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
-
What are your experiences with Google+?
Hi all, It would be great to hear about your experiences with Google+. We've tried a few times to use it in the hope that it might give us a hand in SEO terms but it has been utterly painful. Not only because the UI is almost impossible to figure out, but because engagement is essentially 0. Perhaps we're doing something wrong. How has it gone for you? Ross
Social Media | | MSGroup0 -
Claiming Google+ URLs?
I have several brands which I am managing G+ profile pages for. These range from established brands with large followings to just starting out. When I try to claim a custom URL for these on Google+, it says to add some extra characters after the brand names to make them unique. I can't find any example of established big brands who have G+ URLS like "+toyotausa24" "+tacobell3" or anything like that. This does not seem to be well documented anywhere. Can someone tell me what the deal is with this feature? Also what is the best practice for large brands when claiming this? +BrandName1?
Social Media | | IrvCo_Interactive2 -
Google & Social
Hi Folks It's been made very clear to us that Google is paying attention to social signals. My questions are: How would I check that Google is aware of my Facebook activity and similarly of my Twitter and Pinterest work? If Google is not aware of these what are some steps I can take to inform them that a particular account is related to a my business site? Finally any must read articles on this topic would be appreciated. Thank you for your time to help me out
Social Media | | PHD1 -
When with Google+ bio area backlinks get devalued if we have everybody link to our site
Hello, As you know, Google+ bios, if they have a link in them are dofollow. I'm doing a link building campaign, and we already linked one of our Google+ pages to our home page and top 2 articles. My question is, to get links, can we have family and friends add links in their bios too for a total of 6 links to the home page (6 people) and some links to our articles? Or will Google devalue them because we are family and friends? How many is too many? Thanks.
Social Media | | BobGW0 -
Doctors in a Hospital - Setup Google Local or Google+ Profiles?
Hello - I've been running this over for awhile - so I'm curious to see what the community says about it. I'm working with a client who would like to brand the doctors in their hospitals. Many of them do have recognition already - and their associated locations have profiles. Google Local semi-recently said it's OK to brand Dr's names - even if they exist within a single location. So, my question is - is it better to go the Google Local route and create the Local/+ page for them, or to go through the Google+/Google Brand Pages route and create them that way? If each doctor were to decide, individually, to post on their page - would that be possible with the Places route (I don't think so, based on what I've seen)? Also, if a doctor already has a personal Google+ page - would it make sense to just create the additional brand page as well through this interface? Well either of these methods achieve optimal visibility as well as the option to post should they decide to go that route? What it boils down to - is this is a task we can perform from the outside, or is it best handled by giving the doctors best practice for setting up their personal Google+ pages and associated Brand Pages themselves? Thanks for any insight you can provide!
Social Media | | WebTalent0 -
SEO difference between having a Google+ Brand and Google+ Business page?
Functionally the Google+ Brand and Business pages seem to be exactly the same, but does having one or the other have an effect on SEO? Is it better to have both?
Social Media | | HireSpace0 -
Many authors a google profile - possible?
We have a news portal
Social Media | | meteorr
We have our https://plus.google.com/ our company profile /
Articles written our journalists It is possible, that they referred to our https://plus.google.com/our company profile / (so as not to each author to your account.) ? example: This article was written on the page: URL ....
The author Natasha Penrova The author [Andrey Dembitskiy on the page with the author: http://site.com/profile/natasha/](http://site.com/profile/Dembitskiy/) <a rel="me" <="" span="">href="https://plus.google.kom / our company profile /">+Natasha Penrova on the page with the author: http://site.com/profile/Dembitskiy/</a> <a rel="me" <="" span=""> href="https://plus.google.kom / our company profile /">+Andrey Dembitskiy So will it work?</a>0 -
How can I work out who pressed my Google +1 button?
With Facebook likes it comes up on Facebook, telling you who pressed the 'like' button. You also get the number of people that like it. Is there something like this for the +1 button? I can work it out through webmaster tools, but this is delayed data, unlike the Facebook 'likes' which is instant. Is there a way of knowing who pressed your +1 button straight away, like on Facebook?
Social Media | | sophia1230