comments Evolved is also a quite nice plugin for FB, G+ and WP comments). The question is? Does Google still give these Facebook comments on my site as much value as 'native' WordPress comments. Or are they discounted in some way? The second question of course would be, if it is wise to hand over all of the comments to Facebook and loosing control over them. But I think I could dramatically increase comments if I switch to Facebook commenting system...
Social Media | | soralsokal0 -
How Should I Optimise Feature Images for Google+ Interactive Post Snippets?
Hi there, I'm in the middle of optimising my site to create decent sharing snippets to improve the overall experience and quality for visitors. One thing I've come up against though is trying to balance site design with the requirements of schema.org and Google+ I've recently just altered the layout of my site to now visually display a brief post description to go into the Rich Snippet Google+ creates, but the images Look a little bit shorter than what they could be. I'm curious to how I could perhaps serve a dedicated image for the Google+ snippet (a square cropped version of the large feature image that's given to each post) while avoiding forcing all users to load a second image I don't even really want to show. I'm also in the middle of deciding what content to prefill the post text with, I'm thinking about tagging my own Google+ id and maybe using some post relevant hash tags too. Does that sound like a good idea? Thanks for 95e0ec7c46e6e66c0a966089d7805813
Social Media | | KraigWalker0 -
Difference between Google+ Followers and Website +1's?
Very sorry if this has been covered multiple times already… I can't find the answer anywhere… This is a basic question: Is there a difference between someone giving my website a +1 and being counted as a follower on my Google+ page? I run a website and a Google+ page for my brand, and these two things are linked. When someone clicks on the +1 button on my site, does that show up in the count that someone sees in the red box in the upper right corner of my Google+ page? And, when someone comes to my Google+ page and adds me to a circle, is that the same as them clicking the +1 button on my site? Or are these two entirely different things? I feel like the terms are used interchangeably, but I'm not sure if it's because they really are two different things, or if they're really the same.I ask because, when I look at my company's Google+ page, it says "+300" in the upper right, but when I see my website come up in an AdWords ad, it says "[Company Name] has 240 followers on Google+"... Why are these numbers not the same?Thank you!Scott
Social Media | | ScottShrum0 -
How to Increase +1s for Google plus? Any Ideas ?
Anyone who know any good ways to increase the following, +1s on Google plus please share !thanks. (I know good content will do the trick but what else?)
Social Media | | Personnel_Concept0 -
Google + Profile in Serps
Hello, Ive noticed some of my competitors show up with both verified and non-verified Google+ Icon, and recent activity showing to the right usually where PPC shows. Is it possible for smaller sized businesses to accomplish something like this? Im assuming this is not paid? Thank You
Social Media | | TP_Marketing0