Google Authorship Markup VS CreativeWork Micro Data Schema

[SevenCubed]

I don't have a google+ account but need to understand the recent developments concerning them promoting the use of the authorship markup. I've analyzed what I feel is a comparable method of authorship markup via the schema.org micro data use of the CreativeWork tag and it's supporting 20+ sub categories for refinement [schema.org...]

My question in general is how do they differ and why wouldn't google simply encourage use of the schema.org version that is accessible to all authors without need to have a google+ account. If their intention is really to help authors rather than themselves why are they making the obstacle higher than it needs to be by requiring someone to have a google+ account?

Or maybe due to my lack of knowledge concerning the google+ version I am totally not understanding that their is a difference between google authorship markup vs the creativework micro data schema?

[aristotle]

I've not a member of Google+ either, but from what I've read, their member authors get their photo in the SERPs, and Google may regard their writing as somehow more authoritative and give it a boost in the rankings. Some have suggested that Google is so desperate for new members that they are trying to use incentives to get people to join.

[aristotle]

My understanding is that for some of the other tags, such as nofollow and canonical, Google worked with Microsoft, Yahoo, and others as partners to establish the rules and conventions for their usage? But apparently Google didn't do this before they introduced their author tag. Is my understanding correct?

[levo]

They are different. You don't need to add Microdata markup to claim authorship of the page.

[google.com...]

[aristotle]

levo
I think the question, at least in my mind, is why did Google choose to go it alone on the author tag, instead of using existing microdata tags, or partnering with Microsoft, etc.

[aristotle]

Another aspect of this just occurred to me: Google's special author tag creates a doorway for spammers to boost their rankings in Google, but there isn't an equivalent doorway for spammers to get into Bing. Ultimately this could mean that Google's SERPs contain a lot more spam than Bing's, if they don't already.

[GifAnimator]

It may be not so easy for spammers to boost their rankings with the authorship tag if Google allocates a certain amount of trust to a site according to the quality, quantity of articles and the authority and amount of members within your Google+ circle. There are tools available to check your circle ranking in Google+ now. Many SEO companies are now starting to see the importance of this little tag.

[SevenCubed]

I think the question, at least in my mind, is why did Google choose to go it alone on the author tag, instead of using existing microdata tags, or partnering with Microsoft, etc.

Yes aristotle, thanks, that's exactly my point.

[aristotle]

GifAnimator wrote
It may be not so easy for spammers to boost their rankings with the authorship tag.

This author tag is such an obvious opportunity for spammers that many are already taking advantage of it. In fact, there is recent thread here [webmasterworld.com ] in which a spammer posted a list of methods that can be used for creating fake reputations for fake authors.