| 2:35 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
#3) We have the facebook like BUTTON instead of the like box, because I just figured that is what most sites have. After reading yor description though, I am a little concerned about it causing duplicate content...
Unfortunately, like you, I am clueless about questions #1 and 2.
| 2:49 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Everything I've seen indicates that Google doesn't directly use Facebook data in its search rankings - it doesn't even have access to wall posts, as far as I know. There's a good SEOmoz post on this topic here. [seomoz.org] Bing, though, has pretty deep Facebook integration.
| 3:03 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I don't trust what others do, they might know not much about the subject I'm pretty sure most of people ignores the differences between those 2, and just pick the button because is smaller and easier.
But why are you worried? How that would cause duplicate content?
| 3:17 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|But why are you worried? How that would cause duplicate content? |
Good question. Not to hijack this thread, but what I thought using Open Graph MIGHT do is sort of "republish" your html web page ON facebook pages.
|Your page will appear in the "Likes and Interests" section of the user's profile, and you have the ability to publish updates to the user. |
That to me sounds like my web site page will reappear on facebook user pages. So if I have 50 people who like me, then there would be 50 copies of my html page floating around on facebook user pages.
Then with the massive page rank that facebook enjoys, google would think that my page is a duplicate.
But maybe I don't understand correctly what this all means. And maybe google would naturally assume that anything it crawled on facebook would be duplicate content anyway - not an original source.
So I may be worried over nothing.
| 3:24 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I agree your last thought. To put it simple if I were a Google programmer I'd call that variable "EverythingOnFaceIsNeverDuplicateContent" ;)
BTW your content might be a VERY short time on those other people walls. I think a "fan" "follower" "like" last much longer.
| 3:42 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
'kay, first of all, as I understand it, the Like Box and the Like Button are not the same thing, and are used for different purposes. I use both - it's not an either/or.
The Like Box - think of that more as a roll call of people who have "subscribed" to your Facebook page. Everytime you post something on that Facebook page, they get an update in their feed. It's almost like having a mailing list. On Facebook. So the Like Box exists to persuade people to subscribe to your page on Facebook.
The Like Button is more for the users to share your site's content between themselves. So if someone 'likes' some content on my site, a link to it appears on their wall, and all their friends see that they liked that link, and (presumably) the friends go check it out, and if THEY 'like' it, then THEIR friends see it, and so it spreads.
Facebook would have made this all a lot easier if they'd named things better
There's no way a Like Box is going to generate any duplicate content, and a Like Button - that shows up on the users walls, and I don't think Google even has access to that.
And to answer your initial question - nobody knows the effect it has on Google. I don't personally see how it can have much effect, because they don't get to see most of the data (and it's obviously driving them nuts that they don't - hence the +1 Button. Which, by the way, NONE of my tens of thousands of users have clicked on, while they're busy liking and tweeting stuff like crazy)
I use the Facebook stuff not with a thought of what it can bring me from Google, but because I want to make it as easy as possible for people to share my content. And if it takes ugly buttons and boxes to do it, then I put ugly buttons and boxes up.
Even if Google is using the partial data it may have, it's still going to be only one of hundreds of other factors. Not likely to make or break you.
[edited by: netmeg at 3:49 pm (utc) on Jun 24, 2011]
| 3:49 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the clarification!
| 3:50 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Thanks. Interesting points. Perhaps they will more pendind of +1 than face likes once people starts to use it. At this moment just works for G US english I understand.
But I still think they aren't just ignoring facebook and twitter in the algo.
| 4:58 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Since millions of websites don't display a Like button, or +1 button, or any other kind of button, it's not clear to me how Google can incorporate them into its ranking algorithm, since some sites have them and some don't.
| 5:48 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I don't think that would be an issue: 1 point for those having, 0 point for those haven't.
| 5:50 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I've seen a site with the most Likes in the sector get partly Pandalized. Not sure it has much SEO value. The fact that Google has been late to even refer to Likes as a possible signal for their algo suggests they don't put too much weight on them. There are so many other ways to figure out value and ranking.
But some sites after Google's mere mention of Likes have gone crazy with them, including eBay. Every product gets a Like button. So far I haven't seen one product Liked. I still find the Like button goofy and haven't implemented it on any of my sites. It's clutter.
| 7:23 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|I don't think that would be an issue: 1 point for those having, 0 point for those haven't. |
Why should Google give a site extra credit just for having one of these buttons? To me, they are a sign of a low quality site. And even if it turns out that Google does give credit for them, I'm still not going to put them on any of my sites.
| 7:26 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|To me, they are a sign of a low quality site. |
You're probably an outlier on that one. I don't think most people feel the same way.
| 8:26 pm on Jun 24, 2011 (gmt 0)|
Clutter? A lot of likes (if you show the number) can offer instantaneous social proof to a visitor unsure if they should read on. That's why I wouldn't put a +1 on my sites. A handful of +1's next to substantally higher number of likes just detracts.
| 12:59 am on Jun 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
It seems like bing is starting to use likes more as a ranking factor these days.
I dont think google gives it much weight. Who knows how much weight it will give to +1's. My site has received over 70 +1's so far compared to 20k+ fb likes just to give an example of how many people use it.
Google will never be able to make the +1 as popular as the like button. Here are some reasons:
- Like is the original, +1 will always be a copy of the like and will never be the original.
- the +1 is a social feature, something facebook dominates. Google is king of search, social search is new and if you ask me, probably wont pick up much.
- Facebook does it better. People don't even know what the benefits of +1 are. What are the chances someone you know will be searching for the same exact thing as you? And just because a friend of mine +1'd a website does not mean I will find it as equally relevant as they did, and it will NOT make me more prone to click that result over the others.
In my opinion, facebook has the better position to take over search than google has to take over social media. If facebook put a bing search bar up I can realistically start seeing people using bing over google. The smartest thing bing has done was getting in bed with FB. Lets see how it works out in the near future.
| 3:56 am on Jun 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|- Like is the original, +1 will always be a copy of the like and will never be the original. |
But wasn't myspace once the original?
On a serious note, the +1 slows down page load noticeably so I removed it.
| 4:12 am on Jun 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|But wasn't myspace once the original? |
That's comparing apples to oranges. You can say that yahoo was the original search engine. Myspace never had a "like" type feature.
Facebook is much different than myspace. Myspace did not embrace sharing like facebook does. Myspace's solutions to everything was to block ban and filter what it thought was not beneficial to myspace. That is why there is a facebook login feature on myspace now.
| 5:23 am on Jun 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
All I can say is G is not a fan of FB and vice versa... can't see that one is allowing the other to influence the other... stalemate---AT THIS TIME. We'll have to wait and see how this shakes out. MEANWHILE, I---personally---am not adding third party code to my website that will either:
a: require JS
b: slow site down
c: provide info to an aggregator not willing to share base results with me...
Beware the "free stuff", kiddies... that's how hooks are created, biz is created, and later moans and groans are generated...
| 1:14 pm on Jun 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I suspect that there is a SERP benefit of having people "like" your page because these "likes" show up on many public profiles in the section called "Likes and Interests". These "likes" will link back to your FB page. Once search engines figure out what your FB page is (not hard since it's on your site in the form of a "like" button or box) then all they have to do is count how many different FB profiles link to it.
Search google using the site:facebook.com command and you will find billions of examples.
I don't know if this link will stick, but it's a
| 2:30 pm on Jun 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
I don't know if you guys noticed this but Facebook pages started improving and now rank pretty high for generic keywords.
It's actually pretty ridiculous and spammy when a Facebook page with a very low amount of not very legit Likes and spammy text on the info page ranks for seriously competitive keywords,... but hey why not...Google's decision, right... :)
| 5:02 pm on Jun 26, 2011 (gmt 0)|
|I don't know if you guys noticed this but Facebook pages started improving and now rank pretty high for generic keywords. |
Are the regular user pages showing up in the serps? Or are they the fan pages or group pages? It seems like facebook has several different types of pages, and I for one cannot seem to keep up with them all...