How about the new Google Plus cover images?
-
I logged into several accounts this morning and have noticed Google Plus has changed their cover images/layout... again! When I edit the cover image, it only allows me to pick the old ratios.
What do you think?
Here to stay?
Was there an announcement or anything about this?
-
The problem with making it transparent is that you would lose 25% or so of the image which means you would still have to add some design to it (ie. making your picture offset or something) The way it is now you can just add a photo and you're done. No editing or Photoshop skills required. I just think it's too 'blocky' (thanks for the verification on that word) and think the 'info card' should be just a slightly bigger size or something to make it work better. You should be able to customize your background color for the 'text card' too. I think it would work better with branding.
https://plus.google.com/+LaBovick/ has their image fade at the bottom and the 'info card' to the left is a little longer and it looks nice that way. If Google could make this sort of design default I think it would look a lot better. Maybe even have the menu fit in that negative space below the image and to the right of the 'info card'.
Unfortunately I don't work at Google anymore so I'll just build a template to make it work. Either way it's much better then the old style.
-
Oh yah, and blocky is a word according to: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/blocky
-
The blurred background it just confusing. If it was transparent, and the info box showed the background image underneath instead of a duplicate, I think it would be better.
-
Did you also see that Google Places pages that are listed as having "Service Areas" can now be automatically upgraded to Google Plus pages? Its a slow roll-out, but we're seeing it done when we log into accounts! Sometimes we have to go in and delete the old G+ Business page to leave just the G+ Local page.
-
I'm enjoying the simplistic look of the new G+ page. The top image, where we were forced to scroll up to view it was just a horrible experience for all users. That scrolling really never served any purpose than to frustrate people with the "teaser" effect.
Now, it's all right there as it should be. Removing the thinking, confusion and frustrations and going back to what Google says they strive for, improving our experience using their products. In my opinion, this new page stylization has done that for me.
Patrick
-
Yeah maybe "love it" was an overstatement. I'm just so relieved that the annoying cover image is gone.
-
Nothing at Google is here to stay. I can think of at least 5 cover photo changes already. I didn't see any announcements but I now that the Google+ for Android rolled out yesterday.
Here are my thoughts
What I like about it:
- "that giant monstrosity of an image" that Mike Roberts mentioned is gone! I hated having to scroll UP to see all of it. That was just dumb.
- I like the 'info card' on the left side vs the bottom long drawn out text area we had before.
- I like that the 'info card' doesn't cover ANY of the image. We spend a lot of money on photography and I don't want it covered.
What I don't like:
- It looks very blocky (<-- is that a word?). I think a more artistic design would have been better. www.google.com/+vzpro is very boring whereas www.google.com/+labovick, who designed their cover before to allow for the text area to be easily read, looks great. I think making the 'info card' be a little longer and have a little shadowing behind it would make a world of difference as far as design. I know we can design images to do that now but I think it is an easy adjustment for G+ to do.
- I don't like the fact that the background of the 'info card' is the same image as the one to the right and is extremely blurred. I don't know if a solid color would be better but I just know I don't like it very much.
Ok, I'm off my soapbox now. Carry on...
-
Agreed! I'm sure this update will come as a big sigh of relief to many. The giant image was completely incongruous with the rest of the site and quite jarring.
There's a lot of empty space on pages, though - especially the profile page. Don't you think?
-
Can't say I love it but I otherwise agree with Jesse... that giant monstrosity of an image previously was just annoying.
-
I saw it, for some reason I always get overly excited about a Google plus update, couldn't find a mention of it, not sure if I like it yet.
-
Yeah I love it. So much better than the giant cover photo, that was driving me bonkers to be honest.
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
-
Do we expect Google+ to continue being an important ranking signal after its recent changes?
I've noticed that Google Plus seems to have a larger influence on ranking than other social networks, especially for one of our competitors. We haven't started using Google Plus, and I'm wondering if, from an SEO standpoint, it's worth putting energy into after last month's changes. TL;DR: After last month's changes, is Google Plus still an important ranking signal?
Social Media | | 4RS_John1 -
Question about understanding Google Ranking System
Hi, I have too many question that I need answer to understand Google ranking system. I have been analyzing different website in different niche, but puzzling to understand how Google rank actually. Some websites have good number of backlinks with good SEO metrics, but some low SEO profiled websiites outrank good sites. I am here with my first question. I am working for one client website who sell sex toys online. So we are optimizing keywords like sex toys, buy sex toys, sex shop, sex toy store and too many keywords to rank on google.ca. My client website is cupidboutique.com. We have some competitors that I want to mention below: 1. PinkCherry: This is one of our big competitor. They have 2 domain one is for US and one is for Canada. Both websites ranking well for different keywords. Basically .ca domain is more successful than .com domain. But I am surprise why Google consider the websites for rank. If you see, both websites are identical, that means both website have same product, same category structure, and the most important all products description are duplicate on each domain. On google webmaster guideline, google mention that if 2 domain have identical content, then Google ignore the duplicate one in ranking. But still both websites ranking for different search term. I compare the SEO metrics of our domain and their .ca domain, there is not big difference. Our websites also have good number of links, good PA/DA, even more good number of social sharing than them. But our rankings are not even comparable with them. They are ranking within 20-30th on Google for different product category keywords, but not our. 2. Hushcanada: This is another website ranking well, but I a surprise how? This website is ranking on very high competitive keyword with very fewer number of backlinks. Their PA/DA, number of backlinks, social sharing all metrics are very few. Their business also established recently that is 2013, which I found through archive.org, whereas our client business has been running since 2003-2004. As a Ecommerce business website their homepage is not showing any product , their catalog can be found under "shop online" page only. There are even some more websites ranking well with very low SEO metrics in this niche. If Google is not looking for these SEO staff, then what other staff Google looks to rank website? Hope I will get some favorable answer of my question.
Social Media | | moonheart0 -
Has anyone seen a Blog post from LinkedIn's new Blog feature appear in SERP's?
This feature, prior to Feb. 2014 was only available to high profile users, or influencers, like Bill Gates. Now it is available to all LinkedIn users and extends the reach to LinkedIn groups and your own network. Anyone know if there's an SEO benefit? Thanks in advance.
Social Media | | alankoen1230 -
Google+ I set up a profile as my business a while back. Should I change to a page NOW?
A while back, can't remember when, I set up a profile page under my business name. It has recently started picking up a bit of momentum but I am concerned it is not in line with Google's policy and will eventually get removed. I don't want to invest any more effort into this profile if this is likely so am looking at moving my efforts to a page. Any ideas / recommendations? Thanks,
Social Media | | Cornwall
Chris0 -
Why is Google+ so confusing?
I have to update my data in 3 separate place is there anyway to just update one area and it filters into all required places. I have a 1)Google+ places page 2)Google+ profile page, what I would expect others to use for my business 3)Google+ page seems to be the one I should be using for my business? Anyone seen a good guide on Google+ ?
Social Media | | tempowebdesign0 -
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?
Social Media | | AngieHerrera0 -
Google does not index individual facebook posts often?
It looks like google (regular organic) does not index individual posts from facebook pages often, more likely the wall of the page itself or separate pages. Can someone confirm this?
Social Media | | qlkasdjfw0