| 11:14 am on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The "wall" prevents Google from getting data directly from Facebook. It does not prevent Google from noticing things via chrome browsers, android devices, isp data logs, websites running adsense/analytics and other potential sources. I am not trying to make people feel paranoid but let's be honest there are just many different possible ways to collect data.
If you bought a 1000 fake facebook likes from Fiverr or Craigslist, then you you probably won't see any big boost. If you gained 1000 real facebook likes because you gained 1000 new happy customers, then you will likely see a boost due to a collection of many indirect reasons.
| 6:55 pm on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
They are 100% real likes. I just hope it means something. Thanks for the info.
| 7:16 pm on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
You can use [schema.org...] , but I've no idea if Google would use it.
| 7:53 pm on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Regarding levo's the schema.org suggestion, it's in a section called UserLikes...
|Thing > Event > UserInteraction > UserLikes |
It's intriguing to me that schema.org has such a section. See the bottom of the page which provides an overview of the types of potential interactions (ie, one level higher in the breadcrumb) for more details...
The page lists more specific types of interactions, and also provides sample code showing how any of these might be set up...
| 8:19 pm on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Hmm, that's interesting.
| 9:45 pm on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Hmmm, yes. Seems like you might almost need a wide spectrum analytics package to input it all into your code.
| 10:08 pm on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Something to keep in mind:
Google has said that "social signals" are "noisy," and that its own Google+ signals aren't ranking factors. So I'd be skeptical about the notion that Google would use Facebook "Likes" as a ranking factor even if tracked such data.
Even when they aren't being gamed, "Likes" are pretty meaningless. With a link, someone has to at least go through the motions of creating a citation. Facebook Likes, on the other hand, occur for all kinds of reasons: to be polite, to support a friend, to say "I think that's cute," to get a discount, to enter a giveway, and so on. (The latter two reasons alone should be enough to make Google leery, since the Likes are, in effect, being bought.)
| 10:59 pm on Jan 2, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Regarding the noisiness of "Likes", here's a discussion about what their potential value (and non-value) might be and what they might or might not signify... very much worth reading...
Seven Days of Getting Likes
Also... the schema markup noted above is focused on a very narrow area (events). It's granular enough that it seems to provide some potential for actual analysis... albeit I suspect it would take huge amount of data over a long period of time. It's also not likely that any schema data is going to provide ranking signals on its own, so schema that tracks social signals is a further step removed from being a direct ranking factor.
That said, schema is helpful for Google to use in sorting out aspects of your content. If you think your social signals will benefit from that closer scrutiny, using schema in conjunction with social might be a long term approach worth exploring, but it's very difficult to say that it will. I doubt that "this week", as the OP asks, will enter into it much.
| 1:53 am on Jan 3, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Hmmm, yes. Seems like you might almost need a wide spectrum analytics package to input it all into your code. |
That reminds me, you can also implement 'social plugin analytics' if you're using Google Analytics - once again assuming that Google would use the data. You can also switch to AddThis/ShareThis plugins [analytics.blogspot.com...]
| 2:17 am on Jan 3, 2014 (gmt 0)|
From schema dot org:
|Original HTML: |
1. How to Tie a Reef Knot
2. by John Doe
3. This article has been tweeted 1203 times and contains 78 user comments.
1. <div itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Article">
2. <span itemprop="name">How to Tie a Reef Knot</span>
3. by <span itemprop="author">John Doe</span>
4. This article has been tweeted 1203 times and contains 78 user comments.
5. <meta itemprop="interactionCount" content="UserTweets:1203"/>
6. <meta itemprop="interactionCount" content="UserComments:78"/>
How does the search engine know that those are real numbers derived from actual tweets/likes/plusses and not just the page designer's unsupported word?
:: idly wondering what types of material would benefit from a high number of reported UserBlocks ::
| 7:32 pm on Jan 5, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|Selling Social Media Clicks Becomes Big Business |
Celebrities, businesses and even the U.S. State Department have bought bogus Facebook likes, Twitter followers or YouTube viewers from offshore "click farms," where workers tap, tap, tap the thumbs up button, view videos or retweet comments to inflate social media numbers.
You can read the full article at [npr.org...]
| 8:04 pm on Jan 5, 2014 (gmt 0)|
The U.S. State Department spent $630,000 on phony Facebook fans? I guess that's one way to funnel foreign aid to Bangladesh!