Google Authorship and the "Fishkin" Outburst! Sorry Rand ;)
-
Should companies now shift away from creating great content and invest the time and money into something else?
After Rand tweeted his frustration at @JohnMu in relation to "Authorship CTR's", it got me thinking - should we really be blogging as much as we should?
https://twitter.com/randfish/status/481948721031024641
I'm certain Google ditched author profile images to improve "mobile UX" and "CTR's" for "paid advertisers".
So what I would really like to know is - should small businesses continue to focus on developing great content? How has your marketing strategy changed?
-
Thanks for the comment Rand.
When I asked the question "Should companies now shift away from creating great content..", this was a little tongue in cheek. I wanted to stir up some dialogue within our community. Sure, well written informative content is fantastic, we all know this is truly valuable as part of any sustainable marketing strategy, but has this now lost "some" value? I have my own opinion, what's yours?
I thought Joel Klettke wrote a fantastic piece http://www.iacquire.com/blog/authorship-photos-removed
-
I think it really is a one way street with Google. As SEO professionals they really don't care about us until we do something wrong, then they will penalize us or our assets. Kind of akin to how I have heard paypal is with the sellers. They have bad policies and support for the sellers, since they have a huge pool of buyers, sellers are pretty much roped into their terms and have to play their game.
-
Great discussion here already, and I agree with what's been posted - content marketing and content strategy continue to be incredibly valuable for SEO and for many other marketing channels. The shift away from author pics is no reason to change course.
On a sidenote, I thought Ammon Johns' reply to my tweet was a very smart one: https://twitter.com/Ammon_Johns/status/486854967165480960 I should have considered that before sending my tweet (though I do wish Google would just be transparent about this stuff - it would help us to build a lot more trust and less suspicion of them).
-
Lots of guys have pretty faces too.
I think that Rand would get a pretty good CTR if he made some content about women's fashion.... putting his face in the SERPs where women are looking. He should do A/B tests between the bearded manly look and the shaven young pup presentation.
I think that Rand looks like Jeremy Piven in Mr. Selfridge.
-
I found it interesting that "pretty face" more so women were getting a higher CTR
-
I am actually glad that they took the photos down because I am not as pretty as my competitors.
But, I hope that they are using it to determine who is producing a good mass of credible work and then allowing reputation to influence the rankings of "next item published". Before this "authorship" I was not adding my name to any of my content. I just wanted it to be viewed as property of the domain. But I felt forced into using authorship because it became a potential part of the "arms race".
-
"One does not simply have one SEO strategy!"
-
ONE SEO STRATEGY TO RULE THEM ALL
-
Thanks for all your feedback. I'm certainly not questioning the value of creating content, or your approach to SEO. Ultimately authorship CTR's have taken a "drop" since Google kindly removed profile images., so it's great to hear your thoughts.
-
So what I would really like to know is - should small businesses continue to focus on developing great content? How has your marketing strategy changed?
The last time I changed my SEO strategy was in 2005.
-
Content is and always will be king. If it doesnt exist, people cant search for it.
Google doing things to force people into adwords is nothing new. You don't get to be a $40 billion company by not playing smart. By removing the authorship images, it makes the links stand out less. Less easy ways to stand out in SERPs + less business for companies = more advertising dollars spent.
I think the larger area to focus on is LINKS. With panda 4.0 and hummingbird, it seems like Google is looking for ways to find out who the "true authority" is in any given market. What easier way to do that then to look at the links to a site? Yes buying links was easy. It was easy for the smaller guys to buy links and catch up to the "authority" sites that had been promoting content for a long time. When they started hammering paid links, they were able to see more clearly who had good links without paying for them.
The only way our focus has changed is that we spend less time on the smaller impact items, and dedicate more time and effort into the big ticket links (SEO roundtable, search engine land, moz, etc for our site). This is repeated for our clients for their industry. Makes more sense to spend more time up front on a few powerful links, then a lot of time spread out over smaller links. Content gets links though, and you have to always fall back to "good content gets linked to"
-
I don't see a reason to shift away from content personally. I would just do what drives traffic. I make content people want to read, it drives traffic. It might not drive up or down my author rank, but people search for it, find it, and I get traffic from it. So I keep on doing it.
-
My marketing strategy has not changed, for several reasons.
1. "Content" is nothing new. "Content" has always been the "stuff" that you put in the hands of potential customers. Yesterday, it was product catalogues, sales brochures, and more. Today, it's blog posts, videos, and more. Both types of content target people at different points in the sales cycle. It's just that one of the bonuses today, among many, is that this "content" can also get found in search results.
Besides, here's how I personally describe communications theory (in the context of marketing or anything else):
Sender --> Message --> Content --> Channel --> Receiver
Basically, the content is what contains a message that is delivered via a channel to a receiver. So, yes, you should still produce content.
2. These essays here and here are great arguments for still keeping and using Google+ authorship.
3. When I was at SMX West, I heard a Google executive imply that Google was looking into some type of "Author Rank" in the future. I can't find a link, but you can Google it. Just because one's picture won't be in the search results anymore does not mean the markup will not help your content in the SERPs.
-
What i never really got is why not just removed authorship for mobile results? As anyone who has had a penalty frustration and Google go hand in hand.
You have to look at this another way, Why should the user come to your website? If you've got great content then without the search engine you would find users come to your site regardless of Google. Google wants to bring up the best results for the user so make the best results for user which is normally blogs etc. I'll admit its a bit mundane and most blogs or content i see is far from good but in the current stat its very difficult to proactively do SEO which is still considered "white hat" and content is it.
I'll admit I've had to move some focus away from working on my authorship (with publishing) to focus on other things as there isn't as much of an obvious return for that but we'll see I'm sure something else will crop up sooner or later.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Blog Content if Google has stated it doesn't like your blog?
Hi guys, In the new 'mobile usability' tab in Webmaster Tools, Google has stated that our blog isn't offering a good experience for users. Something we already knew and I want to change, but I can't get the budget approved to complete the work. I was just wondering if you think Google isn't going to hold my content very high as a result. I want to produce more content on our blog around our valuable keywords in hope to improve our rankings, but if Google isn't holding our site in high regard I'm thinking there may not be much point in it. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks Brian
Content Development | | brianmadden0 -
Does aggregating content hurt your moz / google rank?
I have a news section on my site that I aggregate from multiple RSS feeds. They are stored on my site and I have sitemap that links to them. Is this a negative thing to do? Since its overall duplicate content to another site, it may be a strike against me. Should I just leave it as an updating feed and not keep the articles visible on my site?
Content Development | | BrickPicker0 -
How much duplicate content counts as duplicate content to Google?
Hi everyone! I've had a look through some duplicate content posts and I can't see the answer to this query, so I thought I'd ask in case someone could help. I've been looking at a website that competes with the site that I work on. They have profile pages containing content that has been copied and pasted straight from the suppliers' websites. Their pages have all their own code framing the content, which is diluting the concentration of duplicate copy. How much duplicate content can a page have before it gets penalised or ignored by Google? Any suggestions very gratefully received 🐵
Content Development | | ceecee0 -
Does Google really ignore Noindex pages?
Assume I may have some pages of my site that don't have a lot of text on them, and I have to keep them on the site. Let's say there are no more than 50 like this out of 400 great pages, and the ratio of great-to-short pages continues to increase. If I no index the short ones, will Google really ignore them in search? Will they ignore them enough to not downrank my site due to the short, noindexed pages? I know, theoretically, they are supposed to ignore them, but I don't always trust all the rules.
Content Development | | bizzer0 -
Need help deciding how to display directory listings in way Google will like best
My blog site currently has maybe 100 posts and I do about 7-8 new a week. I am creating a directory for an this site, which will end up eventually being a few hundred or more entries eventually. In the directory browse/search listing, each directory listing will have a title and a short description (one or two lines) and will show about 10-20 per page. And then the user can click an entry to see more details for the particular directory listing. This is where I have a choice, and I want to know what is the best for my site, in Google's eyes of course. Options: 1. The listing detail is displayed on a separate page. 2. The listing detail is displayed below the entry that was clicked, on the same page, by use of jquery to slide down the other content blow it to make room for it. (It actually looks slick, I've tried it). If I were writing full, unique pages for each listing detail, I'd choose option #1. But the vendors are submitting the content. It's possible they might just copy and paste their site's About page into it, or they might not even add any more detail other than their address. I can't control it. So, if going with option #1, let's say a third of the vendors add nice unique content, a third paste in some dup content, and a third just leave it blank (there would still be an address, couple line short description, and a title on the page). Would this situation be good, not good or neutral for my site? I'm not sure if adding additional pages, maybe half to two-thirds of which could be somewhat duped or of minimal word length would be bad or neutral for my site overall. As for my existing and ongoing blog pages--they are all unique, long and Google seems to love them.
Content Development | | bizzer0 -
Google still caching old site
Hi all, We just acquired a new domain that was being squatted on by a reseller for a very long time and on the 5th June migrated our site over to it, replacing their advertising holding page. The domain is http://primate.co.uk It's been a week now though and Google hasn't seemed to have updated it's cache. Doing a search for 'primate.co.uk' in Google lists the site but with the old holding page description. Web master tools doesn't report any errors or issues with the site. Does anyone know how we can get Google to index the domain and update it's cache? Cheers, Gordon
Content Development | | Primate0 -
My WebSite has two sections with overlapping, or redundant articles on the same topics. Google is only listing one or the other article in Search Results. What should I do to have both pages (similiar but unique content ) to be listed?
My Web Site has two sections with overlapping, or redundant articles on the same topics. Google is only listing one or the other article in Search Results. What should I do to have both pages (similar but unique content ) to be listed? Example: http://www.womenshealthcaretopics.com/pregnancy_week_12.htm http://www.womenshealthcaretopics.com/pregnancy_12_weeks.html
Content Development | | docjamesmd0 -
What are some good tips for getting approved by Google News?
Please share your tips for improving your chances of getting approved for Google News. Thanks Mozzers!
Content Development | | SparkplugDigital0