Google Authorship – the 3 reasons why it failed

Google intended Authorship photos in search results to convey trust. The average Joe didn’t buy it. Here’s why.

There are so many theories floating around the Internet about why Google Authorship was canned, but let’s begin this article by quoting right from the official announcement:

“Unfortunately, we’ve also observed that this information isn’t as useful to our users as we’d hoped, and can even distract from those results. With this in mind, we’ve made the difficult decision to stop showing authorship in search results.”

In other words:

A) people were not clicking more on search entries with little author pictures attached, and;
B) in some cases people were clicking away from search entries with little author pictures attached

And this was predictable from the start. Hindsight is 20/20 vision, so let’s put on our hindsight goggles and review the three reasons.

  1. Trust and authority differ for different types of searches.
  2. People trust institutions more than strangers.
  3. People select between news and opinion.

The 3 reasons Google Authorship failed

Trust and authority differ for different types of searches

To really discover how the faces in the search results affected the average Joe (not us webmasters and online marketers), we have to reverse engineer it back to the actual searches and their intent. There are various reasons people search

  • They search for something to buy
  • They search for entertainment
  • They search for information

Let’s look at each of these three searchers one at a time.

THE BUYER is looking for a product.  In most cases, the only “authority” on that product is a known brand name.  A face next to a search result means nothing to a buyer.  If he pays any attention to it at all, it is to skip over somebody’s opinion of the product or somebody’s report on how they used the product to play a prank or make Thanksgiving dinner.  Google Authorship kindly flagged your blog post as unhelpful, so that people could skip over it. The buyer is looking to buy.

Unless, of course, the buyer is looking to first research the product, which is the case sometimes when:

  • The product is fairly unknown
  • The product is fairly expensive
  • The buyer is picky or indecisive

The fact is that most people won’t even research a real estate agent before trusting her with their most valuable possession.  Most shopping searches are not looking for reviews.  But some are.  Are they looking for one guy’s opinion, or are they looking for several people’s opinion in one place?  Yes, the big LAZY in all of us searches for a forum thread or a review site like TripAdvisor or ePinions where we can quickly see what several people have to say.  All those search entries with a single face next to them look like a whole lot of extra work for nothing. Google Authorship kindly flagged your blog for people to skip over and save time.

But wait!  What if you saw a trusted face that you recognized?  Someone you knew to be an expert on that product?

Exactly.  How many trusted experts on birdhouses or cookware or hose extensions or bedding or winter boots do you know?  I suppose if you saw Oprah’s face or Martha Stewart’s face or Consumer Reports face…  But two of those are true celebrities, and the other is an institution.  People don’t know your face, so your opinion means nothing to them.  The average blogger’s face in Google search results means nothing to 99.9 percent of searchers.

STOP THE PRESSES!

Who qualifies as a trusted source that most people would click on?  At very least it needs to be someone they know.  Here is a good first triage step: if their name is not in Wikipedia, most people don’t know them.

But even if their name is in Wikiepdia, that does not mean the average person knows them. How many country music stars are listed in Wikipedia? Now how many of them would you recognize if you saw their face in passing among the search results?  (If you are a big country music fan, feel free to replace the words “country music” above with “gastric bypass” or “LEED certification” or “contract negotiations”.)

You see?  There are very few people who are so famous that they are universally known outside of their field, and even fewer whom people might consider to be an authority on a given subject.

RESUME THE PRESSES!

Nobody cares what some blogger or journalist has to say, except those few people who actually know that blogger or journalist. Google Authorship kindly flagged those blog posts for people so they could skip over them.

THE RELAXER  is looking for a video, for humor,  for something to entertain her and help fill some down-time.  She does not want to think.  She does not want to read about entertainment.  She wants to be entertained.  If the faces next to a post are not Lady Gaga or Jimmy Fallon or Scarlett Johansson, it’s just some irritating blah-blah-blah clogging up the search results.  Nothing irritates someone in the mood for a party more than somebody who wants to just talk about partying. Google probably had to dump Authorship just to avoid being called a party-pooper.

THE RESEARCHER is looking for information.  There is some overlap with the other two categories here.

She might be researching to buy something, in which case (as I have already mentioned), she wants good, solid information from the company itself, from a trusted source like Consumer Reports, or from a review site where there are multiple user reviews at once. She couldn’t less what some unknown blogger has to say, and Google Authorship kindly flagged your blog so she would not waste any time clicking on it.

The researcher might be looking for information about entertainment.  Perhaps he loves watching Jimmy Fallon, but right now he wants to know the latest gossip on him.  If that gossip is coming from another well-known entertainer or from Perez Hilton, the face might stop quite a few searchers, and they might click through.

But if they don’t know you (Remember the Wikipedia test?), your face in Google’s search results just flags for them that this is something they can feel free to ignore, since they don’t know you and therefore don’t give a hoot what you have to say.

Many people doing research are not seeking information about entertainment or about products.  Many people just want information, and they want the most accurate and quickest information they can get.  Typical searches for information, and this list is far from complete,  might be:

  • for a recipe
  • about symptoms they are having
  • about nutrition
  • for fitness tips
  • how to build, repair or maintain something
  • for translation or definitions
  • for the latest in a current event (such as a war or a natural disaster or proposed legislation)
  • to fix a computer or software issue

If I am looking for a specific recipe or a recipe that combines certain ingredients or what spices go well with something, I want a recipe site, where there are multiple options all in one place.  I do NOT want to go through a dozen blogs about different people’s personal experience with the ingredients.  Google Authorship kindly flagged those pages, saving me the time I would have wasted clicking on them.

I will skip the one-by-one review of searches about medical information and how to build or repair things and updates about current events, etc.  I assure you that it will get repetitive.  People want solid information that they can trust, and to understand how Google Authorship repels researchers, let’s get straight to the second reason that Authorship failed…

Does a stranger's face convey trust?

People trust institutions more than strangers

You can say that you distrust institutions.  Most people do.

They say don’t trust government.  Yet, they are more likely to believe government information than information from an unknown source.

They say they don’t trust the media, that you can’t trust something just because you read it in the newspaper or see it on TV.  But if they do read it in the newspaper or see it on TV, most people will just automatically assume it’s true.  In fact, there is a whole “As Seen On TV” retail sector based on this simple premise.

They say they don’t trust big business, but ROI on advertising proves them wrong.

On the one hand, people distrust big institutions because they suspect there might be a hidden agenda.  And there often is. On the other hand, they assume that anything big institutions say is based on testing and experiments and scientific proof. And it often is.  At the same time, they assume what some random person says is not based on science or fact, but just some fool mouthing off.

Here would be an interesting experiment (Google, are you listening?):

Imagine a split test in the search results, for a few articles from USA Today or The New York Times. Half of searchers are served up results that include the journalists’ faces.  The other half are served up results with the New York Times or USA Today  logo next to them.  Everything else is random; the actual search queries, time of day, geography, etc.

I wonder how many more people would click on the logo article than would click on the face article.  Remember – it’s the same article, only the visual image would change.

Back to Google Authorship and how people reacted to it, let’s look at an example from the list of information searches in the section above. For medical information, whom would I trust?  I’ll bet you some people would recognize Doctor Weil. Or Doctor  Oz.  Or Doctor Phil.  And many of those people would therefore trust them. I’ll bet you that more people would recognize each of their names than their faces (so the picture probably doesn’t really help increase clicks to their own named websites).   And I’ll bet that many people would not clue in even on their names, much less their faces, so the picture might even detract from them.

As for anybody else, like some health blogger or health reporter for a daily newspaper, would you trust the unknown face over:

  • The Mayo Clinic?
  • A government department with the word “health” in it?
  • A university site with the word “health” in it?
  • A site with the word “doctor” in it?
  • A site with the word “clinic” in it?

Most people will look for some sign of authority, and an unknown face just doesn’t count as a medical authority.

People select between news and opinion

The same goes for other searches, such as updates on current events.  It might be very handy to pull up the results of that New York Times research project I suggested in the previous section. Although I am quite sure I know which of the two identical entries would get more clicks, the important question is who would click more on the entry accompanied by the New York Times logo, and who would click more on the entry accompanied by the journalist’s face?  And, lucky for you, I look into my crystal ball and I know the answer.

Drum roll please….

  • People searching for the latest news – the hard facts – of what happened, will click more on the entry accompanied by the media outlet’s logo.
  • People curious about what the latest developments mean, what the implications might be, what political slants there might be – opinion and analysis –  will click more on the entry accompanied by the journalist’s face.

How do I know this?  Because we have decades of training on how to read newspapers.  The Internet might be a new medium, but we take online our assumptions passed down in the offline world. We have always looked to newspapers to deliver us the news, and we will read the headlines and some of the articles to get the information we want.

There are never any faces attached to those articles.

But there are faces attached to regular columns on politics, international affairs and other topics.  We expect a less”journalistic” style when we read these.  We expect to be challenged to think about the news, not to just read it and accept it.

Flash forward to 2014 (before Google canned authorship, of course) and people searching for news would be predisposed to click on an entry that appeared to be from a trusted news source, such as CNN or BBC or The Globe and Mail. People searching to dig deeper – those prepared to invest some effort thinking about what it all means – will be predisposed to click on an entry with a face.

Big caveat: there are many other factors that will lead people to click through to a given result, including the title and the domain/URL of the article.  But in aggregate, Google authorship would have helped people choose between news and opinion.  Whether it would have done so accurately, I cannot tell.

And whether more people would have chosen to click on news, without the faces, I cannot tell (although I suspect that more people would search for news from a trusted media outlet than opinions of people they don’t know, even if they are interested in opinions).

If my suspicions are correct, Google would have incorrectly seen this as a failure of Authorship.  They likely assumed that faces are not helpful if fewer people click on articles with faces, rather than seeing this as a means of triage helping both news-seekers and opinion-seekers better find what they want.

The Future of Authorship

The real future of Authorship, should there in fact be one, lies in Google better understanding how people view authority for different types of sources.  You and I do NOT have authority beyond out limited niches and networks.  But some people do.  And many institutions do.

I did say a short time ago on a UK marketing blog (My Online Marketer) that:

“Unless Google creates a new “Opinion” search (like the News, Videos and other searches), I suspect that authorship is dead. “

I might not have been completely accurate at the time. If Google can harness this understanding of what “authority” means for various searches and flag individual author expertise and institutional expertise accordingly, it might still be able to help people find the most trusted authorities for a given search.

Or here’s a novel idea: Google could do what it is already doing: trying to float the most trustworthy authoritative pages to the top of its results, where people tend to click through the most anyway.  The face, or the logo, would not give the entry authority – it’s ranking would (and does).

 

The many dangers of NoFollow

NoFollow linking has never been so prominent, and never has it been so dangerous for both ethical and practical reasons.

I don’t like the NoFollow attribute.  When it was introduced in 2005, it made so much sense.  But since then it has been abused by both webmasters and the search engines, and that abuse looks poised to make a quantum leap sometime soon.

Therefore, there are two mes that don’t like NoFollow:

  • The ethical me, who much prefers to be honest when I promote a website.
  • The practical me, who much prefers not to be slapped down, tied up and fed to a herd of half-starved ninja gators when Google wakes up in 2015 or 2016, or gets displaced by an upstart.

I will cover three things in this blog post.  Yes, I’m organized!

  1. The history of NoFollow, which many newer marketers today are unaware of, and many who were around in 2005 might have forgotten.
  2. The ethical case to avoid using NoFollow (As a matter of fact, it is important.)
  3. The practical case to avoid using an attribute that could blow up in your face in a few years.

The short, tumultuous history of NoFollow

The NoFollow “tag”, as it has often been called, is not a tag.  It is an “attribute” (for those interested in correct use of language), which can be added to any <a href=””> tag.  It tells the search engines not to follow the link, because the owner of the website on which it appears cannot vouch for its trustworthiness.  Just to be clear, NoFollow does not necessarily mean that a link is bad.  It only means that the link has not been vetted by the website’s owner or administrator.

NoFollow's sordid history

The NoFollow attribute was introduced in early 2005 to stop blog comment spam, or at least to make it easier for the search engines to distinguish between links from legitimate comments and links from spam-happy bots.

Here is the direct quote from the Official Google Blog:

Q: How does a link change?
A: Any link that a user can create on your site automatically gets a new “nofollow” attribute. So if a blog spammer previously added a comment like

Visit my <a href=”http://www.example.com/”>discount pharmaceuticals</a> site.

That comment would be transformed to

Visit my <a href=”http://www.example.com/” rel=”nofollow”>discount pharmaceuticals</a> site.

Q: What types of links should get this attribute?
A: We encourage you to use the rel=”nofollow” attribute anywhere that users can add links by themselves, including within comments, trackbacks, and referrer lists. Comment areas receive the most attention, but securing every location where someone can add a link is the way to keep spammers at bay.

Matt Cutts, Google  chief “web spam” spokesperson, said:

“Wherever it means that another person placed a link on your site, that would be appropriate.”

Matt Cutts confirmed this in 2009 on his own blog:

“Nofollow is method (introduced in 2005 and supported by multiple search engines) to annotate a link to tell search engines ‘I can’t or don’t want to vouch for this link.’ In Google, nofollow links don’t pass PageRank and don’t pass anchortext.”

In other words, if you are not moderating your blog comments or other user-generated content, this will allow you to continue being careless or lazy or otherwise occupied without gumming up Google’s rankings.  And it’s not just Google.  MSN and Yahoo were involved in announcing simultaneously their support of the attribute.  In 2005, Google had about 37 percent market share, Yahoo had 30 percent, and MSN had 16 percent.  AOL and Ask Jeeves were still players, with ten and six percent respectively.

PageRank Sculpting

It was not long before some webmasters with overactive imaginations found a way to use NoFollow to their advantage through a method that came to be called “PageRank Sculpting”.

As you are probably aware, PageRank is the relative value of a page, and is the most visible of over 100 ranking signals.  Very roughly, the PageRank of a page is calculated based on the value of all the pages linking to it.  Each of those pages has its own PageRank, which it divides up evenly between all the pages it links to.  If you need to read up on the subject, I suggest this post by Danny Sullivan.

The key thing to understand about PageRank is that If a page contains 20 links, it divides its power 20 ways.  However, if it contains only 15 links, it divides its power 15 ways, sending more PageRank power to each of the 15 pages.

PageRank sculpting is the process of NoFollowing certain internal links, so that other internal links are more powerful.  The theory is that if every page of your website points to the contact, about, terms, and other administrative pages, that means a lot of PageRank power that could be going to money pages is being poorly directed.  By adding the NoFollow attribute to those admin links, webmasters believed that they were funneling more PageRank to their money pages.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody got penalized for doing this, but in in 2009 Google changed the way it read NoFollow links to make PageRank sculpting useless.  Webmasters got the idea, as PageRank Sculpting quickly went out of style.  But an important question about all this PageRank sculpting has to be asked, “What were they thinking?!?  NoFollowing links to their own pages from their own pages?  Telling the search engines that they can’t vouch for their own contact and about pages?  Saying, “Hey Google, I am such a shifty character that I don’t even trust myself”?  </rant>

Just wait for the other shoe to drop.

NoFollowing paid links

It was not only webmasters who played fast and loose with the rules.  Google took its turn, too.  In fact, Google now advises:

“In order to prevent paid links from influencing search results and negatively impacting users, we urge webmasters use nofollow on such links.”

Quite apart from the inconvenient truth that almost every link has been paid for in one form or another (yes, “earned” links can be very costly to “earn”), the fact is that there is no link more firmly vetted than a paid link.  A webmaster has to think much harder, “Is this money really worth possibly harming my site’s trust with visitors and the search engines?” than when they link for free.

NoFollowing unnatural/suspicious/random links

But Google seems to have moved past encouraging NoFollow just on paid links.  They seem to be quietly encouraging people to add NoFollow to a very widely defined array of low-quality links, unnatural links, suspicious links (those that might actually be natural, but Google really can’t tell the difference, so why not discredit them just in case) and seemingly random links.

Oh, and press releases.

These days, it seems that almost any link could be flagged as “unnatural” by Google, with so-called “manual” penalties being the result.  Many of Google’s recent manual penalties seem designed to upstage Monty Python.  Recovery from some of the more ridiculous penalties seems almost as random, and I have heard many people saying that by simply adding NoFollow to links, they have been able to recover.

In fact, many people writing about manual penalty recovery can be seen offering advice like this:

“After disavowing or no-following links, webmasters must submit a reconsideration request to Google. If the problem is not completely cleared, Google will send a denial message.”

Or advice like this:

“If it’s high quality, but just linked in the wrong way, ask the webmaster to add a nofollow attribute assigned to it.”

If you are wondering, “What’s next?”, so am I.  At this point, I have seen at least one example of almost every type of link drawing a penalty, and Google seems to be accepting  the NoFollow attribute as a way of crossing the blurry line of what is and is not acceptable on every third Tuesday, if the wind is blowing from the northeast with a faint whiff of Lavender in the air. In fact, Google has said that the Disavow tool is like a huge NoFollowifier.  Here is what Google’s John Mueller has to say on the matter:

“You don’t need to include any nofollow links…because essentially what happens with links that you submit as a disavow, when we recrawl them we treat them similarly to other nofollowed links.  Including a nofollow link there wouldn’t be necessary.”

Which brings us to today.  I watch, mouth hanging wide open (but not drooling on myself, just to reassure you), the mass NoFollowing of links that some desperate webmasters are doing.  There are plugins for WordPress, such as WP External Links and External Links.

I’ll go into why I think this is crazy below, but some highly respectable people have been driven by Google’s seemingly random penalties to actually use these tools.  Lisa of Inspire to Thrive  explains why she installed the WP External Links Plugin:

“I don’t agree with their nofollow policy or shall we say HINT of it but I don’t want to be penalized by this giant and I’d love to see how long the process takes so we can all learn something from this one.

Why NoFollow is unethical

You should not tell a lie.  NoFollow is ethical on user generated content, not because that is why it was created in the first place, but because it tells the truth.  Unless the website administrator moderates all user-generated content, such as on good quality blogs, the truth is that he or she cannot vouch for the links.  NoFollow truthfully communicates that to anyone who wishes to read that attribute, including search engines.

If NoFollow communicates that you cannot vouch for a link that you have in fact approved, that is a blatant lie.

NoFollow - what about your users?

Google is not the Internet. The main reason most people are adding the NoFollow attribute where it does not belong is in response to Google’s displeasure with certain links or the website administrator’s fear of Google’s displeasure with certain links.  Numerous statements by Google have led people to believe that Google wants people to add NoFollow to the links that Google has chosen to find irritating.

The problem is that Google is not the Internet.  There are other search engines and possibly other applications that will use your NoFollow attribute as a signal, too.  NoFollow tells others that the link is not trustworthy, too. It’s not just Google being lied to.

Read Google’s Webmaster Guidelines.  Google’s official guidelines, as vague as they are, are a lot more ethical than its enforcement is (Oh, that’s a whole other ethics topic that the company whose motto is “Don’t be evil” probably would rather I don’t get into).  Let’s see what the Quality Guidelines say:

“Don’t deceive your users.”

So if you are telling the search engines, I won’t vouch for this link, are you telling your users, too?  Just asking.

“Avoid tricks intended to improve search engine rankings.”

Like adding a hidden attribute, for instance.  Those who are old enough to remember what a search engine penalty meant before 2011, will recall that it meant you had done something sneaky and deceptive.  You were a dirty rotten crook, serving up different information to the search engines than to real people:

  • Doorway pages.
  • Hidden text.
  • Hidden links.

Search engines penalized websites for serving up different content to users and to robots, and rightly so.  So what about NoFollow links, where the link is viewable by users but not by search engines?

“A good rule of thumb is whether you’d feel comfortable explaining what you’ve done to a website that competes with you, or to a Google employee.”

“So, you see, I inserted this hidden NoFollow attribute because I don’t want to get in trouble with Google, but I’m OK sending my readers there.  Yes, I know that means I’m either a scammer sending users to a crap link, or a total wuss allowing Google to bully me into blocking robots from following a perfectly good link.” Hmm.  Sure, that’s what I would tell my competitor or a Google employee.

“Another useful test is to ask, ‘Does this help my users? Would I do this if search engines didn’t exist?'”

Seriously, would you put NoFollow in a link if search engines didn’t exist?

NoFollow means not taking responsibility for actions.  There are two main constraints that keep us from linking to bad neighbourhoods; because users might follow the links and because search engines might follow the links.  Putting NoFollow on bad links does not solve any real problem (it might help Google solve its problems), and makes it 50% more tempting to post a bad link.  In other words, far from cleaning up the Web, it is likely increasing the number of poor quality links, especially those posted on poor quality sites.

Why NoFollow is dangerous

Now, it might be that ethics are a less pressing worry on your mind than where you’ll find money to pay the rent, so maybe you are more interested in getting back lost rankings than in being 100 percent authentic and ethical.  Well, here are five reasons why NoFollow could bite you in that soft fleshy padding you sit on.

1. It might not work.  I have seen no official statistics on how many websites recover from different types of penalties, but it certainly sounds like a majority of those that bother trying don’t succeed on the first or second try.

2. You might lose rankings at Bing, Yahoo and other search engines.  Of course, they don’t have the same market share, so you might be willing to sacrifice all of them in order to access the 66 percent of searches that Google delivers.  But what if you NoFollow all your links and instead of winning Google’s approval, you simply lose your Bing and Yahoo rankings? Oops.

But that is just the short-term, and short-term is short-sighted, even if your main concern is next month’s rent.  The long term is what really counts.

3. Google might get you later on. At the current rate, half the Internet will be disassembled, Disavowed or NoFollowed before long, all because Google doesn’t want to count certain links in its algorithm.  What then?  The disassembled part (links people have removed) will no longer be there, but Google will have a huge database of domains that have been disavowed once, twice, thrice or 673 times.  Google will have a huge database of websites that have tons of NoFollow links pointing to them.  It won’t be hard to add into its algorithm a trust factor to account for how often a particular domain has been disavowed or NoFollowed.

Google will also have data on which websites NoFollow their links.  Ah, let’s follow the logic trail.  Google tells websites to NoFollow crappy links.  Website A has 300 NoFollow links on its site.  Website B has 3 NoFollow links on its site.  In Google’s mind, NoFollow means crappy links.  Hmmm.  Which site will Google consider more trustworthy?  Which site will Google see as less trustworthy?  It’s kind of a NoBrainer.  When you look at it from that perspective, is it worth sending such a negative message about your own website? Wikipedia will always be able to get away with it, but could your website?

Don’t believe this could ever happen?  Go back a few years when the best practice was to have keyword-rich anchor text in most of your inbound links, only to make sure you varied your text.  Now, websites are getting penalized for doing just that.  Go back a few more years when the best practice was exact match keyword anchor text.  That will land you in even more trouble today.

Google is now punishing websites for links that were built in accordance with their guidelines as far back as 2004 and 2005.  What you do today can come back to bite you tomorrow and even a decade from now.

4. Other search engines might get you later on. It’s just too easy.  Not every NoFollow link is crap and not every DoFollow link is amazing.  But if a search engine plays the averages, they can reduce the trust of websites littered with NoFollow links and increase the trust of websites that are clean.

5. Google’s rule is ephemeral.  I know it seems like Google rules the world.  But there are other search engines like Blekko and Duck Duck Go (as I wrote about here), and who knows where Bing or Yahoo might be headed?  Google controls 66 percent of search traffic now, but what if that share was to fall?

Can’t happen?  Think again.

Remember when Alta Vista ruled search?

Remember when MySpace was social networking?

Remember when Netscape was everybody’s browser of choice?

Remember when Digg was synonymous with social bookmarking?

Remember when Google ruled search?  It still does, but sooner or later, that question will come up.  And all the NoFollow attributes placed just for Google’s sake will serve as … what?

Your turn.  What do you think?

I would love to hear from you.  I certainly don’t have the last word on this.  I have not liked NoFollow from the start.  I called out Wikepedia on this in 2007, even going so far as to say Wikipedia should be spanked (I really do like the site; I just don’t like their NoFollow policy).

NoFollow made sense for what it was designed to do, but I have always thought that it sends a very bad signal to anyone watching, including search engines.  Obviously, not everybody feels the same way.  Some people might even today be using it for PageRank sculpting.

I would love to hear your thoughts in the comments below, or on blog posts of your own.  Support me.  Refute me.  Let’s get this out in the open and discuss it logically.






Facebook just gave Google an orgasm!

This is a shocker, indeed. I don’t mean that I used the big “O” word in the title. I mean how the script is unfolding.

Facebook is trying to eat away at Google’s search hegemony. Meanwhile, Google has been laser-focused on toppling Facebook’s social network dominance.

It’s just like a classic movie showdown!

But every now and then two rivals meet at a climactic point in the script, engage in hand-to-hand combat, and…get distracted. They smell each others’ hair. They touch each others’ skin. They look into each others’ eyes.

But rarely do we see one of the rivals give the other an orgasm. Perhaps Hollywood is more family-friendly than social media after all.

In case you have been hiding under a rock this past week, Facebook “announced”:

“We’re getting to a place where because more people are sharing more things, the best way to get your stuff seen if you’re a business is to pay for it.”

This has not sat well with the many, many online small businesses who are among the most voracious users of social media. Here are a few samplings I have read this week of reactions to this news:

To sum it up, if a person “likes” your page on Facebook and wants to receive your updates that way, tough luck.  For them, and for you.  Chances are they will very rarely see those updates.

As a user, I actually like that.  Just because I “like” something, doesn’t mean I want updates.  In fact, I might like something because a friend recommends it or because there is a contest or some other incentive, and the last thing I want is to have all that commercial stuff blocking updates from friends, inspiring mini-posters and those crucial lol-cats.

But from a marketer’s perspective, after investing huge amounts of time and money building up a “likes” arsenal, it totally sucks.  100 percent.  Let this serve as yet another warning – I laid it out in Who Owns Your Twitter Account? and in 2011 Social Media Fail of the Year – you don’t own the work you invest in someone else’s website.

Google “Likes” Facebook

So Facebook is neutering your “likes”.

And Google really likes that.

Google has tried many times to supplant Facebook. Remember Orkut? Remember iGoogle? Remember Google Buzz? Remember Google Circles? Oh, wait…that ended up becoming Google Plus.

Well, it looks like Google’s long history of trial and error is finally over, and the question most of the way through 2013 has been whether Google Plus could do to Facebook what Facebook did to MySpace. (Don’t get me wring – MySpace is still big, especially in certain niches. But it is “big” only if it isn’t in the same room as Facebook.)

A year ago, Google Plus already had some impressive stats, having passed Twitter in total number of “active” users, but still with only half the number of Facebook.

Social media users

Dreamgrow published the following graph showing the trends up to March of 2013, and as you can see, Google still had not broken out of the pack as far as actual usage by US users is concerned.

Social networking usage

According to Jeff Bullas, Google Plus is closing in on Facebook, at least as far as the number of users and active users is concerned, but still had quite a way to go before catching up as of March.

I wish I could find some more recent stats, but I can’t. However, over the past six months, I have seen traffic from Google Plus increase, not just to my sites but to others’, as well. And the engagement going on now has hit fever pitch with all the circle sharing going on (Yes, drop me a line if you want to include me in a circle share; I would love to join the party.).

So, to cut through the blah-blah-blah, Google Plus is storming the palace gates and what does Facebook do? Facebook opens the gates. If small businesses move from Facebook to Google Plus for their marketing, and at the same time bring their personal social networking over, it could just be enough to create a neck-in-neck race.

In the world of social media spectator sports, 2014 promises to be a year full of oohs and ahs.  And one big social media “O”.

How Google reads your backlinks

People spend a lot of time scratching their heads, trying to understand how Google reads their backlinks.  They want to know what links they should seek to their websites that are still “safe”.

With all the turmoil over unnatural links and Penguin penalties over the past year or two, ever more people are sorting through their backlink profiles trying to understand which links to keep and which to try to cull.  What confuses many people the most is why some links would be valued over others.  “Why doesn’t Google like the links I worked so hard to build?”

The problem is that people are used to assuming that:

  • Every link is good.
  • High PageRank is what counts the most
  • Automation is good, because more is better.

These are wrong assumptions.  Remember that Google looks at each link to your website as a vote of confidence or a recommendation.  And not all recommendations are of equal value.  For instance, suppose you need headache medication…

 

Add the Infographic above to your site!

 

If one person recommends a headache medication, you might be inclined to try it. But if several people recommend a different headache medication…yes, exactly.  More is better.

But wait!  What if a doctor recommends a different headache medication.  Yup, authority trumps quantity.  And if several doctors recommend a completely different headache medication…exactly!  More is better, after all, especially when it comes with authority.

Now, what if the drug pusher around the corner offers his recommendation?  No thanks.  But what if a dozen drug pushers all recommend the same headache medication?  Of course you’ll take their advice, because more is better, right?

No way!

And Google is at least as smart as you are.  If hundreds of spammy sites link to your website, that is not a better recommendation than if one spammy website links to yours.  The more “drug pusher” websites recommend your website, the more likely Google is to label your website…

So, just as you would not want a throng of drug pushers recommending your product, make sure there is no throng of spammy websites recommending your website. Google will see more value in your website if inbound links come from trusted or – even better – highly trusted sources.

Google’s Penguin Update…

…as experienced by more webmasters than I care to count:

Oh, yes. And this is how many of those same webmasters would like to deal with Google’s penguin (sorry, but you do have to watch the full 1:47 video to the end to see the full wrath of the webmasters).

Occupy Google (radio satire)

Google Doodles, beware! Today I will share with you an exclusive radio interview with Rankless Jones*, live at the scene of the “Occupy Google” protests.  After all, why occupy just a street, when you can occupy an entire website?

 


 

If Plan “B” is initiated, here are some of the unfortunate Google Doodles that we believe might be at risk, and are advised to take security precautions.

Vivaldi's birthday

 

Beijing Olympics

 

Google's 13th birthday

 

Art Clokey's 90th Birthday

 

The official first Google Doodle ever

 

The unofficial first Google Doodle ever

 

You can decide for yourself which Google Doodles are most likely to fall victim to the Occupy Google protests if the demands are not met, by visiting the Google Doodle Archive.

*Rankless Jones played by Chantalyne Leonhardt in her first international voice acting role.