tedster
msg:4415275 | 2:46 am on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Good to hear. Is your new profile pic some kind of headshot? Google's been pretty clear that it needs to be, so keep that in mind in case something shifts.
|
100up
msg:4415453 | 3:12 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
A headshot, really? I never came across that in my reading. I'll have to look again. Our profile pic is just an alternate version of our little logo, which I guess might explain why it's not showing up.
|
Content_ed
msg:4415465 | 3:32 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Yes, Google insists on a headshot. But it does tempt be to replace my picture with a cute redhead girl I know:-)
|
Sgt_Kickaxe
msg:4415470 | 3:44 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Facial recognition software is in play, if that redhead has a public facebook profile or other source of pictures you may actually hurt your own rankings by doing that :)
Just wait until traffic cam pictures join the recognition mix, your speeding habits may play a role in your rank too, mug shot anyone ?
|
rlange
msg:4415481 | 3:56 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| Author information in search results [support.google.com]: If you want your authorship information to appear in search results for the content you create, you'll need a Google Profile with a good, recognizable headshot as your profile photo. |
|
They use the word "need", but I'm not entirely sure if it's a requirement or a very strong suggestion.
--
Ryan
|
potentialgeek
msg:4415506 | 4:52 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
In my sector there's somebody whose picture is his/her left eye. First name is probably not Lisa. Lol.
|
freejung
msg:4415522 | 5:17 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I didn't realize that it needed to be a headshot either. I'll have to change it back. But now I'm tempted to remove my authorship markup, as having a headshot seems to actually hurt my clickthrough.
That's annoying.
|
freejung
msg:4415523 | 5:22 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Hmmm... well, I just thought of a way around the problem, but I'll have to take a new pic and do a bit of post-production work on it: I could make the profile pic a good, recognizable headshot of me holding the relevant object. That might not work as well, but it complies with the directive and is probably better than just my face.
|
aristotle
msg:4415632 | 9:55 pm on Feb 8, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| I didn't realize that it needed to be a headshot either. I'll have to change it back |
|
From what you're seeing, it sounds as if Google isn't enforcing the rule requiring a headshot. Until/Unless they do start enforcing it, why change it back? The higher CTR you're getting in the meantime might even boost your rankings and bring even more traffic.
|
numnum
msg:4415668 | 12:58 am on Feb 9, 2012 (gmt 0) |
Authorship of nonfiction published by a corporation is often attributed to the corporation/publisher rather than to any individual (one or more work-for-hire writers). It would seem to me that the logo of the corporation/publisher/author would be perfectly appropriate and acceptable as a "headshot."
I've read the Google support page (at the link provided earlier in this thread), and it does not address this question -- other than obliquely by way of an example that shows a photo of a corporate logo (GameStop) at the top left of the snippet and the individual author's headshot at the top right of the snippet.
|
gyppo
msg:4415702 | 4:05 am on Feb 9, 2012 (gmt 0) |
I added this to my blog about a month ago & yet to see anything translate through to the SERPS. Works fine when I check against the Rich Snippets tool too.....
|
tedster
msg:4415707 | 4:26 am on Feb 9, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| Authorship of nonfiction published by a corporation is often attributed to the corporation/publisher rather than to any individual |
|
Yup - and Google introduced rel="publisher" mark-up to take care of that case.
|
numnum
msg:4415754 | 8:20 am on Feb 9, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| Yup - and Google introduced rel="publisher" mark-up to take care of that case. |
|
Okay, I thought as much. I would have been very surprised if G had not accounted for this. Thanks for paying attention and for replying, tedster.
|
freejung
msg:4415984 | 5:44 pm on Feb 9, 2012 (gmt 0) |
| Until/Unless they do start enforcing it, why change it back? |
|
Because it's uncertain whether, if/when they do start enforcing it, that enforcement will take the form of simply removing the rich snippet, or reducing rankings. It's not worth the risk.
Besides, I think I can follow the guideline and still get a boost as I mentioned above. If that works, I would prefer to keep the rich snippet. I'll let you know how that goes.
|
|
