Requirement full bleed image share Google+?
-
Hi everyone,
Im sort of a Google+ nutter and I wanted to figure out exactly what is required for a full bleed image to appear for +1 share on the page itself. I got it figured out and I think it requires:
- canonical url
- og:image
- image wider then 506px
- type article or page (microdata format)
But sometimes it seems that pages without a canonical url still show full bleed image when shared as link when I insert the url directly into a google+ post. My question is if this could be a cached version of the page where it had a canonical url?
Don't really know if that anyone is interested but I made a simple tool that checks if a page meets requirements for having a full bleed image when share as link on Google+. Think I nailed it pretty close but can't seem to get the full bleed image to appear for the tool itself do:) Please dont ask. It's driving me mad already.
http://www.googlewiki.nl/seo-checker/check-fullbleed.php
Try it. Take a blog post url, check it with this tool and then see for yourself if it's accurate. If not I would like to hear very much as it would help me pin point it better!
Examples of pages with specific no no factors for you to try are:
http://www.copyblogger.com/google-authorship/ (img to small)
http://www.theverge.com/2014/7/14/5896979/gmail-api-isnt-the-end-of-email-its-a-new-beginning (no og prefix but works) -
that's a pretty cool tool Daniel
Those you mentioned have worked for me along with adding schema to show the description.
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
-
I understand Authorship is Dead, but here's a question on the Google+ Profile
I guest write for some blogs, as well as several blogs I manage myself. What is the correct usage of the "Contributor to" field and the "Links" field? Contributor to: The overall blog itself and; Links: To individual blog posts themselves? Or the reverse? Thank you!
Social Media | | booboo220 -
Google + Follower question
Has anyone noticed a discrepancy with their Google + followers? Yesterday we had over 20 followers in each of our four pages and today each say zero. Thoughts?
Social Media | | PlanetDISH0 -
Google Play rankings?
Hi everyone, I've spent the last hour or two googling information on Google Play app rankings, and a few websites mention that standard pagerank of the app page is taken into account when calculating rankings. This seems to make sense, though I'd estimate it's probably not a large factor, with daily downloads being a much higher factor IMO. So my question is, how much of a factor does standard link-building for a Google Play app webpage have in the rankings?. We're trying to increase exposure of an app we've built (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=net.onedirection), and though we seem to have more downloads, reviews and +1's than others, we seem to be ranking beneath them. Thanks, Chris.
Social Media | | PixelKicks1 -
How does Google handle URL shortening, do they pass link juice?
When I'm Social Book marking my websites I use a url shortening service such as bitly.com or onlywire.com. Do these services transfer link juice in the same ways as a direct link would do?
Social Media | | iansellman0 -
How much of an impact does Google+ page age have?
Do Google+ pages gain authority with age? Does it matter very much if I wait a few months to make a Google+ page as opposed to establishing it now, even if I won't be doing much work on it for a while?
Social Media | | HCGDiet0 -
Google+ Ranking Factors - Are Keywords meaningless ?
Hello Mozers! On the Conversation Marketing blog, Ian Lurie published a lengthy article called Google Plus Box Ranking Factors Report. In it, he claimed amongst other things, that "Keyword relevance of your posts: Totally meaningless. Write whatever you want. Seriously. Just make it good." What say you? Are keywords really meaningless? Thanks in advance!
Social Media | | ShivaS1 -
Dear SEOMoz and SEOMoz pro members, can any of you spare a Google + invite for a fellow pro member? please?!
[email removed by staff -- like comments say, let's PM this information rather than have it indexed]
Social Media | | richcowley1