Enhancing Author Rank To Boost SEO ?

[webindia123]

Boosting authorank is sureshot strategy to make sites rank higher; we have seen this recently due to google downplaying link building techniques.

What we are doing

1) google plus
2) FB likes
3) RSS feeds distribution
4) Guest Blogging with links to original article
5) Tweet/Retweets
6) Collation of all archive articles to one particular author
7) Bookmarking
8) ...Your pointer

We were bit apprehensive initially to start the same aggressively but now since we have started, we never wanted this to be a half hearted approach; we are trying out with pointers 1) to 7) and other practices of SEO. Do you have something to add thereafter.

Thanks
- lalit kumar

[aristotle]

Collation of all archive articles to one particular author

Does this mean that you are ascribing articles from other authors to the author you're trying to promote?

[webindia123]

To an extent YES on sources which can be controlled.

- lalit kumar

[aristotle]

So you're using all these methods to artifically boost "author rank" and thereby improve your Google rankings. Some of this doesn't look totally whitehat to me.

[webindia123]

Which of them are not white hat ? ..Can you please be elaborative

[webindia123]

Articles collation is not spamming and cannot be deemed as purely black hat technique because these articles are unique, inforich and most importantly created by our copywriters. The only difference being previously it was attributed to others now it will be assigned to some. So in a way ghost writers are now showing their faces. This is an act to google's demand.

- lalit kumar

[superclown2]

Boosting authorank is sureshot strategy to make sites rank higher; we have seen this recently due to google downplaying link building techniques.

Is it? Is there any evidence?

[aristotle]

I don't think Google would agree that it's okay to ascribe articles written by different people to a single author. I also don't think Google would approve of trying to artificially boost an author's reputation by using the various methods in your list.

[webindia123]

I don't think Google would agree that it's okay to ascribe articles written by different people to a single author

Well its working for us :) and when it works then it means google is finding it responsive to their expectations.

[lucy24]

Or it means that g### hasn't got wise yet.

[webindia123]

@lucy

If it were then SEOing it was not possible till date :p

[webindia123]

Just to update fellow WMs we have also included Q n A sites. Anyone has something more to contribute to our observations.

thnx

- Lalit Kumar

[arikgub]

I don't think Google would agree that it's okay to ascribe articles written by different people to a single author.

Well, Google doesn't seem to care so much when a "single author" ascribes to himself other people's content without consent (aka plagiarism, scraping). So does it really matter when a group of authors work under one pen name. It is even reasonable to make it possible to build "authority" rating for a group like that.

I am quite sure that Google wouldn't like that, but what I am trying to say I guess is that ethically it is not a big deal.

[Shaddows]

I'm confused as to why Google would care whether an Author Identity was composed of one or several people. Which isn't to say they don't, but I can't see why it makes a difference.

To the Identity, there are risks. Obviously the Identity would be limited by the weakest contributor. And an expert in one field could make inaccurate remarks about another topic, impacting overall authority.

There's a nice conspiracy theory that "William Shakespeare" was in fact a pseudoname for a group of playwrites. So historical evidence may be in your favour. Or not.
[Edit - spelling]

[edited by: Shaddows at 2:09 pm (utc) on Oct 15, 2012]

[aristotle]

Of course we already knew that Google's attempt to incorporate author reputation (via Google+) into its rankings algorithm is seriously flawed. This is just one more example of how badly it is flawed.

[webindia123]

Google's attempt to incorporate author reputation (via Google+) into its rankings algorithm

That's what happens when one tries to push unneccesary replicated stuffs to the public riding on the monopolistic presence. And the same can be said on the pre-cursors to their knowledge engine which they are trying to establish. Irrelevant results with minimal choice.

- lalit kumar

[aristotle]

Some years ago when Google launched its Knol project, it seems to me that they touted it as a place where authoritative authors could post articles on subjects in their field of expertise. Knol was phased out after Google+ was launched. But it has never been clear to me why an expert in any field would want to be associated with Google+. Instead, I think that it will mainly serve as a new doorway into the SERPs for spammers like the OP of this thread.

[tedster]

Google "should be" able to tell the difference between articles written by different authors. Certainly there are varieties of linguistic analysis that can do this - they've been around for years and years. I'm not saying Google does this right now - just that they could use it as a tool to protect against "author spamming" attempts.

That said, I do know of one case where a group of well established authors were writing for a website and their content was being outranked by scrapers. The authors all agreed to setting up Google+ authorship for their articles and within just a few weeks, the scrapers fell away. YMMV, of course, and even though the timing was very suggestive, the site did make other changes at the same time.

I do think, with the right care and feeding, Google can make something good of author mark-up. I can even see that links from an article written by a well authenticated author might get some kind of boost in their effect some day.

[aristotle]

The authors all agreed to setting up Google+ authorship for their articles and within just a few weeks, the scrapers fell away.

So somehow becoming a member of Google+ increases your authority, or at least it increases the perceived quality of your work (in Google's eyes).

[SevenCubed]

I don't think webindia123 should be concerned about amalgamating various authors under one name. IMO I think google doesn't give a darn about it in any way. They are just using it as bait to get people to sign up for google+. Early on they might promote a few to make it appear that it's worth while just so they can get more people into it, to get more people always signed in, to mine even more data.

[webindia123]

@aristotle

Instead, I think that it will mainly serve as a new doorway into the SERPs for spammers like the OP of this thread.

First you say that google algorithm is flawed then you pose to be ethical SEO by deeming our original content collation as spamming. We had originally asked for some good suggestions which you never gave but diverted the discussion to other topic and we are sharing our strategies and experience with others. We are not asking for validations we are asking for some good moves. Since google is the last source to validate what we do is right or wrong reflecting in their SERP. So if you have some juicy suggestions then it will be good for the discussion; its easy to done ethical cap but as per your position no SEOr can claim that he or she is ethical SEO because link building itself is deemed spamming by google :)

Its very easy to criticize, so please give pointers how you can boost author rank ?

[webindia123]

IMO I think google doesn't give a darn about it in any way

Just hope that was true and we would have saved a lot of time and money.

Albeit I strongly agree to your point that this could be their ploy to mine data more closely.

[aristotle]

webindia123 wrote:
First you say that google algorithm is flawed then you pose to be ethical SEO by deeming our original content collation as spamming.

You must think it's flawed too, otherwise you wouldn't be trying to use fake methods to artificially boost rankings. As for spamming, take a look at your own list -- it's exactly the kind of list that a spammer would create.

[arikgub]

otherwise you wouldn't be trying to use fake methods to artificially boost rankings

What is "fake"? Everything in the OP's list, except may be no. 6, is pure and legit marketing. Should probably be a part of everyone's marketing plan.

[SevenCubed]

What is "fake"? Everything in the OP's list, except may be no. 6, is pure and legit marketing.

I'd like to say this concerning #6. As someone who writes web content on behalf of other companies to earn part of my income, the matter of this author tag is nonsense. Historically offline they were known as ghost writers, and still are.

If someone hires me to write an article or a series of articles as far as I'm concerned once I hand it over to them they OWN it. They can attribute it any way they want. They paid for that right. I have no desire or ego to appease that needs to have it attributed to me.

Large companies might have many such writers they tap for content. Some companies may want to attribute it to a guest writer while others may not, it's their choice. Still larger ones probably have in-house writers. The content those writers produce will often times outlive the employee's tenure at that company. It makes perfectly good sense to attribute all writing to one author or even the company itself.

And don't make the mistake of thinking that because it was written by someone other than the person presenting it as theirs that it's any less authoritative. I write on a very wide swath of topics of interest and most of the time I have to spend a few hours, sometimes a day, interviewing the person that I'm writing on behalf of. It's not my knowledge, I'm only doing my best to express their objectives in a creative manner -- something that might not be one of their strong points. Right now for example I'm writing about accounting, bookkeeping, and personal income taxes -- YUCK, with a capital YUCK. But it won't be apparent to the reader because I am simply putting the owners passion into creative words -- that part I do enjoy. It's like bringing his passion to life and giving it a personality through imagery. I love that type of challenge.

[aristotle]

What is "fake"? Everything in the OP's list, except may be no. 6, is pure and legit marketing. Should probably be a part of everyone's marketing plan.

arikgub - In this case it's all being done to artificially boost a site to higher rankings than it actually deserves on its own merits. Maybe you call that marketing, but I call it duplicity.

[webindia123]

Maybe you call that marketing, but I call it duplicity

That made me laugh again ..no suggestive pointers yet and barging to divert discussion to argumentative level, you might be doing the same as can be seen from your previous posts here but still not admitting them :)

[webindia123]

And don't make the mistake of thinking that because it was written by someone other than the person presenting it as theirs that it's any less authoritative.

You summed it up so nicely thats the magic of creative content writer.

- lalit kumar

[aristotle]

And don't make the mistake of thinking that because it was written by someone other than the person presenting it as theirs that it's any less authoritative.

I agree with this too. It's Google that doesn't understand it. The main point I've been trying to make is that Google's use of the author tag in their algorithm is a flaw. It's a flaw that Webindia wants to exploit. But it's a flaw that I want Google to get rid of.

[nomis5]

Whatever Webindia says, the real point he has highlghited is:

does the author of an article (the G+ author) influence the position of that article in the SERPS?

Webindia is implying that it may well be possible. Is that true? What are your experiences? Has he /she identified something that no one else has?