Google+ Account for Authorship: Personal vs. Corporate Account
-
Hi guys,
We are currently setting up Google+ accounts for our website www.troteclaser.com. We'd like to use them to indicate authorship of our content. As we provide content in 10 different countries, we have to set up a Google+ account for every office location.
Here my questions: Do we have to set up two separate accounts - one for the authorship (for the person who wrote the texts) and another one for our office location (to link with Google places)? Or would a single (unpersonal) corporate account do the job, too?
What's your experience with this?
Thomas
-
Happy to help! Let me know how it works out.
-
Hi Christy,
That's great news! Thanks for your help with this.
I'll set up the authorship link and bylines for the original authors then.
Thomas
-
Hi Thomas,
You shouldn't have an issue with pointing pages in different languages to your Google+ account (that is in German only.) Here's what Google has to say about this on its official blog for webmasters:
Q: If I use authorship on articles available in different languages, such as example.com/en/article1.html for English and
example.com/fr/article1.html for the French translation, should I link to two separate author/Google+ profiles written in each language?A: In your scenario, both articles: example.com/en/article1.html and example.com/fr/article1.html should link to the same Google+ profile in the author’s language of choice.
Hope that helps!
Christy -
Hi Thomas,
Is there any particular reason that your authors do not want their own Google+ accounts? Perhaps they do not understand the personal benefits of having an account and especially of claiming Authorship. Have you educated them about Authorship, and how it is a win-win for the publisher and writers? I'm with you, though, you shouldn't set accounts up for them unless they are on board and going to take ownership of them.
As far as claiming Authorship with your personal Google+ account, you should definitely do this -- but only on pages that contain articles or posts that you created (with your byline.) In most cases, this means you should not claim Authorship for your home page, product pages, and definitely not contact forms, terms and conditions, etc.
I'm not sure if the fact that your Google+ account is in German is relevant or not. I will definitely look into this, though. Going to ping a colleague right now.
Cheers,
Christy -
Hi Christy,
Thanks for the tipps. We wanted to make it easy for ourselves, but it didn't quite work out that way
The thing is that our authers do not have personal G+ accounts and I'm afraid just setting one up for them for the purpose of linking to it for authorship won't work either. I read that the accounts need a minimum of activity to be considered valid by Google.
I thought about claiming authorship with my personal G+ account as the author for all pages of the troteclaser.com, but I'm unsure if there will be issues as my account is in German while the troteclaser.com pages are available in all languages. What's your thought about this?
Thomas
-
Hi Thomas, it's great to hear from you. There are actually a few ways to do this. The most important things to remember are to only install the code on pages with relevant content (e.g. blog posts, articles and in-depth reviews, -not- product pages, -not- every single page of your site) and use the two-way or three-way linking method to link one relevant page to the individual Google+ account of its author. (Don't link to the brand page.)
Did you happen to see this recent Moz post on Authorship? It gives great advice for multi-author sites. Here are instructions from Google for installing Rel=Author code on individual pages.
Thanks for the update -- and please let us know if that works! Cheers, Christy
-
Hi Christy,
Sorry for my late reply. Having the entire site link back to the G+ account didn't work at all. It seems that we need to add the author tags and information to each single page to make it work.
Thomas
-
Hi Thomas, I'm just checking in to make sure she saw my response about linking Rel=Author to individual people's accounts, and Rel=Publisher to brand pages. Please confirm, thanks! Christy
-
Hi Thomas, I see that you have set up a Google+ local page and linked your entire site back to it using the rel=author tag. I am curious as to what results you have had with this, as the rel=author tag is intended to link content to the individual Google+ profiles of authors (and show author head shots, not brand logos.) Would love to hear what you have discovered!
-
Thanks for the advice. Our goal definitely is to boost the click through rate.
We do not have any high profile writers among our staff, but I thought that a nice portrait of a colleague next to the search results would boost CTR more than our company logo.
So the bottom line seems to be that without a high profile author it won't matter if we set up individual accounts or corporate accounts. I'll guess we'll do some tests in different countries and see what'll work best.
-
It all depends on what your overall goal is. If you have no problem promoting others in your company, feel free to do it, however if you don't want to promote your individuals you are not going to want to do this. (We always suggest promoting the faces within the company, but that's our humble opinion and not always acceptable depending on the company/field. )
As others have said if you are having "high profile individuals" write on your website/blog we would definitely suggest applying authorship to these pages, however if Joe schmo is writing the blog posts I would not worry about it.
Keep in mind as well, Google+ authorship doesn't improve rankings, it does however improve click through rate.
-
I can understand how it would be attractive for a company to "own" the content that it publishes.
However, it is possible, if you are getting articles from very high profile individuals in your field, to obtain value from having those individuals associated with the content. The author also gets credit for the content that they write for you. This could be "win-win" in many ways and be very different in an author's mind from "they own".
-
You definitely want to have a company account that is independent of users, as they might come and go. I don't think setting up personal authorships makes sense unless you publish a lot of authoritative content. IMO this is more relevant if you are news publishers or frequent bloggers. Otherwise I think a corporate account does the job.
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
-
Google Penalty
Hi all, I've been having some trouble with Google lately. Awhile back I came across a quality site that had a "Useful Links" directory. I searched the site and finally found an email. I emailed the webmaster and requested a link. They obliged but wanted a link back, so I wrote a nice blog post that included a link to their site. This brings me to question number one: 1. Would Google see this as a link exchange? Problem number two with the link from this site. My site is fairly new with not much of a link profile. What I discovered was that they displayed random links from the "Useful Links" directory in the sidebar and in the footer. So all of a sudden we have a ton of links from one website. This site has hundreds maybe even thousands of pages. 2. Would Google see all of these links and think that they were paid or spam? We've had a nice steady increase in traffic from Google then all of a sudden it dropped to nothing for two days and has come back a little. Here is my data from open site explorer: 1/15/2013 PA=27/100 DA=14/100 LRD=5 Total Links=42 2/12/2013 PA=31/100 DA=19/100 LRD=9 Total Links=137 3/19/2013 PA=28/100 DA=18/100 LRD=5 Total Links=212 We experienced the drop in Google traffic on 2/4/2013. So according to open site explorer everything is ok. But is this big jump in links a problem? Thanks to anybody that reads this long post. 🙂
Link Building | | brandzz0 -
Total Links vs Google Webmaster Site Links
I am interested why the numbers between SEOmoz and Google are so different. In SEOmoz we only show 17,000ish links from 190ish domains. In Google, we show 200,000+ links from 370 domains. Why is there such a dramatic difference?
Link Building | | webspecdesign0 -
Can personal name anchors from blog commenting be a risk?
Hello, I've created a new site early this year. In an effort to stay on Googles good side I decided not to do any link building. Everything you create yourself is pretty much frowned upon by Google, right? I have been doing a fair bit of blog commenting where that would add value. As a result my link profile shows about 50% anchors with my name in it. Can this be dangerous? Thanks!
Link Building | | andersvin0 -
700,000+ Google Webmaster Messages Sent - unnatural linking Profile. What to do?
Google has confirmed they have sent out of over 700,000 messages through its google webmaster interface in February. Thats more than what they sent in all of 2011. Where does this leave us? What have we done wrong? What works going forward? Im sure many business's will be left in a very bad position over this update, people will lose their jobs. I always considered myself to be very careful with my link building as I am totally reliant on search for my business. I think something so big requires a better explanation from google. Has SEOmoz any more info on such a big update? This really needs input from the big SEO heads.
Link Building | | dean19860 -
Anchor Text vs Rankings!
Let's say I have a page about houses for sale (which has the biggest number of search queries/month). I want to rank with that page for another variations like house for sale, and house sale. Now, if i build links only with anchor text **houses for sale **(presuming that Google is OK with that) and i will take top 3 for that KW, i will rank very high too for the other two combinations of words? Or Google treats different plural vs singular and the stop word for. This is an example based on site for one client of mine. His site is about Hotels in Mamaia (hoteluri in mamaia in romanian) and i build links with anchor text hoteluri in mamaia. For this KW i took pos 4 but for hoteluri mamaia i am on page 9 from Google.ro. These two combinations of words are 90% the same in my language. For you to know hoteluri mamaia has bigger numeber of search queries/month (6 600 vs 260).
Link Building | | maldiniii0 -
Do you believe TLD distribution effects rankings in Google?
I have noticed that when looking at TLD distribution of backlinks for many websites that have grown organically, the TLD distribution is somewhat consistent depending on the style of website (I am using MajesticSEO to find this distribution data). Do you feel deviating from this TLD distribution depending on the style of website you have would cause negative effects with Google? Has there been any testing of this that you know of that you can point me to (ex: building all backlinks from .info TLDs and seeing if you rank well for given keywords)? I ask because my companies website has seen some big deviations from this and although I don't see any negative effects currently I want to make sure we create a site that stays consistent with what Google is looking for. For example, if I look at news sites such as New York Times and Los Angeles Times, I see TLD distributions as such: nytimes.com
Link Building | | alohav
.com = 59%
.gov = 14%
.org = 12%
.uk = 2%
.edu = 2% latimes.com
.com = 59%
.org = 13%
.gov = 11%
.edu = 4%
.net = 2%
.uk = 2% From that, if you are a news site, my assumption would be to try to stay consistent with around 55-65% of your links coming from .com domains, around 9-15% from .org, etc etc . Now, looking at large blog styles sites I see this distribution: naturalnews.com
.com = 70%
.org = 11%
.edu = 3%
.net = 2%
.gov = 1% techcrunch.com
.com = 71%
.org = 10%
.edu = 4%
.net = 3%
.gov = 1% Any input or links to tests of this would be much appreciated.0 -
Do-Follow link from Linkedin/Facebook/Twitter/About/Google Profile, how to:
Tell us, a technician method of building do-follow link on high quality social websites. Thanks
Link Building | | leadsprofi0