Source? Google says having an author photo increases CTR by 15% on average.
-
I was listening to an interview with Rand Fishkin on the Eventual Millionaire: http://eventualmillionaire.com/rand-fishkin/
Rand said that Google says that having an author photo increases click through rate by 15% on average.
I am trying to find the original source of this information. Has anyone know the source of this stat?
-
Awesome. Thanks so much for the help Rand and Lesley.
-
The only citation I could find in my searching is from Web Marketing Today.
"Conventional marketing wisdom is that anything that can make your search-result listing stand out and draw the eye will probably be beneficial to your click through rate — the “CTR.” Past statistics from the search engines have indicated that special listing treatments like this increase CTR by 15 percent on average. I suspect the increase could be greater than that, depending upon the search keyword and type of business."
http://webmarketingtoday.com/articles/authorship-the-top-search-marketing-tactic-in-2013/
But I would take 15% as a relative number, that is pretty meaningless. Let me share some of my experience, I am a moderator of an e-commerce forum that is mainly male developers. We have around a half a million or so members with the demographic largely being male. One thing I have noticed is users with a female avatar get more help, a lot more help. The picture you use matters just as much as adding a picture is what I am saying. There are actually a few good articles on it, here is a link to one that mentions it. http://justinbriggs.org/how-does-google-authorship-impact-ctr
Admittedly, with my name being Lesley, I have thought about changing my picture to a good looking woman to see if it would increase my click through rate.
-
Hi Project Labs! Glad you liked the interview. There are a few sources, but http://searchengineland.com/is-google-authorship-affecting-rankings-today-168230 is one of the best (note the 15% average across the sites). Unfortunately, I can't seem to find the reference to Google's formal statement, but I believe it was also via a SELand post (or possibly from an SMX conference stage discussion).
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 ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Strange Key Word Results on Google
I'm trying to rank for the keywords "Chicago General Contractor" My landing page is https://3fconstruction.net/chicago-general-contractor/ However, in Google a variant page on my site (How to apply for a General Contractor's license - https://3fconstruction.net/how-to-apply-general-contractors-license-chicago/) that is optimized for "General Contractor License Chicago" is coming up first and the target page does not even seem to appear. I've forced a google crawl of my site and the page still does not appear. I've used the moz on-page grader and results of the target page are good. I'm perplexed and wonder if google is preventing the target page from appearing. Any thought on how to fix this?
On-Page Optimization | | Drew.Friestedt0 -
Google Data Highlighter
Hello Mozers! Anyone out there have any experience using the Google data highlighter tool in WMT? I'm just curious if it is something I should be utilizing or should just try to get the same results using microdata markup. I'm not a fan of "tools" per se...I'd rather get my hands dirty. Just looking for any thoughts or experiences in using it.
On-Page Optimization | | adamxj21 -
Wordpress photo blog with sparse text - noindex posts, index categories?
Hi everyone, I have a wordpress blog that is heavy on photos but short on text - most of my posts consist of a photo linking to a full gallery, and a short description of 1-4 sentences. I've often read recommendations to noindex category pages, but in this case I'm wondering if it might be best to noindex the individual posts instead - I'm concerned that the short posts might seem like thin content to Google compared to the category pages which aggregate the posts. Also, some of my categories reflect keywords that I'd like to rank well for. I have about a dozen categories and close to 1000 posts.
On-Page Optimization | | matt_b0 -
Creative ways to dramatically increase content on ecommerce category pages?
I need to signficantly boost the content on the category pages on my ecommerce website. Currently, they're pretty thin, with some only having approx 50 words of unique content. In the past, I've intentionally kept the content on these pages quite light, to keep the aesthetic a certain way. It's a fashion-based site, so it's very much about the visual. However, with the introduction of Panda, I need to change this mindset. But, there must be slightly more creative ways to boost the content to stop the pages looking too text heavy. I'm not talking hidden text or anything, but ways to break it up in different blocks on the page to make it look natural/relevant, while keeping it looking great. Anyone have any good ideas? Or, any links to ecommerce sites that have employed brilliant methods?
On-Page Optimization | | Coraltoes770 -
How long does it take Google to index new title tags and meta descriptions?
Hi, I have launched a website ( www.bookkeepingking.com )and would like Google to reflect the latest title tag changes in its results. How long does it typically take to happen? I believe this might be one reason why the site may not be generating any search traffic yet, even though I haven't yet begun any link building yet. A couple of notes: When I enter site:bookkeepingking.com in the search box, the pages show up, but with the old/default title and meta descriptions. I am using the Yoast for SEO plugin I have resubmitted the XML map - Yoast created 2... /page-sitemap.xml and /post-sitemap.xml The changes were made about 1 week ago. WMT says that there are zero errors. Is there something I may have missed? Or do I just need to give it more time? Thanks in advance for your help. Erin
On-Page Optimization | | HiddenPeak0 -
Getting pages indexed by Google
Hi SEOMoz, I relaunched a site back in February of this year (www.uniquip.com) with about 1 million URL's. Right now I'm seeing that Google is not going past 110k indexed URL's (based on sitemaps). Do you have any tips on what I can do to make the site more likeable by Google and get more indexed URL's? All the the part pages can be browsed to by going to: http://www.uniquip.com/product-line-card/suppliers/sw-a/p-1 I've tried to make the content as unique as possible by adding random testimonials and random "related part numbers" see here: http://www.uniquip.com/id/246172/electronic-components/infineon/microcontrollers-mcu/sabc161pilfca Do I need to wait more time and be more patient with Google? It just seems like I'm only getting a few thousand URL's per day at the most. Would it help me if I implemented a breadcrumb on all part pages? Thanks, -Carlos
On-Page Optimization | | caneja0 -
Tag clouds: good for internal linking and increase of keyword relevant pages?
As Matt Cutts explained, tag clouds are OK if you're not engaged in keyword stuffing (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYPX_ZmhLqg) - i.e. if you're not putting in 500 tags. I'm currently creating tags for an online-bookseller; just like Amazon this e-commerce-site has potentially a couple of million books. Tag clouds will be added to each book detail page in order to enrich each of these pages with relevant keywords both for search engines and users (get a quick overview over the main topics of the book; navigate the site and find other books associated with each tag). Each of these book-specific tag clouds will hold up to 50 tags max, typically rather in the range of up to 10-20. From an SEO perspective, my question is twofold: 1. Does the site benefit from these tag clouds by improving the internal linking structure? 2. Does the site benefit from creating lots of additional tag-specific-pages (up to 200k different tags) or can these pages become a problem, as they don't contain a lot of rich content as such but rather lists of books associated with each tag? Thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | semantopic0