Thoughts on Google+ influence on SERPs?

[AngieHerrera]

I just read this article over on Read Write Web: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/google_is_going_to_mess_up_the_internet.php

The part that made me raise an eyebrow is in the section "Google+ Hates the Internet". I just tested the exact term the author used and his article does show up first, followed by two G+ listings.

I don't have enough action going on in my G+ accounts to even test this, let alone see it, but was wondering if anyone else has seen it or tested it?

Perhaps this in fact, is Google's way of using "social proof" to drive valuable content up? Seems like it, which is good. However, I can also see how it can be abused to further game and manipulate SERPs.

Thoughts?

[AWCthreads]

Hi Angie. There's a lot being said about social influence and SERPs right now. Although I can't answer your question specifically, I can wonder logically why Google would flirt with +, likes, shares etc as an indicator of relevance, trustworthiness or reliability etc.

Facebook likes are already abused by outfits offering incentives for "liking". Curious to watch this evolve.

[Jinx14678]

Yes, In my opinion this is the exact game of G+...

Google's way of using "social proof" to drive valuable content up

If you are really an expert in "insert trade/industry here" then you would obviously have many people with relevant friends, posts ect about "example trade/industry"

And when you post something within your "industry realm" and it has you as the rel=author, then Google can begin to give you preference as an expert in your field for further content if you have large amount of industry relevant followers

I think this is their answer to spam and manipulation, as an SEO/SMM agency will have issues without actually having meaningful content and strategy of gaining industry relevant followers. Of course there are always ways around these sorts and I am sure someone will begin gaming it (if not already)

But overall i think the author is being a little over dramatic (probably on purpose for exposure reasons)

But nevertheless, I think this is a step in the right direction for a more genuine user experience in the Social World.

[THB]

A step in the right direction for whom, Google?  Of course.  But not necessarily for the end-user by any stretch of the imagination.

To be honest, my care for Google, it's products, it's advice on SEO, and so on, have completely sizzled over the last year or so as they continue to practice the very black-hat techniques that us webmasters get in sh*t for.  Sorry Goog's, but I won't use your second-tier G+ anytime soon, that's for sure.

Even Google's search has lost its relevance for me as they're opting to give more SERP real estate to big name brands (which is just a nice way of saying that they're giving more SERP real estate to companies that spend millions in AdWords, let's not kid ourselves here).  Just because a company has a recognizable brand name, and spends millions on advertising, doesn't necessarily make their product any more relevant, or of better quality, than the little guys.

To the original post... of course G+ directly influences the SERP's.  Do you think for a second that Google would have it any other way?  Like I said, they are desperate to get people using their Social network, and this is one way to at least get webmasters involved.

Side boob: Google should re-focus their Google+ into a business oriented social network.  Their reach does not extend to half of FB's user-base in that your typical, non web savvy (ie. my Mother) is not ever going to use Google Plus, so why market it to them.  They're lucky if they have a FB account, and that's as far as they'll go because their entire family is already setup on it.  These are the people that actually click on the adwords sponsored ads at the top of the SERP's, even thoughm the majority of the sites in adwords are irrelevant to the search term in question (at least their landing page is).

Watch for more Google (in)direct user-influence tactics coming soon... too bad for them it's race they lost the day Mr. Zuckerberg bought the Facebook.com domain name.

[Jinx14678]

We can talk about who uses what all day long, but your "mother" is not the only game in town, nor will she always be the user base (figuratively of course)... As time progresses more and more people will begin using technology more and more... As they always have...

Sounds like you have been jaded by not seeing the results you want to see in Google. Also I am not sure what Blackhat tactics you talk about that Google uses... We all have gripes, but just because you do not like something does not make it blackhat or non useful.

And G+ Does not automatically affect SERPS for everything, it has a very small subset that it influences, and I believe it only influences if you are Logged.

I personally think this is a step in the right direction for social, but we all have our own opinions

And also from a business perspective not using something that is a marketing tool on principle that you dont't like it, is not necessarily in my opinion the best decision for your clients as you are not giving them all available "ammo" to succeed.

But of course that is PURELY my opinion

Have a great day!

[THB]

Hey, leave my mama outta this

What I'm saying in regards to that, and I thought I was being quite clear, is that Google would stand a much better chance of dominating the social networking niche if they re-adjusted their priorities, and lost the boner they have for conquering Facebook.  Unless they can figure out a legitimate way of allowing people to copy their entire FB profile over in one click, they won't ever be able to grab the entire, existing, FB user-base.  It just won't happen.  People have invested waaaaay too much time uploading thousands of photos and videos, engaging in countless conversations/emails/messages, and creating their network of friends and family.  I'm just saying that their initial thought process of trying to convert people was hopeless from the get-go.

I don't disagree that they might be on to something in terms of the future of social networking; however, for every new idea they add to G+, FB can easily integrate the same idea to their site and they're back to being even.  The same way Google does to every little competitive company that is even but a spec of dust on Google's radar.  Google leaves no room for competition, so why should Facebook?

For the record, I could care less either way.  My days of being over-actively involved in my own personal Social media have come and gone.  And I offer both solutions to any clients that inquire.

Oh, and, I do quite well in the SERP's, actually.  Google, Bing, and so on.  I've seen a ~500% increase in traffic over the last 2 months to several of my websites, so let's not go there.

Come on now... Google has been caught a handful of times doing the very things they penalize websites for.  Case in point (and these blackhat tactics are as recent as this past week!):

http://www.seobook.com/post-sponsored-google

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223135/Google_downgrades_Chrome_ranking_after_paid_link_monkey_business

http://www.seroundtable.com/google-caught-for-paid-links-14539.html

I could post many more resources/articles to other's they've done in the past, but they're be no fun in that

Their shady tactics don't stop there, however:

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/07/25/google.street.view.now.known.to.have.seen.devices/

http://www.4u-2.com/computers/computers-networks/computers-networks-wireless-networks/google-caught-stealing-personal-data-from-wireless-networks/

Just because I don't use Google+ personally, doesn't mean it's not offered to any clients of mine.  But the reaction of theirs is overwhelmingly the same: "Ugh, another social network?  When is it going to stop!?" in reference to FB, Twitter, G+, LinkedIn, and so on.  'Cause you can't just replicate your content over them all to be successful, so that's where the "Ugh" comes into play.

[Jinx14678]

I know you may see it as a "cop out" and others might as well, but the recent stint was by a 3rd party, and was taken swift action upon the news..... So I am not sure How "Blackhat" gaining one follow link from a blog in the grand scheme of Google's over 400 million backlinks is......... But in this I understand we may not see eye to eye and it can be seen as hypocritical. And i agree in General that paying someone to review something and implying it should be a good review is unethical and un-helpful, but not really "Black-Hat" that is a word that gets thrown around alot.

The first reaction from any client/CEO to anything new usually is "Ugh"... come on man.

When do challenges in business ever stop...?

I think we will just have to agree to disagree on this

But i will definitely research the other Blackhat claims as I had not heard of them.

And I was not trying to say you do not do well in SERPS, just that alot of people seem to have an axe to grind with Google cause they feel they should be doing better, even though there are millions of other sites out there. So that brings alot of anti Google sentiment that really is just all about competition.

Have A great Night!

Shane