|But, the day that Google or Larry decide that it no longer suits them to have G+ and the ecosystem they have created and hyped around it ..they will kill it.. |
Yes...may be why not after all every beginning has an end So...
It will not be the end of world for website owners. New avenues will be served which will replace the old stuff. Change is constant and smartly adapting to the changes helps in sustainment.
|Change is constant and smartly adapting to the changes helps in sustainment. |
There's a strong argument that sustainability might be best acheived by diversifying away from Google rather than hooking yourself on to yet another Google product.
Although, with your many-to-one contributor-author model, you are at least subverting the system.
+1 to Leosghost's last post, and also to this from Shaddows:
|There's a strong argument that sustainability might be best acheived by diversifying away from Google rather than hooking yourself on to yet another Google product. |
I had this awakening a couple of years ago, and I've been working on this diversification ever since. On all but one of my sites, Google stopped being the majority traffic provider about a year ago - it's no more than 30% on any of them.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:35 pm (utc) on Oct 26, 2012]
[edit reason] removed off-topic comments [/edit]
|it's no more than 30% on any of them |
Still you cannot ignore google as a source of traffic :)
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:34 pm (utc) on Oct 26, 2012]
[edit reason] removed personal comments [/edit]
|diversifying away from Google rather than hooking yourself |
Yes that's what we are doing in localized campaigns :) But we are not foolish to completely ignore G+.
|Although, with your many-to-one contributor-author model, you are at least subverting the system |
Its not subverting the system. We are not aligning others content; we are collating content which we 100% own. We are giving face to the content adhering to G+ guidelines. If it was not for G+ we would probably not have done so.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:45 pm (utc) on Oct 26, 2012]
[edit reason] removed off-topic comments [/edit]
Thanks, Leo. I really agree with almost all the points you make these days. And, if I have to spend all my time twittering, Fbooking, G+'ing and pretending I'm having meaningrul relationships in order to rank, or get traffic, no thanks. I got into online stuff so I could do what I love, and that's no longer the case. Now, playing this foolish Google game could be a 24hr crapshoot, and I'm not doing it.
[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:42 pm (utc) on Oct 26, 2012]
[edit reason] removed off-topic personal exchange [/edit]
Mod's note (below is part of note I just added to aristotle's Oct 25 post)...
|To everyone discussing this... the question of whether you want to cooperate with Google and sign up for Google+ becomes old very quickly... and is outside the topic of the thread. |
The question of appropriate use of rel=publisher vs rel=author is very much on topic.
The new Google Plus changes does create some issues - specially the authorship ranking.
While this comes as an advantage to some of the early adopters - soon this will be a feature in most blogging softwares.
The next step for Google would probably be the integration of "add to circle" right inside the serps. When that happens they will probably have better customisation of the search results as more of your preferred people/sites start showing up in your search results (which is already happening to some degree).
That's great - but they should probably make sure that they have rich snippet tags for other kinds of businesses too. Like for example Q&A sites, communities like webmasterworld,quora - what I mean is you cannot leave out anything just because it doesn't clearly support a clear line into the social serps of Google Plus.
If rich snippets are to be used then they should start using the favicon or any other new kind of meta data for an image display for the other types of organisational results in the serps to level the playing field.
blah, blah, blah....
Show me the real world impact this has on rankings and traffic - at the end of the day, this is all I care about. So let's cut to the chase and discuss this aspect instead of all this other "stuff".
This is what devalues some of these threads is the irrelevant ranting that goes on. And I thought I had ADD. :-)
|So let's cut to the chase and discuss this aspect instead of all this other "stuff". |
Ok, you go first, I'll followup. I can say a lot answering the direct thread title "Enhancing Author Rank To Boost SEO ?" Since this thread appears to be of interest to you let's hear what you have to say about it then I'll put in some effort to point out valid aspects of this topic that have not been mentioned yet. It may not be today but I'll get back to this thread if you post something worth debating.
|This is what devalues some of these threads is the irrelevant ranting that goes on. And I thought I had ADD. :-) |
Yeah show us some magic "stuff"! :-)
|I'll put in some effort to point out valid aspects of this topic |
Pls go ahead chief and enlighten the community
Sorry, didn't mean to be rude. But the fact is that ALL OF THIS is just speculation. But it helps to rant and think about how this may be working.
|Collation of all archive articles to one particular author |
Just to toss out some thoughts...
- Any possibility of exceeding plausible physical or mental capabilities of a single author? ;)
- Any equivalent in this type of human link tracking to the historical data patent for text links?
| This 104 message thread spans 4 pages: < < 104 ( 1 2 3  ) |