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

[GifAnimator]

This thread is not that odd. I was considering starting a thread to auction of my virginity, now that would be odd.(Or would it...any takers)

The authorship tag is a very interesting and it will sort out the original content. In my case it definItely gives me a better CTR but maybe my face appeals to some of the American housewifes who visit me.

If you have an established website and you are a succesful author in the real world you have no problems and there is no reason not to set up a G+ page, people will want to join your circle because you are famous and you will have an attentive audience with no effort involved. It is not who you have in your circle but who has you in their circle that is important. Just take a look at some of the celebs on G+ and you will see what I mean.

Google+ means different things to different people, in my case I love to interact with people, get advice, give advice and generally chat, if it helps to promote my website (is there evidence of this... maybe) so much the better.

I have not seen any site without articles that has an authorship that has been approved, but I have not looked that hard.

[webindia123]

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

Online presence in G+ would further complement your authority and help in generating more online sales.

Online buyers would be able to know more about your works through peers and circles. So in a way it could be supportive in enhancing sales.

There's no harm having G+ account especially when you are able to attain SERP inventory too.

[webindia123]

This thread is not that odd

Yes its not but I do understand that there are apprehensions for some when new developments happen.

[coachm]

Online presence in G+ would further complement your authority and help in generating more online sales.

Online buyers would be able to know more about your works through peers and circles. So in a way it could be supportive in enhancing sales.

You don't KNOW any of this. You suspect, believe, whatever, but you don't know, and Google isn't saying.

Google NEVER gives enough information about what's in the black box to make for actionable decisions, for anything it does. Some people don't realize that the usually sketchy details given are lacking a huge amount of the iceberg about ALL of the implications of doing something specific -- say using the author tag. Or promoting it.

If there's one thing I've learned over the last years, it's important to distinguish what we know for sure about Google practices (not much), what we think we know, but really don't (most of it), and what we have no clue about (again, almost all of it).

Without the information Google with-holds out of concern for people "gaming the system", whatever you do as likely to work as not work, or have negative unintended consequences. It's all a crap shoot.

I have better things to do with my time than try to guess what google is doing. I'll do my audience a favor.

[Leosghost]

Yes its not but I do understand that there are apprehensions for some when new developments happen.

An Essay on Criticism - Alexander Pope - written in 1709..303 years ago..
The advice is still valid..
lines 624 to 626

"Nay, fly to Altars; there they'll talk you dead;
For Fools rush in where Angels fear to tread.
Distrustful Sense with modest Caution speaks;"

Don't take it personally , but rushing headlong with open arms towards novelty , merely because it is novel..and looks appealing..is foolish..and is how the wise snare the unwary..and the hunter snares their prey..

Online presence in G+ would further complement your authority and help in generating more online sales.

Online buyers would be able to know more about your works through peers and circles. So in a way it could be supportive in enhancing sales.

There's no harm having G+

a very pretty collar that you would put around your neck, it comes attached to a lead, which do not doubt will at some time, be used to pull you where someone else wishes you to go..

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

While I don't feel the same energy as in the religiously toned post above here is something to consider: Don't try to build a profile on every social network if you can't devote the time and resources to make these additional profiles stand apart. It's likely better to not have a specific profile at all than one which is hardly used.

[edited by: Sgt_Kickaxe at 5:17 pm (utc) on Oct 25, 2012]

[GifAnimator]

I do my audience a favour by interacting with them on G+
If I get an authorship tag approved as a bonus and get a lot more visitors I'm not complaining.
Tell me, as an Artist and in no way an SEO expert, what have I got to lose.

[Sgt_Kickaxe]

Tell me, as an Artist and in no way an SEO expert, what have I got to lose.

- time, you're working on someone elses site/content instead of your own
- traffic, occasionally social sites will outrank you with your own content
- respect, occasionally a visitor will be part of a different social site and feel left out... and leave.

Make it easy to connect your site with social sites FOR USERS and their own profiles, of course, but temper the need to create your own web profile(for every site you own) if they don't bring you dividends on your time/traffic/respect. Having a facebook like button is very different than having a facebook profile to maintain.

[Leosghost]

As an Artist/ Sculptor / Designer ( that is what it says on my passport since over 4 decades ;)..I have nothing to gain..in G+

If I get an authorship tag approved as a bonus and get a lot more visitors I'm not complaining.

Put on the "collar and lead" for an "If" ..? ..No Chance! never needed to..did very fine before G+ existed, will do so after G+ is gone..

[GifAnimator]

Sgt Kickaxe

I'm displaying artwork from my website on someone elses site that links to mine, a bonus for me.

I'm definately getting more traffic by having the authorship tag. Up to three times as much.

Maybe an occasional facebook member will leave but I tend to get more unique visits than return ones.

Leosghost, I'm just a simple artist and cannot understand your riddles. Even in my sex life I refrain from wearing a collar.

[Leosghost]

Let's try again..in only 256 colours ;)
You are hitching your star ( yourself) to other companies wagons, and spending time and energy upon making the collars and leads which attach you to them ..when it suites them to "pull" you in a direction that you do not wish to go ( and that will happen ), you will have no choice but to follow, or cut the leash, and in doing so lose the traffic which you have become accustomed to..

If ( when ) they choose to burn their wagon ( G frequently stop "products" or "services" with no real notice.."Orkut" and "Wave" anyone..and the list of abandoned Google projects is much longer than merely those two ) or it runs into trouble and breaks..( my space, bebo etc ) you will discover that your time would have been better spent on your own sites, rather than polishing your collar(s) profiles on the sites of others..

Clear enough..?

[greenleaves]

Let's try again..in only 256 colours ;)
You are hitching your star ( yourself) to other companies wagons, and spending time and energy upon making the collars and leads which attach you to them ..when it suites them to "pull" you in a direction that you do not wish to go ( and that will happen ), you will have no choice but to follow, or cut the leash, and in doing so lose the traffic which you have become accustomed to..

If ( when ) they choose to burn their wagon ( G frequently stop "products" or "services" with no real notice.."Orkut" and "Wave" anyone..and the list of abandoned Google projects is much longer than merely those two ) or it runs into trouble and breaks..( my space, bebo etc ) you will discover that your time would have been better spent on your own sites, rather than polishing your collar(s) profiles on the sites of others..

Clear enough..?

So you'd rather not protect your brand and secure your brands real estate?

It only costs a few hundred and someone can secure yourbrand.whatever.com or whatever.com/yourbrand on 100s of sites. Imagine if someone registers yourbrand.wordpress.com because you thought you didn't have enough resources to make it 'stand out'? Anyone who knows where they stand has heard about cases of brand jacking of web 2.0s.

You must not value your brand very much if you think this is too much effort or not worth it. Yes, I'm helping other, but that is part of being in an ecosystem; isolation is dangerous.

This is regardless of SEO or the trends of the moment. And it only makes sense that google reward those who value their brand and secure their brand name on the currently popular platforms.

[Leosghost]

Better things to do than worry about securing my "brand" by registering it on many sites..( especially on such as a subdomain on wordpress.com )..instead I register trademarks (I do have the resources ;) costs more than a few hundred and is money far better spent ;)..then anyone who tries to 'brand-squat me" on any of these hundreds of sites..is being very stupid because eventually they find that they must pay me and stop..( has happened, my bank account thanks their stupidity ;)..I have "defensive" brand registrations on facebook, twitter ( no intention of doing so on G+ ) those accounts are logged into just enough to keep them active..

But you are confusing "brand" ie "commercial trading entity"..with real name ( as required by G+ )..squat my "brand" on the social media flavour site of the moment and it will result in you talking to my lawyers and cost you ..

My "brand" is registered as a commercial entity in multiple countries..but your willingness to teach me how to suck eggs is touching..

Surprised you have the time, what with all the chasing about registering your "brand" on all of these social sites and platforms..you'd find it a far better use of your time and money to register your brand as a trademark in each country that you are concerned with..

Keeping up with the ever burgeoning "ecosystems" is dissipating..isolation is what distinguishes one from the rest of the crowd..and search engines favour those who distinguish themselves from the rest of the crowd..:))..

The subject of the OP was "author rank"..
"author rank"!="brand"

Do you seriously think that recognised ( outside of search engine and marketing fora, such as this, and the microcosm of SEO fora in general ) authors and artists , bother about having myriads of accounts in their name on every social media site that any bunch of VCs flings at the wall..

That is what PR companies and press agents are paid to do..artists and authors and businesses have ( or should have ) better things to spend their time on..like creating things, or making products..or cooking dinner , and making the occasional post :)

[greenleaves]

Leo, you are 100% right about having a trademark. But I'd rather not have to pay more to lawyers than I already do.

If your audience is on Google + or use products connected to Google + (like google.com), your inflexibility is only to your detriment. You don't have to give your real name; or spell it properly, or use your real photo ;)

I
1- Secure my brand on all possible platforms 2- Monitor platforms for mentions of my brand 3- Actively participate on the platforms where my target demographic participate. This is irrespective of my personal feelings toward that platform; or what google says.

All of this costs relatively little.

While you are condensing and arrogant and reject other ideas, I agree to yours and will incorporate them (there is a country I don't have covered and should get that trademark going). Scoff at me all you like; it is in your interest to be open, not mine.

[Leosghost]

If your audience is on Google +

They are not,( at least not those whom I care about ) they value their privacy more than a G+ "badge" :)

You don't have to give your real name; or spell it properly, or use your real photo ;)

Ah ..But Google insist that one does have to do just all of those things..which is why I won't be joining :)

And I repeat..I have done and am doing and will do just fine , without joining..it is not necessary..the supposed benefits are not worth the real downsides..

And what of apple+ and facebook+ and Twitter+ and yandex+ and yahoo+ and baidu+ and...and ..and ....life is too short, and there are far more interesting and fruitful things to do..

all you have is time..

use it well..

beware of maya..

[diberry]

Google authorship does not build your trust with readers. Most aren't even aware of it. And in most niches, nobody cares what your real name or credentials may be. If you provide good content, that's all they want.

I have found that Facebook pages and Twitter feeds are good ways to let readers tell you what they want from you and/or follow your site. But for the most part, this is hands off.

Except in one niche I've found, where it really pays off to engage personally with readers on Twitter and Facebook. They ask questions, you answer, and they think you're being wonderful and spread the word. But in most niches, readers don't even want you engaging with them and it's not rewarded.

Google authorship may do you some good WITH GOOGLE. But as we've seen time and again, anything that only helps you WITH GOOGLE and not with readers is eventually going to stop helping you.

[GifAnimator]

So, some people are assuming that G+ will go down the pan like some of their other products. I did not see all the effort go into the publicity of the other products that has been given to G+. Lets me honest if this fails it will be a major setback for them so they will put all their efforts into making it a success. This no doubt will mean adding advertising at some stage but they are in it to make money.

I'm with them for the ride, it works well for me at the moment and I will not be pulled by a collar in a direction I do want to go.

For what's its worth, I was selected to become a moderator, because of my artistic abilities, for a social networking website called Wallop started by Microsoft . The signs were there that it would struggle to become a success and it soon faded into obscurity. I get a far more positive feeling about G+

As far as wasting time is concerned, I get a distinct feeling that I'm wasting it here. Is this forum a breeding place for paranoia? Can I catch it? I'm off to do something more constructive.

[greenleaves]

@ leo,

My audience is all over the net, including on Google +. And you are ASSuming I spend much time on it. A VA programs daily updates to all our social media platforms once per 2 weeks. It probably takes him 6 or so very low paid hours. Call me crazy, but the below $1-200 I spend on this per month doesn't seem too exorbitant. And the fact that I'm there while my competitors aren't = priceless.

[webindia123]

Don't take it personally , but rushing headlong with open arms towards novelty , merely because it is novel..and looks appealing..is foolish..and is how the wise snare the unwary..and the hunter snares their prey..

LOLzzz..That lacked conviction and will to embrace new things when one foresees add-on benefit :)

And I bet skeptics are first to join the band wagon when they see positive results.

[webindia123]

Even in my sex life I refrain from wearing a collar

That was some kind of rebutt man to leo :)

[edited by: webindia123 at 9:42 pm (utc) on Oct 25, 2012]

[Leosghost]

Btw..
re

I do my audience a favour by interacting with them on G+

You might want to watch that..if your audience gets the feeling that that is how you feel, that you are doing them a favour, they may well turn from smiling to snarling..especially if they are "American housewifes"[sic]..

If they get wind that you think that you are doing them a favour..? ..Oi vey !
( you might want to read the quote from Giraudoux I posted here [webmasterworld.com]..and work on "appearing sincere" :)..
Any woman or, group of women does not usually appreciate being obviously taken for granted..
or they may start saying "the wrong things" on G+ :)

[Leosghost]

@ leo,

My audience is all over the net, including on Google +. And you are ASSuming I spend much time on it. A VA programs daily updates to all our social media platforms once per 2 weeks. It probably takes him 6 or so very low paid hours. Call me crazy, but the below $1-200 I spend on this per month doesn't seem too exorbitant. And the fact that I'm there while my competitors aren't = priceless.

If the ROI works for you ( actually makes you real money , and more than you have to pay out )..great for you :)..I'm assuming nothing ..but bear in mind ..6 or so very low paid hours isn't going to get you anything other than what you paid for..

Personally I wouldn't let someone on minimum wage be the one to be looking after my brand's public image on social media..not if I thought brand image on social media was important..:)

[edited by: Leosghost at 9:32 pm (utc) on Oct 25, 2012]

[webindia123]

This collar and lead theory is bad argument because if you hate google so much then don't expect them to give visitations to you since they are not obliged to give you FREE visitors.

Its always give and take relationship. Good karma begets trust.

[Leosghost]

They give none of us free visitors ..they send them from their SERPs, which are made up from an agregation of snippets of all of our content , because webmasters do not block them..without webmasters Google would not exist, webmasters will still exist when Google is no more..

Remember Altavista ? Lycos, Alltheweb, Infoseek? Copernic, Yahoo*..?

Webmasters are still here ..where are all of those ?

Google is merely the latest..there will be others along when it has gone or has morphed into something else..

I don't hate them :)..nor do I depend upon them :) ..you should read my posts much more carefully :)..

*how far the once mighty are fallen..many should take heed..

[edited by: Leosghost at 9:49 pm (utc) on Oct 25, 2012]

[webindia123]

As far as wasting time is concerned, I get a distinct feeling that I'm wasting it here. Is this forum a breeding place for paranoia? Can I catch it? I'm off to do something more constructive

My friend as in offline there are all kinds of people here too and you will find contrary counterparts. This is by far the best forum for netizens. This is my third innings with old A :)

And I am happy that you are able to extract more from G+

[webindia123]

nor do I depend upon them

Height of self-pretension :)

[coachm]

Oh, Leo.

You are hitching your star ( yourself) to other companies wagons, and spending time and energy upon making the collars and leads which attach you to them ..when it suites them to "pull" you in a direction that you do not wish to go ( and that will happen ), you will have no choice but to follow, or cut the leash, and in doing so lose the traffic which you have become accustomed to..

Anyone who benefits from google search traffic (and doesn't block them via referrers) is already wearing the collar. I agree with alot of your points here, but this one is just...well...silly. Goog. tracks, knows if you are good or bad, knows your site traffic better than you do, and on and on.

That's if you do nothing. Making use of Goog+ (thanks, not interested either), or any of their other "features" isn't going to make any difference in how tight the rope is around the neck.

They're already screwing me on a regular basis, some days assisting me make a living, most other days, doing the opposite. If I use + or author tags or anything else, no matter. I can't be any "more dead".

[Leosghost]

I'm a long way down the road to having my ecommerce traffic arrive without it ever passing through Google..word of mouth ( and not from social sites ) driven, and repeat business..
I never had a WMT account , never used Ganalytics, don't use adwords, ( but would if I wanted to expand really fast as my margins are of the 600% to 900% in the one sector and upto 2000% in another..so could easily support adwords rates which are cheap in both sectors, totally legit niches ) my target customer base does not do mainstream social media such as G+ groups and/ or facebook etc ( at least not when discussing the first sector ) so I have no need to do so either..

I view all mainstream social media as like public transport, I avoid it as much as possible,( haven't used any form of public transport for over 10 years :) the adsense stuff ? as I've said here before..I suspect that one day G will make public via G+ ( or whatever, if they don't pull the plug on G+ ) the identities of the adsense publishers..they will have to warn before hand those of us not in the USA..

That will be the day that I will close adsense if I think that there is any way that the company I use to "own "my adsense account would be able to lead one back to me personally..

But Europeans ( with the exception of those in the UK ) in general have a different "take" on privacy to most ..and our laws protect us much more from commercial interests intrusions upon our private lives..private data disclosure or use by commercial interests is severely sanctioned..

Btw..those thinking that G+ is a growing phenomena..should realise that Larry is being extremely less than honest with the numbers ..new android phones when switched on now require a mandatory Google account to be created..so the over "400 million and growing" figures include all android phones and devices, and the G+ account is an "opt out"..so a huge number are in G+, but have no idea what it is , and will never use it..and have no idea that is why they see pictures in SERPs..

Larry has personally forced G+ on an unwilling android user base, being a supposed social media "hub" with over 90% of "forced to join, non active members" is not a sound basis for any social media..he has not enticed any significant numbers from facebook ( and facebook is losing it's younger demographic fast ) ..G can make it look like being in G+ is the thing to do for a publisher to do well in their SERPs..they can artificially "boost" some webmasters via "author rank" so as to try to fool more into joining what looks like a successful social platform until one removes the android activations element..

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..anyone who has "hitched their star to it"..and is basking in what they think are traffic figures that will go on forever..and who have based their lifestyles and businesses around those figures..will be complaining as loudly and as long as those who are sudden receivers of the " account has been terminated" letters from adsense ..or who drop 10 pages or more after algo shifts..or who get the "your adwords account is no longer welcome" emails..

Everyone says do not make your business depend on the business of another..very few of us actually take action to put that into reality..most merely look for the "next passing wagon to hitch their star to"..it is interesting to observe their hostility to those who advise otherwise..

@coachm..the above was not inclusive of yourself :)..I remember your "niche"..I am very aware that it is no simple matter to reduce your products / services dependency on traffic from G..nor to take it to word of mouth marketing via non public social media..

for general info..( and also not the first time I have said this in an open thread here- TMS will be telling me I'm "giving it away" again ;)) )..non English language SERPs while affected by G's algos, but not always in the same way, are not subjected to the same pressure, nor to the same apparent "vaguaries"[sic?]( <= my speelchucker sometimes can't spot my Franglais, or underlines things which are OK ? )..if ones "niche" is something that would work in another languages "culture"..and one has been doing well via G, but now is suffering in English language SERPs ( seemingly with no respite other than heavy adwords payments )..I would suggest looking sideways at maybe targeting SERPs in another language for the same "niche"..

It can frequently be very much more lucrative, and easier to be a big fish in a smaller pond..especially one which is less subject to the eye of Sauron..more money, for less effort ( after the initial translations )..and less competition..:)
.

[edited by: Robert_Charlton at 9:40 pm (utc) on Oct 26, 2012]

[SEOPTI]

Just follow the lying spirit and you will be fine LOL, poor sheep.

[J_RaD]

waoh leosghost

/thread :-P

unless lucy wants to come in and try to 1 up you :-)