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
-
Realistic expectations to increase domain authority
A) what is a realistic timeline to increase a websites domain authority by 20 points? B) what are the most important factors to increase a websites domain authority?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WebMarkets0 -
Something happened within the last 2 weeks on our WordPress-hosted site that created "duplicates" by counting www.company.com/example and company.com/example (without the 'www.') as separate pages. Any idea what could have happened, and how to fix it?
Our website is running through WordPress. We've been running Moz for over a month now. Only recently, within the past 2 weeks, have we been alerted to over 100 duplicate pages. It appears something happened that created a duplicate of every single page on our site; "www.company.com/example" and "company.com/example." Again, according to our MOZ, this is a recent issue. I'm almost certain that prior to a couple of weeks ago, there existed both forms of the URL that directed to the same page without be counting as a duplicate. Thanks for you help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wzimmer0 -
Rich Snippets - Easy Come / Easy Go!
Hi Guys, I've been trying like mad to get Rich Snippets (star ratings, price, availability) to show for product page results for www.evo.com. What's very strange is when I test my product page URLs in the Structured Data Testing Tool, the previews look great and the extracted data is what I'd expect. I am however getting "missing price" errors for every item in the Structured Data report in Webmaster Tools - which seems contradictory to what the testing tool shows. The error description says this can prevent Rich Snippets from showing. If anyone here could take a look at the schema.org/Offer markup on one of our product pages and see if they can see anything wrong with our price markup I would greatly appreciate it! The plot thickens.... What's even stranger is that when I submit product page URLs (that have reviews) to Google's index using Fetch as GoogleBot, the Rich Snippets appear - but then disappear sometime in the following day(s). The only thing I can think of is somehow my Merchant Center feed (which contains "product_review_count" and "product_review_average") which runs nightly is somehow 'breaking' the Rich Snippets that are generated after the page has been crawled. Any advice is greatly appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | evoNick
Will0 -
Rel=next/prev for paginated pages then no need for "no index, follow"?
I have a real estate website and use rel=next/prev for paginated real estate result pages. I understand "no index, follow" is not needed for the paginated pages. However, my case is a bit unique: this is real estate site where the listings also show on competitors sites. So, I thought, if I "no index, follow" the paginated pages that would reduce the amount of duplicate content on my site and ultimately support my site ranking well. Again, I understand "no index, follow" is not needed for paginated pages when using rel=next/prev, but since my content will probably be considered fairly duplicate, I question if I should do anyway.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
What does this kind of rel="canonical" mean?
It looks like our CMS may not be configured correctly as there is an empty section in the rel="canonical" rel="canonical" href="{page_uri}" /> Will having the above meta tag be harmful to our SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | voicesdotcom0 -
Can I use rel=canonical and then remove it?
Hi all! I run a ticketing site and I am considering using rel=canonical temporary. In Europe, when someone is looking for tickets for a soccer game, they look for them differently if the game is played in one city or in another city. I.e.: "liverpool arsenal tickets" - game played in the 1st leg in 2012 "arsenal liverpool tickets - game played in the 2nd leg in 2013 We have two different events, with two different unique texts but sometimes Google chooses the one in 2013 one before the closest one, especially for queries without dates or years. I don't want to remove the second game from our site - exceptionally some people can broswer our website and buy tickets with months in advance. So I am considering place a rel=canonical in the game played in 2013 poiting to the game played in a few weeks. After that, I would remove it. Would that make any sense? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jorgediaz0 -
Very basic - domain authority vs page authority
what does that mean and how is that information valuable? thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | thirsty31 -
Rel=nofollow and SSL Certs
Will I lose or gain seo benefit from using rel=nofollow on my SSL certificate? every page on the site refers (links) to the cert and the server call to display the cert adds over 500ms to my page load speeds. <updated question=""> Is there a way to display the cert to cut down on load speeds? Also, would Google discount or penalize the site if the cert were nofollowed?</updated> Thoughts? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AnthonyYoung0