GWT - Author Stats Decimated - Why?

[Sally Stitts]

In April, I had 96 "Verified Author Pages", when Google removed "Author Stats" from Google Webmaster Tools.

Now that "Author Stats" has returned, I have 41. Where did my other "Verified Author Pages" go?

Today, the number SHOULD BE greater than 250.

My concern - I had to "upgrade" my "Google Authorship Code" THREE times on EVERY page, because Google kept changing the required code that they wanted to see, due to several half-baked, early recommended implementations, not to mention 3 different "methods"?

Has Google changed that YET AGAIN, requiring more hoop-jumping, in order for you to be recognized as the author? Have they finally settled on a standard way to do this? If not, my next author code modification will be removal, in order to prevent the annoying, endless, required "upgrades".

I am interested in knowing if you are seeing something similar, and what your solution was (is).

Thank you for shedding any light on this topic.

[lucy24]

What the ###?

Honestly, I spend more time at GWT keeping track of added, deleted or moved features than I do getting information. Now they're saying ZERO verified pages.

Has Google changed that YET AGAIN

Sure looks like it. Grr. Well, the new version had darn well better be in the body text because that's where my SSI put it before.

Don't have an email address on the same domain as your content? Follow the instructions listed in Option 2 below.

Well, OF COURSE I don't get email at my domain. My name isn't amazon dot com. I'm not an ISP. I've got a "webmaster@" address, but that's about it.

# Check that you have a [sic] email address (for example, [e-mail]) on the same domain as your content (wired.com).
# Make sure that each article or post you publish on that domain has a clear byline identifying you as the author (for example, "By Steven Levy" or "Author: Steven Levy").

And, Option 2:

Create a link to your Google+ profile from your webpage, like this:

<a href="{profile_url}?rel=author">Google</a>

Replace {profile_url} with the your Google+ profile URL, like this:

<a href="https://plus.google.com/109412257237874861202?
rel=author">Google</a>

Your link must contain the ?rel=author parameter. If it's missing, Google won't be able to associate your content with your Google+ profile.

###. THEY CHANGED THAT. You used to be able to say <a rel = "author"> with just the Profile ID.

Well, off to edit the SSI... plus all the Index pages that don't use it. And thank heaven I did put it in the Include.

[Andem]

In my experience, a

<link rel="author" href="https://plus.google.com/NNN" title="First Last" />

works fine.

I've always used a [e-mail], so I can't say whether that makes a difference. I think the whole authorship programme is shenanigans to begin with.

It's all tied to Google+; we're all being forced to create a Google+ account in order for Google to be able to boast numbers and create investor confidence. The whole thing was never thought-out and therefore more measures are being put into place to verify claims of authorship.

[netmeg]

I gave up. Nothing I ever tried, no matter how many sets of instructions or blog posts I followed would ever work. Couldn't get em to work for clients either. Can't be done.

[lucy24]

:: after going cross-eyed poring over htaccess in search of explanation of persistent "blank page" response ::

Grr.

htaccess says:

# googlebot spoofers
RewriteCond %{REMOTE_ADDR} !^66\.249\.
RewriteCond %{HTTP_USER_AGENT} Googlebot
RewriteRule (\.html|/)$ - [F]

logs says:

74.125.126.96 - - [27/Jul/2012:18:50:26 -0700] "GET /fonts/ HTTP/1.1" 403 862 "-" "Googlebot-richsnippets"

Awright, off to edit...

Extracted Author/Publisher for this page
author
linked author profile = [profiles.google.com...]

I suppose it's too much to ask that when you click on a link called "More information" or "Why not?" .. you would get an answer relevant to the specific page and response that prompted you to ask for an explanation.

But, hey, as long as I was editing, I decided that those Address elements were just too retro for words, and-- don't everyone gasp at once-- deleted a fistful of 'em. Besides, g### reads them as content rather than as information, so they don't do the job they would have done in, er, 1999.