| 3:11 pm on Jun 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Are you just hoping to brainstorm and theorize? Surely it's too new for any real-world data to be involved.
| 3:24 pm on Jun 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Ah, just brainstorming I think.
If someone goes through the troulble to remove a previous +1, that is probably bad.
| 6:56 pm on Jun 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Search the world's information, including webpages, images, videos and more. Google has many special features to help you find exactly what you're looking ...
Show stock quote for GOOG
www.google.com/ - Cached - Similar
3,465 people +1'd this
|www.facebook.com/ - Cached - Similar |
1,401 people +1'd this
If Goog and FB are only getting +1 in the thousands, I doubt google has anywhere near enough data to use this for everyone. If a normal site has as many +1s as FB, then something is fishy.
| 8:40 pm on Jun 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
@walkman Those numbers look like +1'd is a failure!
| 9:12 pm on Jun 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
To me, those numbers look like +1 is very new... which it is.
| 9:35 pm on Jun 15, 2011 (gmt 0)|
These are the numbers I get when searching logged in. Twitter had in 1300 range a few days ago, if my memory is correct.
Since none of them have +1 buttons on their pages these must be from those that G shows in SERPS, or Chrome if they added it there. I don't how many times Google has shown them in SERPS so I can't comment on success /failure, but unless or until Google gets a lot of data I can't see the +1 being used for ranking.
| 2:27 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
The Google result is currently the only result I see that displays numbers, and the number I see (at the moment 2,568) is lower than the number you reported earlier (which might have been made up).
To me, those numbers suggest that Google might be trying to encourage us to put +1 buttons on our sites, as I assume that Google assumes that site owners will feel that higher numbers will impress people and perhaps serve as a motivator to click.
Google might then use correlation between +1s and user satisfaction as another data point... though most probably would not use the number by itself as a ranking factor.
| 5:39 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Google might then use correlation between +1s and user satisfaction as another data point... though most probably would not use the number by itself as a ranking factor. |
While many SEO theories are based on correlation, where many tend to bring in the reality saying correlation is not always causation, for google and its heads, correlation is always an affirmation of all the new ranking factors in their algorithms.
| 5:53 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
How many of you believe that Google Engineers tweak their algos to be in sync with those correlating factors (i.e. +1s, Tweets, FB likes, etc.)
| 5:53 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Hello! Does anyone remember site counters? (I was looking for a better "my 3,000th post on WW" but I'm stuck with this one.
Google is sipping kool-aid again... just as their PR (page rank) tanked, so will the +1. There will always be those who will game, just as there are those who will just do biz as usual... though the gamers will be more obnoxious and slippery.
And part of this observation goes back to 1980s BBS vote/poll sites which ended up trashed the same way. Nothing new here, kiddies, just some PhD at the Gplex thinking they came up with something "new".
| 6:08 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Nothing new here, kiddies, just some PhD at the Gplex thinking they came up with something "new". |
You meant "thinking" or "showing off as something new"? But, don't you think they will try to prove themselves right by tweaking the algos to confirm to those correlations?
I wouldn't be surprised if these PhDs bump up the pages with high number of +1s to the top as a marketing gimmick. Why would they care, even if it is gamed, as long as it helps in marketing their widget? They are probably waiting for a decent number of pages with +1s to bump them up.
| 6:18 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
So far, I have heard people arguing that correlation is not causation but then I see two types of causation - Direct and Indirect. There is a high likelihood of correlation being an "indirect" causation, if it were not a direct causation.
But then I can say for sure that these high number of +1s on normal sites will always be several times more gamed than the FB likes or the tweets, as Google isn't providing any user satisfaction by clicking those +1s.
If for google, +1 is to get the users logged in, it is a FAIL in the way it is implemented right now.
| 6:20 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Google's only hope is webmasters promoting it so they will use every trick in the book. It's so important to them that all their 2011 bonus is linked to it.
Robert, I too now get a lower number. ?! I cut and pasted that one too.
| 7:07 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
tangor - Congrats on your 3,000th post.
|Does anyone remember site counters? |
That's exactly the thought I had.
I am seeing that they've returned some of the numbers to other sites. Facebook shows "1,401 people +1'd this". Google still shows 2,568... Seems to be browser, cookie, and sign-in independent.
Maybe this can replace the site: operator as the number people can get perplexed about. ;)
| 7:41 am on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|Maybe this can replace the site: operator as the number people can get perplexed about. ;) |
"Oh Lord!" (as Janis Joplin once sang in longing for a Mercedes Benz) Here we go again! Google gave us PR and took it away (after it was scammed out the wahzoo). Given that things Internet seem to have increasingly short half-lives, how long do we (as webmasters) give it before +1 is also taken away?
In any event, I, personally, am not playing that game.
I do love G for the traffic. I also love B and all the rest (which are getting pretty close to what G WAS giving me)... and I haven't changed anything on MY sites... though I have changed things for clients moaning and groaning and second-guessing (and never heard a word I said about diversification, just do it the right way, and take out regular mainstream ads ... print, radio, tv ... to promote your www.example.whatever)
Those of us in it for the long run know what I mean... it all averages out over decades. And if you're not in it for that time scale, you're in the wrong biz...
| 5:47 pm on Jun 16, 2011 (gmt 0)|
With regard to the original question, though... the +1 is a signal tied to signed-in identity. It is initially at least semi-social, and it goes way beyond the simplistic number count. In that sense, the bare numbers are something of a red herring.
+1 clicks are potentially associated with Google Reader subscriptions, location, search history, Toolbar data, etc, and they carry a lot of data which can give Google a multi-dimensional picture, over time, of who is doing the clicking. What's visible to other searchers depends on the permissions you give Google and the social connections you may or may not make via Google, but even without explicit Google social connections, Google will be gaining a lot of data.
Chances are that initial usage is going to be skewed to boost numbers of online marketers with many followers, but that Google will have more "perspective", you might say, about where the clicks are coming from.
| 1:30 pm on Jul 20, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I think they will do the same as with web pages.
Each google account will have an importance factor for the 1+ given.
Google will use all the technology to filter out fraudulent AdSense clicks also to 1+.
Why is in AdSense sometimes a click $25 sometimes only $0,01?
I assume the importance of the user has to do with this,
the computer in the elementary school,
the computer of somebody with very high puchasing power.
We see only the 1+, for Google it's maybe a 1+, maybe only a 0,00001+
Maybe the click of an university professor in the theme area of the web site is stronger thatn 10.000 clicks from an obscure "Pay for we click 1+ on Your site" service.
Since people produce less and less links to other websites
this is a new method to take oppinions from the web.
| 4:09 pm on Jul 21, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I wouldn't risk not adding +1 to a site.
It is one of many increased factors.