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]

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

Whether it does or not, a lot of people believe that it does, or at least will in the future.

Google is under the delusion that famous writers, leading researchers, top experts, etc, will join Google+ and start using the author tag. In reality, the vast majority that use it will be unknowns who think that it will give their work a boost in the SERPs.

[jimbeetle]

Of course, there's no way to definitively say one way or the other whether it's being used to influence the SERPs (I happen to believe it is as I don't think G would put so much time and effort into it without using it), but it is being seen in the SERPs more and more. See what they're saying at Pubcon. Yesterday's preso [pubcon.com] by Greg Boser (former WebmasterWorld admin WebGuerrilla [webmasterworld.com]) has this takeaway:

This means that links on the Web will be weighted more by WHO the link comes from rather than WHERE the link comes from. A link from Mashable is great…but it now matters who wrote the piece. Putting it into search times, Greg says that a link from Danny Sullivan on Search Engine Land is going to be worth more than a link from Barry Schwartz because Danny has a greater circle.

[CainIV]

I would ensure the following if you follow and endorse the principle of Author Rank

1. Ensure sites and appropriate accounts are tagged properly and 100% complete. Use rel author tagging at your blog / content area at a minimum. Ensure you link from your social media pages to your website and blog directly

2. Build a G brand page as well. There will likely be some future changes in that regard and it takes very little time to implement while implementing authorship

3. Get a Gravatar if you do not already have one, and try and use the same email and similar profile details / image as you do in SM accounts

4. Build guest posts and targeted placements trying to adhere strongly to the above profile information. Use the opportunity to link to your Social media accounts (for branding / connection reasons, but also for reinforcement reasons)

5. Tweeting / Retweeting is helpful. Build campaigns which include your author name where possible


5. Try and build further campaigns in Adwords if budget permits based on your name as well.

[webindia123]

Try and build further campaigns in Adwords if budget permits based on your name as well

Just add to your point, yep targeting those authoritative pages might help to even increase quality score. So it could be win-win for SEM campaign.

- lalit kumar

[webindia123]

...However, Google has since figured it out. This is important because one of the key issues with rel=author was portability. Sites wanted to make sure they wouldn’t lose authority if one of their big writers changed jobs and took their content with them. As long as the publisher site keeps pointing to the content, they won’t lose authority. The system would kind of fall apart if they did.

Which means they do suggest fully owning the content if its originally written by your own copywriters. Major postive take away from [pubcon.com...] and in a way advocating collation to one ownership too; which we are already doing currently taking it to next level of owning it completely and not merely for citational purpose.

thanks for the link

- lalit kumar

[webindia123]

But the incentive offered by Google for having that ownership could actually be far more powerful! This is because the lack of ownership could be a big risk toward rankings. And it’s vitally important – Google wants to rank content based on the reputation and trustworthiness of an author – so there’s a big opportunity to get rewarded for this if you’re on board.

The article here in again reinstating the major change in the approach of SEO that we do today. Just hope we are going thr right way.

[searchenginewatch.com...]

- lalit kumar

[webindia123]

The importance given to people over links gives 'feel good' factor to SEO. Nice :)

[aristotle]

What if Google realizes that the vast majority of people using the author tag are spammers? Then your scheme will fail, and all the time and effort you spent on it will be wasted.

[webindia123]

...all the time and effort you spent on it will be wasted

You seem to be a novice in SEO; otherwise you would have known there are multiple avenues which enables SEO. And it never crashes with dilution of one of the factors. Albeit it impacts SERP presence temporarily and that's why SEO sustained and is here to stay.

Google is spending time and effort to make G+ a more followed tool. This author rank in a way complements that. And if you ignore now because of thinking that it can be debarred later then its laughable because any updates that google favours when embraced quickly help in propelling SEO.

Since the emergence of SEO, there were some factors which were accepted and got evolved with their importance while others perished. We have over a decade experience in online marketing. And we know when one medium stops then other avenues would surely come out.

And still if you cannot agree and lets agree to disagree. No point in discussing with someone who don't want to adapt as per new conditions :)

- lalit kumar

[SevenCubed]

@webindia123

Why don't you pop over into a thread I started a few days ago that and say hi [webmasterworld.com...] -- I would like to debate the author tag as compared to the existing schema.org markup that already existed before this google version. I may not have time for full posts today but I really would like to get to the root of google's intention. But I'll ask you this right now; would you be as eager to plunge into this if it were not for the possible SEO benefit (you do realize that google is trying to buy your loyalty don't you)? I really don't see there being any long-term benefit at all. It's just yet one more layer of noise in the quest to constantly play the popularity game. It was dead on arrival just like google+ was. I think we could have a good discussion about it. I'll go sharpen my pencils just in case you drop by :)

[webindia123]

I think we could have a good discussion about it. I'll go sharpen my pencils just in case you drop by

Sure Sevencubed :)

[jimbeetle]

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

^From way up above^

@aristotle
Why not? It happens everday in the real world, writing and execution are not the same as authorship.

From my personal experience: El-Hi textbook are usually written by teams of maybe 20 to 40 writers, copyeditors, content editors, artists and more. These folk execute the overall direction of a team of authors, those who never write a word but whose names go on the cover.

And let's take "by news service." How many writers are behind that author?

And it happens in the art world.

An artist gives a model of a sculpture to a foundry. The workers cast it full size in bronze. The artist is the author.

The artist Christo didn't actually execute any of his works, thousands of other people did, but he's credited as the author.

If it's a legitimate real-world practice why shouldn't it be a legitimate Internetz practice?

[Leosghost]

An artist gives a model of a sculpture to a foundry. The workers cast it full size in bronze. The artist is the author.

In the case of casting, the artist, whenever possible, supplies the full size original from which the molds are made.. rarely in casting does the artist supply a reduced size model and leave the foundry to make the intermediate molds and the full size final cast from it..( because doing so complicates the possibility of the artist adjusting or making aesthetic changes required due to the change of size ) unless the final casts are very large*..

However some modern / minimalist / conceptualist sculpture is made from less than "final size" models supplied by the artist(s)..
[en.wikipedia.org...]
( a close neighbor of mine when I lived in the South of France ) makes most of his works this way since the last decade or so at least..

Twisting railway track and construction girders and large section metal bars requires industrial machinery..so the final work is farmed out to "industry", to conform to supplied "models"..

*There are increasing numbers of modern artists who do use this "production line" method though, Damien Hirst is an artist who "farms out "the creation of full size casts from maquettes.."Verity" is an example..He also "farms out" the final realisation of many of his other works ..including many which are not cast..

[aristotle]

I don't think Google would agree that it's okay to ascribe articles written by different people to a single author.
^From way up above^
@aristotle
Why not? It happens everday in the real world, writing and execution are not the same as authorship.

jimbeetle -- I don't see anything wrong with multiple authorship and multiple production efforts either. I also know that many authors use pen names, and many famous people use ghost writers. And I have no problem with that either.

But in this particular case the OP apparently intends to hide the fact of multiple aithorship, and in addition, intends to use spam techniques to create a fake reputation for this fake author. That's what I was referring to when I said "I dont think Google would agree."

[webindia123]

If it's a legitimate real-world practice why shouldn't it be a legitimate Internetz practice?

Yes why not when you own the content which is fresh, unique and info-rich.

----

Twisting railway track and construction girders and large section metal bars requires industrial machinery..so the final work is farmed out to "industry", to conform to supplied "models"

Yep that applies to some extent on web development process too involving coders to designers to marketing and more.

----

...intends to use spam techniques to create a fake reputation for this fake author. That's what I was referring to when I said "I dont think Google would agree."

All others in the thread have restated again and again that if you are owning the content then there no harm in attributing it to one author or company profile.

But then sometimes its hard to swallow pride even if the world tries to convince. Again suggesting, its better to follow smart techniques since google prefers it, then preach hollow arguments.

Still no one has seen any strategy from your side on boosting author rank but arguments without any substance LOLz

Google is spending time and effort to make G+ a more followed tool.

Just browsed today to get any contrary views to our methodology and found that many others in several SEO forums discussed on strategies of boosting author rank.

And what they are suggesting is SMARTNESS and not SPAM :)

- lalit kumar

[GifAnimator]

< moved from another location >
Split off from [webmasterworld.com...]


I have checked many websites where a photo in the results is present and I have yet to find a spammer. I would suggest you do the same.
I have my photo in the results and since this has been implemented by hits have increased threefold.

As I have said before, Google have made the authorship tag extremely difficult to spam.
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:42 pm (utc) on Oct 24, 2012]

[aristotle]

GifAnimator -
Your post is a perfect illustration of the fundamental problem with Google's author tag. Because somehow, as soon as you implemented it, your site apparently acquired a lot more authority and value in Google's eyes. That's nonsense, but it's also exactly why the author tag is so attravtive to spammers. And Google's past efforts to stop spaamers have mostly failed -- I doubt it will be any different this time.

[GifAnimator]

I should point out that it is my CTR that has increased...
The tag has been in operation for roughly a year and I see no spammer activity yet... show me some.
I think you lack an understanding of how Google+ works.
I'm offended that you think my site does not deserve more authority, I'm sure my regular visitors would disagree with you but its all to my benefit anyway so your comments are irrelevant,

[aristotle]

GifAnimator
Evidently you don't think there's anything wrong with Google sending extra traffic to anyone who's willing to cozy up to them, no matter what the quality of their website. Nor do you seem to care about the overall quality of Google's SERPs. Personally I don't care how much traffic you website gets. If you're willing to give Google your real name, that's up to you, but I feel differently. I didn't put my real name on any of the books I've written, but that hasn't stopped them from selling. And I didn't put my real name on any of my websites, but that hasn't stopped them from doing far better as a group than I originally expected. So if you want to cozy up to Google, go ahead. But don't expect everyone to do so.

[webindia123]

I think you lack an understanding of how Google+ works

Yes you are right his arguments seems to suggest so.

[GifAnimator]

I care passionately about the quality of Google serps and there is a lot wrong with them but I can see G+ helping to improve them. I had to chuckle at the suggestion that I want to cozy up to Google because my past history would certainly show different.
All this talk about being able to spam using the authorship tag is interesting. I'm just a simple artist who does not care to boast about his blog, could someone explain how this might be possible.

[webindia123]

Because somehow, as soon as you implemented it, your site apparently acquired a lot more authority and value in Google's eyes. That's nonsense, but it's also exactly why the author tag is so attravtive to spammers...

And

If you're willing to give Google your real name, that's up to you, but I feel differently. I didn't put my real name on any of the books...

Now that thought itself makes you a faker and not ethical. Because google wants to give weightage to real PEOPLE and not artificial LINKS so I think that its human rank that has future in social emergence of internet. And google might be right in giving importance to people (experts in their field).

Infact due to acceptance of this author rank SIGNAL, spam links would not be helpful in future SEO. And we will find real PEOPLE (experts) sustaining in this new social search engine optimization- I think that's what future SEO will become. Which in my view is great for SEO and google SERP quality.

And by that logic of yours. So even matt cuts [which has over 0.2 million circles, uses real name and has pic too] is SPAMMER :). That's ridiculous. Please be realist friend as seeing everyone with biased and myopic thought process would not make others think of you as a contributing poster, at least me as others was never impressed with your arguments.

- lalit kumar

[webindia123]

I'm just a simple artist who does not care to boast about his blog

So even if you do try to boast your blog by promoting it then its not unethical till you are giving users info-graphical, rich and fresh content to browse through. I think you should genuinely promote your content.

The problem with good content till some months ago was that they lacked SEO tactics and were buried in deep index due to google's flawed biasedness towards diversified link spams. But now its not so, great content would find followers and readers who would share it with their peers. So quality CONTENT IS STILL KING ;).

[GifAnimator]

What is also overlooked is that G+ is an ideal platform for creative people to interact, show off their creations and promote their wares without any need of a website. You do have to give your real name, and very little other personal information. It has a reputation for having members that are professional and the TOS is far better than facebook.

Spam profiles disappear very quickly and it is very easy to see the reputation of an author by looking at his post, his friends authority, how many original words have been written, how many members in his circle from all over the world, how many plus ones and countless other signals Google will pick up. It may not be an important factor for SEO but every little bit helps.

Maybe the next step for Google will be to promote the little snippets that appear on the search results and openly say that these sites can be trusted although many people I know are beginning to realise this because of the quality of any site that has an authorship tag approved.

It takes so long to get approval that many here are sure that websites are checked manually.

[webindia123]

Maybe the next step for Google will be to promote the little snippets that appear on the search results

Sharing and circle strength of that particular author would be/is one of the deciding factor to make it seen prominently in SERP.

I would suggest deep drilled screening; it should be done on content to content basis otherwise even low quality content from that author could be seen floating above the fold; enjoying huge authorship and authority. Humans do make mistake.

Google is in a way trying to promote G+ and in doing so helping original high quality copywriters. Its win-win for all. Google's purpose is to make G+ to authors what FB likes is to SMO marketers. Though FB likes became ego booster for competitor brands and marketing pitch for SMO campaigners (which gave rise to >50% of fake FB likes, in a race to be seen as preferred brands). Have seen many brands gaining likes 4 fold in a week or so w/o any offline campaigns. Though FB is curbing them too.

Hope G+ doesn't lead to such situation, and I strongly believe it would lead to better utility for users and SEOrs.

- lalit kumar

[aristotle]

A moderator of this forum has asked me to curtail my remarks about potential dishonest use of the author tag. I can understand the reasons for this request and will comply with it. However, I would like to comment on a statement by webindia, in which he wrote, referring to me and my use of pen names:

Now that thought itself makes you a faker and not ethical

Actually many authors have good reasons for using pen names. In my case, I've always used obvious pen names such as "lost soul' or "truth seeker". I haven't used those particular names, but am just throwing them out as examples ot the type of names I've used. Since they are obvious pen names, there is no deception.

And the main reason I've used pen names is because nearly all of my writing, for both books and websites, relates to controversial social and political issues. If I were to use my real name, then some extremest or fanatic might find out where I live, then come in the middle of the night and try to burn my house down. There is a long tradition of authors using pen names for reasons such as this, and most publishers have no problems with it. But I don't know whether Google allows their author tag to be associated with pen names, or whether a photo is mandatory in their system.

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say about this subject, so won't be making any more posts in this thread.
.

Mod's note: Aristotle... you are taking my comments out of context. We cannot discuss the potential for use by spammers of the Author tag on every single thread on which the subject of the author tag appears. That is why I moved your exchange with GifAnimator to this thread, as that aspect of the topic was already being discussed here.

If webindia123's techniques seem to be outside Google's suggested guidelines, though, you're perfectly welcome to discuss his specific techniques here.

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.
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 7:55 am (utc) on Oct 28, 2012]

[GifAnimator]

Aristotle, I had suspected that you used a pen name for reasons that you have given. Even then it takes a brave man to publish controversial social and political content.

On Google+ you are allowed to use a nickname but you still have to give your real name in your profile details. If you use the suthorship tag you need a full face photograph and as much as I would like to put a sexy blond showing of her nice bits it is not allowed.

I wish you luck with your website and do not expect to bump into you on G+ although I'm sure we could have some very interesting conversations.

[webindia123]

Being pro member in the same blog, I seem to ignore free articles...sometimes :p but just found one of the better article on preparing for Author Rank to make yourself stay ahead of crowd :)...sharing the link

Its a month old but worth the check...wikipedia, slideshare and youtube inclusion seems to be a good approach.

[seomoz.org...]

Here’s my shortlist of factors that Google is likely to use in their calculation:

*The average PageRank of an author’s content.
*The average number of +1s and Google+ shares the author’s content receives.
*The number of Google+ circles an author is in.
*Reciprocal connections to other high AuthorRank authors.
*The number and authority of sites an author’s content has been published to.
*The engagement level of an author’s native Google+ content (i.e., posts to Google+).
*The level of on-site engagement for an author’s content (i.e., comments and author’s responses to comments)
*Outside authority indicators (e.g., the presence of a Wikipedia page).
*YouTube subscribers and/or engagement on authored videos (speculation: multiple-attribution author markup for YouTube videos coming soon).
*Any number of importance/authority metrics on social networks that Google deems trustworthy enough (Twitter, Quora, LinkedIn, SlideShare, etc.).
*Real world authority indicators like published works on Google Books or Google Scholar.

[coachm]

What an odd thread.

First, if I recall, the proper way to indicate authorship when it's someone else, and you are republishing is to use the rel=publisher. Again, if I recall, Google is fine with this kind of attribution, but clearly the rel=author tag is not a good fit, in most of these situations.

As regarding boosting author profile, I guess this is part of marketing, but I have better things to do than spend my time doing that. Many people would rather create, or help, or do other things that bring more satisfaction. I USE the author profile tag. I think it's a good thing. But I'm not hanging around Google+ just to "establish myself". If that's what it takes to be an authority, not interested. I'm already a real world authority.

As a successful book author in the "real" world, I'll tell you that if I went to my publisher and said I wanted my next book to be published under a different name (without a good reason), they'd go nuts. Branding is critical in book sales.

On anonymity in Google. Ok. Personally, I have very little desire to interact with, or read material authored by "goombaboy". I don't give credibility to people who don't identify themselves, until they have a strong record, as is the case with a lot of vet posters here, but I understand situations where one is concerned about safety. Hey, up to you.

[Tonearm]

Can this be applied to an ecommerce site without articles?