Update: This post sparked a ton of comments and debate. Read to the end for the latest updates.
Every two years, Moz runs a scientific correlation study to discover the qualities of web pages that have a strong association with ranking highly in Google. This year, for the first time, Dr. Matt Peters and the Moz Data Science Team measured the correlation between Google +1s and higher rankings.
The results were surprising.
After Page Authority, a URL's number of Google +1s is more highly correlated with search rankings than any other factor. In fact, the correlation of Google +1s beat out other well known metrics including linking root domains, Facebook shares, and even keyword usage.
Moz isn't the only one to discover this relationship. Searchmetrics, using a slightly different methodology, found Google +1s to be the highest-correlated factor they studied, and other studies have found similar results.
Here's the million-dollar question: Can Google+ activity actually help your pages rank higher?
Beyond correlation: Why it matters this time
Back in 2011, folks may remember the controversy that erupted when Moz found a similar correlation between higher rankings and Facebook activity. At the time, Google claimed they didn't use Facebook shares for ranking websites. Dr. Peters concluded that the relationship between Facebook activity and higher rankings was likely not directly related, but probably caused by overlapping factors such as links and high-quality content.
Now in 2013, there's strong reason to suspect it's different with Google+, and that the relationship between +1s and higher rankings goes beyond correlation into the territory of actual causation. (Edit: This should say "posting on Google+" instead of Google +1s. It's clear that Google doesn't use the raw number of +1s directly in its search algorithm, but Google+ posts have SEO benefits unlike other social platforms.)
Not only is the correlation for +1s higher than that for Facebook activity, but the Google+ platform has qualities that make it a far superior platform for SEO. These qualities suggest sharing content on Google+ has the potential to influence search rankings in significant ways.
Intentional or not, the engineers who made Google+ built it for SEO. Consider the factors that make sharing content on Google+ far different than sharing on other social networks:
1. Posts are crawled and indexed almost immediately
One of the original goals for Google+ was using it to power real-time search after Twitter cut off Google's firehose access to its data in 2011. Since then, Google has been using Google+ to discover new content, and many web professionals have discovered that URLs shared on Google+ are crawled and indexed very quickly.
Compare this to Facebook, where because of privacy settings and restrictions on data sharing, it's not uncommon for posts to never be crawled or indexed by Google at all.
Unlike Facebook, which hides data from Google, or Twitter, which directs Google not to follow most of its links, Google+ data is immediately and fully accessible to the company that built it.
2. Google+ posts pass link equity
Pages and posts on Google+ not only accumulate PageRank, but because links to posts are followed, they pass link equity on as well.
Using the free MozBar, you can see all of the followed links on a typical Google+ page.
When you share a link on Google+, the anchor text becomes the title of the page you are sharing. Some important things to remember about followed links within Google+:
- Only "shared" links (the links that show up beneath your post) are followed. Any external links you add withing the post body itself are nofollowed, so these don't pass any link equity.
- For obvious reasons, uploaded images don't pass external link equity. Some people like to upload a screenshot of a page and then link to it in the body of the post. While a good image may increase post popularity and click-through rate, these posts do not pass link equity.
- Certain links in your Google+ "About" page are also followed and pass link equity.
3. Google+ is optimized for semantic relevance
Unlike Facebook or Twitter, each post you make in Google+ has most of the characteristics of a full-blown blog posting.
- Each post has its own URL.
- The first 45-50 characters of the post appear in the title tag.
- Just like a blog post, entries can be long and complex in order to explore a subject deeply. Various correlation studies have show a strong relationship between longer pages and higher rankings.
- If a post is reshared, it can accumulate internal links from the Google+ platform, all with relevant anchor text.
Because of these factors, each post has the potential to send strong semantic signals to Google's search algorithm. This not only helps the post itself to rank in Google's search results, but potentially sends relevancy signals to a URL shared by the post.
What about Author Rank and Publisher Rank?
Many publishers have added Google+ authorship information to their websites in order for author photos to appear in Google search results. Another hope is that someday Google will use authorship information (and perhaps publisher information) connected to Google+ accounts to actually rank websites.
While there is no evidence that Google uses anything like Author Rank at the moment, many believe it will be here very soon. In the above video, Matt Cutts of Google suggests this is a path he'd like to see Google explore.
Taking advantage of Google+ for SEO
While there are hundreds of ways to optimize your Google+ experience, the most important activities can be summed up by these nine points:
1. Start building relationships now on Google+
It's never too late to start. Google+ is a social network. Following great people, commenting on posts, and sharing great content not only helps to increase your own influence, but it can be extremely educational as well.
2. Post share-worthy content on Google+ to attract natural links
When you share content, don't just post a link and walk away. Add additional value with commentary and relevant information.
Consider these examples of long Google+ posts. Each acts like a mini blog post and adds highly shareable, linkable context. I don't recommend replacing your personal blog with Google+ entirely, but sometimes a few lines of context makes all the difference.
3. Add Google authorship information to your online content
Adding rel="author" to your website is a no-brainer. If you guest post or otherwise contribute content to other high quality sites, ask the publisher if they will add author markup to your bio. Kane Jamison recently did this for me when I contributed content to his blog.
4. Link out to all relevant profiles from your Google+ "About" page
Think of Google+ as a primary hub of your online virtual identity. Google offers you several places to link to other online profiles, sites that you contribute content to, and simply sites that you want to share.
5. Take advantage of rel="publisher" by connecting your website to your Google+ brand page
If you are a business, organization or brand, follow these instructions.
6. Make your content easy to share on Google+ with relevant social sharing buttons
You would think everyone wants to add social sharing buttons to their content, but some folks are just stubborn. Don't be stubborn.
7. Completely fill out your Google+ profile with relevant and engaging information
The information you provide in your profile influences how you show up in Google+ search results and also plays a role in whom Google suggests others to follow.
8. Make it easy for people to add you to your circles
Use Google's easy-to-create badges, or create your own to place on your own online profiles so that others can easily add you to their circles.
.png)
9. Make your posts public
Posts shared privately don't pass the same juice as publicly shared post. For SEO purposes, you likely want your posts spread as wide as possible. Philipp Steuer made this great Google+ infographic simplifying the complexities of who sees your posts:
Google+ Infographic by Philipp Steuer, used with permission
Additional resources for success
Entire books can now be written on using Google+ to boost your SEO efforts. In reality, there are exactly 3 articles that contain 99% of everything you need to know:
- Google Plus SEO: Everybody Talks About It – How Do You DO It? by Mark Traphagen
- Google+ SEO by AJ Kohn
- 10 Dead Simple Tips to Take Advantage of Google+ for SEO
What's your favorite Google+ tip? Please share in the comments below.
Update:
This post caused quite a bit of controversy. Matt Cutts of Google responded to this thread on Hacker News to imply +1s aren't used directly in Google's algorithm.
While I take Matt at his word that Google doesn't use raw +1s to rank webpages, the evidence seems to suggest Google+ posts do pass other SEO benefits not found easily in other social platforms. If this is not the case, I'm hoping Google will clarify.
Mark Traphagen said it best in this comment:
It is not the +1's themselves that are causing the high rankings of posts but the fact that most +1's on a site result in a shared post on Google+, which creates a followed link back to the post. It's instant organic link building.
The point is not to go out and accumulate a bunch of +1s.The point is, and the evidence seems to suggest, that earning a link on Google+ is like earning any other type of editorial link, and these links have actual value with real benefits.
I still have to strongly disagree with this. While I don't mean to presume that Google+ plays no roll in organic rankings, the causal direction still seems to be that rankings cause higher plus 1s, not the opposite. We need experimental validation before we could say otherwise.
I read Cyrus's post, unlike my esteemed "colleague" MarkTraphagen stated. I actually do agree with much of what Cyrus said and what Mark said. I take issue with the title, which is what the majority of readers will take home - that +1s influence rankings and not the ancillary features such as backlinks produced through that behavior.
In particular, Cyrus's single edit - "(Edit: This should say "posting on Google+" instead of Google +1s. It's clear that Google doesn't use the raw number of +1s directly in its search algorithm, but Google+ posts have SEO benefits unlike other social platforms.)" pulls his message directly in line with my thinking.
The behavior of hitting that +1 button and sharing to Google+ can result in higher rankings in the same way that licking a door knob can result in illness - we know that pathogens ion the door knob, and not the door knob itself cause the illness. Similarly, the actual cause of rankings is not the +1 or the share it is the existence of a followed link.
I think what Cyrus is saying here is actually very important in retrospect, and gets at the problem that folks like @RyanJones, who I greatly respect, create. We immediately disregarded correlation studies because we presume that correlation is a useless statistic. This insanity and certainly not accepted within the science community. What is even problematic is that the opposition to correlation studies and correlation data has created blinders so thick that many will refuse to engage in valuable techniques, like +1'ing content, simply because there does not exist a direct, non-spurious, causal relationship between the two that can be described through high-school level linear regression models. The truth is that there are tons of behaviors like +1 that can lead to higher rankings because they generate other causal factors - in this case a link.
“rankings cause higher plus 1s, not the opposite”. This statement ruins the complete MOZ ranking data…. If this applies on G+ than it should be applied on PA, Ranking causes higher links (increase PA) not the opposite. Rand Please answer, it’s confusing ………..
UPDATE: I now agree with my very esteemed colleague Russ Jones's post as currently edited. <-- the joy of forums that allow editing of posts (hey, sounds like Google+!)
My original reply:
And I will respectfully disagree with my colleague Russ Jones.
Here's the thing that Russ and many will miss if they don't read Cyrus's post carefully. It is not the +1's themselves that are causing the high rankings of posts but the fact that most +1's on a site result in a shared post on Google+, which creates a followed link back to the post. It's instant organic link building.
Cyrus has just brought to Moz what I wrote about in my most-read post ever: https://maximizesocialbusiness.com/google-plus-seo-8351/
Google+ pages, profiles, and communities have PageRank. Thus not only getting lots of +1 shares helps you, but getting some from high-authority Google+ users helps even more. This is why people (like me) who have built strategic networks with Google+ influencers have a huge legup in their SEO.
This is the response I was about to type. Well said.
Oh... dear Mark... and should not forget all the PageRank the rel="author" links are passing to your Google+ profile...
Then... if purposely in Google+ there are nofollowed links (all the links in the "contributor to" "other profiles" sections in the About page of G+ profile), why Google should not pass PageRank from the ones who are not nofollowed (as the one of shared links and the ones you can create with basic HTML in the story section of the profile page); that would be not so logic (ok, Google sometimes is not acting logically).
To use the "licking the doorknob" analogy that Russ referred to, I would ask if there are any good comparables to Google+ in that regard, to compare the rates of correlation. If FB hides data, and Twitter blocks access, perhaps there is another network, though fractionally smaller, but with the same functional approach to combining SEO and Social Sharing that Google+ does. If it is indeed a similarly structured "doorknob", then bacteria should form on it in a similar proportion and scale as it forms on the Google+ doorknob. After adjusting for audience, size, etc., might we get some data that confirms Matt Cutts assertions, and adds to the understanding of the relationship between strong SEO social sharing networks, and ranking?
Do higher SERP rankings = more G+1s. Perhaps, but I suspect most social linking, liking, and 'plus-ing', does not happen when the user lands on a page via search. Rather, content 'discovery' happens via the social medium itself (e.g., G+), then the user gives the positive social signal. To dissect this further, one should consider the proportion of traffic from social media for such-and-such page vs. search.
Yeah good point Josh - as I always tend to find its social traffic that begets social interaction. I often find that search traffic has a much lower chance of social sharing than any visitors that have come through Facebook, Twitter or Google+
I can see with the rise of authorship information that Google +1's and the whole Google+ platform will sit very close to the search platform, so it wouldn't surprise me if they did use +1s as a metric (albeit a minor direct relation)
Russ,
Have you seen Dustin Stout's research on the +1? https://dustn.tv/social-signals-and-google-plus/
There is some research starting to creep out about the relationship between the +1 and search rankings...
Hanley
Ryan, I posted a long refutation of my colleague Russ's assertion here, but it went into moderation because I edited it to correct a link.
For now my intro to my share of this post on Google+ will give you the gist of my refutation.
Approved! Thanks for adding to the discussion, Mark! =)
Thanks Trevor!
I think the way to resolve this issue would be to look at the Twitter/Facebook correlation data. The more popular networks are going to be more likely to have a greater quantity of social shares as a result of higher rankings but are much less likely to influence rankings. If the correlation data for Facebook and/or Twitter is similar, this probably should be rethought.
As Cyrus noted, and anyone at SMX Advanced a couple of months ago will confirm, Matt Cutts is very adamant that Facebook data plays almost no part in Google rankings.
As I talk about in other comments here that are held up in moderation because I included links, what people are missing in this post is that it isn NOT the plusses that are causing the ranking increases, but the fact that most plusses on a page result in a G+ share, which contains a followed link. That's the real power at work here.
Yes I think this is the correct way too.
hmmmm...I hear everybody on this thread, but the word "causes" is being thrown around a bit loosely here. The word should be "correlated." Obviously we don't have full answers, so there are only correlations.
It would appear that Mr Cutts on HN agrees with that assertion Russ.
No he does NOT. Read Cyrus's update to the post at the end.
In the Hacker News Thread Cyrus challenges Matt to confirm that Matt is NOT refuting that shared links on G+ pass ranking authority. Matt avoids the question several times more, but finally says: "Most of the initial discussion on this thread seemed to take from the blog post the idea that more Google +1s led to higher web ranking. I wanted to preemptively tackle that perception."
That's it. He will not refute the REAL thesis of this post because HE KNOWS IT TO BE TRUE.
Hey Russ, I think folks are reading my headline (my bad) and jumping to the conclusion that +1 are used in the algorithm. I bet you and I are on the same page that +1's ARE NOT used in the algorithm, but the secondary effects are quite significant, such as:
My claim is this: posting content on Google+ that folks share is just like earning a link. And if the post is widely shared and earns authority on its own right, then it's just like earning an editorial, high-authority link, and should be treated so.
Yes thats it - and noone is reading the Comments :)
Now everyone thinks +1's ARE used in the algorithm - and they start creating Fake Accounts and start plussing xD
I agree with you, but I don't totally disagree with the post. I think +1 is a good signal for ranking but other factors should be considered, as well, especially if black hat SEOs, (although I do not think they can, but it is possible) they can fake +1s.
And Again I disagree with you !!! I Guess you are the only person in the internet world who are not seeing rankings for the number of plus+1 on your post , Eventually Organic plus+1s do impact my ranking and ofcourse you get +1's more specifically organically , but having them makes your rank much either in a stable state without much dancing on SERP Results.
I thought the very same thing right after I read this article - before all the hub-bub.
"In particular, Cyrus's single edit - "(Edit: This should say "posting on Google+" instead of Google +1s. It's clear that Google doesn't use the raw number of +1s directly in its search algorithm, but Google+ posts have SEO benefits unlike other social platforms.)" pulls his message directly in line with my thinking."
This is exactly what the article stated.
if everybody is reading carefully and not only the title he could check that posting is ment and not the +1.
But - like i wrote - not much people are reading carefully, much people only see the title - read a bit in and start plussing and fake account creating :)
Google should like that....
so many new users just because a not so well choosen title
Great post Cyrus. Thank you.
While I totally get EGOL's point of view, and the sentiments of others here (and even in my own organization) who discount Google+ as a wasteland, I think this is all the result of a misunderstanding. Everyone wants to make Google+ out to be a social media platform. IMHO, it's not.
Part of the frustration I think we are all experiencing with how to embrace and leverage Google+ in meaningful ways results from us trying to pound a square peg into a round hole. Facebook & Twitter have been around long enough now that people have figured them out. Pinterest, I think people are still figuring out. These are social networks.
Google+ is something else.
If I had to describe it visually I would say it's a "Hub." It's the place that's capable of bringing all the various activities and content I create online into one big card catalog in the "library of me." A library is somewhere people go to learn, read & discover. It's not where they go to party or socialize. I think this is why author rank looms so strongly on the horizon. It's important when you're researching something you're passionate about to know that the sources you are finding are excellent and knowledgeable. Author rank could help us separate the wheat from the chaff, and online, that can be an invaluable time saver.
My Google+ = "The library of me" - yeah, that's how I look at it. :-) Fill it up with interesting stuff that links to other interesting stuff and people will want to come and check it out.
Completely agreed, Dana! I've been saying for some time that G+ isn't a social platform, it's a harvesting platform.
https://topshelfcopy.com/monetizing-entities-a-flanking-maneuver-by-google/
Totally agree. If G+ was a real competitor to Facebook and Twitter, the platform would be different and G+ would want my grandma to use it more. But I feel as though it's specifically targeted toward authority voices on the internet. G+ doesn't care that my grandma doesn't use it - whereas, Facebook does - because she's not someone to really catalog beyond personalizing her SERPs based on cookies.
I completely agree with Dana on this one. I've been trying to explain the exact same thing to my colleagues, friends and family who keep asking me why i'm on G+. For some reason people seem to think that nobody is on Google+.
PS: Really like your description: 'library of me'.:)
Great article, Cyrus!
The advice is spot-on. But I have to wonder if the causation is a lot more complex.
With G+'s healthy but still incomplete user base, I'm not sure Google would use G+ as a direct SEO factor. G+ does correlate, and strongly. But I think the reasons are:
The only reason I bring this up: So that folks reading this article don't go onto Fiverr and start buying G+ votes.
Like the Facebook kerfuffle 2 years ago, whether the causal link is direct or not doesn't really matter. A legitimate, popular G+ account, and lots of legit G+1's on content, are super-valuable for SEO, social media and overall visibility.
That's true even if your content has nothing to do with the marketing or other popular G+ niche industries, because there's a decent population of authoritative bloggers on G+. Getting in front of them is always good.
Good points Ian - no Fiverr!
I suppose my point is that Google+ is not like other social networks - and Google doesn't have to treat it special. It's more like Tumblr blog, with all the added SEO benefits. And Google does use Pagerank and anchor text as a factor, both of which are passed through Google+ posts in ways not found on Twitter and Facebook.
Definitely not like other social networks. Its feature set alone sets it apart. And the way folks use it does, too. Which is why I think your article is correct, regardless of the semantics around correlation vs. causation.
Awesome post as always, Cyrus!
Been noticing this (amount of +1s as a ranking factor) for quite some time now, but didn't really pay much attention to it (as Google+ seems to only have made real impact on few verticals, mostly tech-related ones). But yeah, this is something that marketers/businesses should really be working on right now - for them to really compete these days in tougher SERPs.
Also, just remembered that I wrote 2 posts a year ago that are about growing presence in Google+, which might be helpful to other mozzers (that included some advice that weren't mentioned here - although this guide has been extremely comprehensive, no doubt about that!):
Thanks!
Doing some sort of "meta-blogging" (or "meta-google+"), let me copy and paste what Pedro Dias wrote answering to a question John Doherty asked on G+ and referred to its comment here above:
"I think we need to stop thinking for a bit of social purely as a "raw link" benefit and assess all the signals together. I'm going to add some of my thoughts to the bits from the article My take to your statement is in the comment for point 2.:
> Google+ posts have SEO benefits unlike other social platforms
You're feeding data directly into Google, so it's more likely Google can assess all signals it needs to rank your content. Remember other social platforms are closed or semi-closed and Google needs to make a substantial effort to crawl them, so I wouldn't say there's an SEO benefit, but an "easy access benefit" for Google and ultimately your content.
> 1. Posts are crawled and indexed almost immediately
Like I mentioned. Easy access for Google, you're feeding content directly to Google.
> 2. Google+ posts pass link equity
Maybe to the naked eye they do. Nevertheless Google still can cut this in the backend if they chose to, moreover I wouldn't be surprised if they can adjust it individually to each user depending on algorithmic analysis of behavior and what kind of stuff you share + engagement
> 3. Google+ is optimized for semantic relevance
Of course it is, it contributes to how easy Google understands not only your content, but the context too.
> What about Author Rank and Publisher Rank?
What would you do if it was your social layer? Would you trust everyone equally? See answer in 2.
> Roadmap to rankings: taking advantage of Google+ for SEO
Makes sense, but again, I would see it purely from an SEO/Link perspective, there's a lot of stuff that can be put into play here. If content is popular in G+ because (real) people engage with it and +1 it then that should be reflected in Google's index. We should also consider the freshness factor into play, for instance, sharing something that gets popular today and may die out tomorrow it's a trend/behavior Google wants to mimic in the search index.
> 9. Make your posts public
Obviously something private won't be "seen" by Google and hence it will likely not be factored into your social graph in a direct way.
Note: I'm not a Googler anymore, and these are my personal thoughts :)"
Pedro is not anymore a Googler, but he has a Googler mind, so I would pay a lot of attention to what he wrote.
Let me finish with my note to his point 2:
I agree with Pedro when he says that Google could cut the PageRank passed by links in Google+ page based on several factors. Somehow, I consider that normal; isn't it what Google already does with all those sites, which it cuts all the PageRank they may offer, hence depriving their links of any pure SEO value?
And, yes, even though Google+ for me has a pure SEO value (if it was just for the fast indexing, that would be a great value by itself), I agree that it is not the real deal, and that the best benefits are the secondary layers links, generated by the social echo and applause effect (typical Social Media metrics, not SEO) and for the reference traffic and the branding opportunities a link shared on Plus may generate.
P.S.: and, yes, the title wasn't the best one... but we are marketers and we know that controversy can do miracle ;)
I think a good analogy here would be if someone saying "sitemaps are not used directly in Google algorithm". In the black and white world of how an engineer things, yes this is true.
Would anyone today consider not having a well constructed XML sitemap and then making sure that there are not any crawler errors in GWT? No! Everyone knows that the sitemap will influence how Google crawls your site how it gets access, etc.
I think that this whole discussion is very similar and I like Gianluca's points around Google "access" and then the 2nd and 3rd order effects around the impact.
Just wanted to note that update Cyrus made at the end of the post:
Matt Cutts of Google responded to this post on Hacker News implying +1s aren't used directly in Google's algorithm.
Matt and I are in perfect agreement.
It's clear Google isn't using +1s to rank webpages, but Google+ posts do pass other SEO benefits not found easily in other social platforms, such as Pagerank and anchor text. If this is not the case, I'm hoping Google will clarify.
The point is not to go out and accumulate a bunch of +1s. The point is, and the evidence seems to suggest, that earning a link on Google+ is like earning any other type of editorial link, and these links have actual value with real benefits.
And an edit to one of the sentences:
Now in 2013, there's strong reason to suspect it's different with Google+, and that the relationship between +1s and higher rankings goes beyond correlation into the territory of actual causation. (Edit: This should say "posting on Google+" instead of Google +1s. It's clear that Google doesn't use the raw number of +1s directly in its search algorithm, but Google+ posts have SEO benefits unlike other social platforms.)
Hi!
I have one question about google plus related with the local seo in google maps.
I know that google my business and google plus are two different things, but... Do you think that exists any relationship between local seo positions on the map with the use and activity in the google+ account?
Its possible that more pots and more +1 and shares in google plus directly affect to the position in local search?
Thank you for your attention.
Last year i was a website and usually i worked with google plus. My result was this: when i use G+ my position in google places was higher.
Thanks Cyrus, this is was always going to controversial topic to discuss.
1) "Google has been using Google+ to discover new content, and many web professionals have discovered that URLs shared on Google+ are crawled and indexed very quickly."
Agree, been doing this for a while now. About 6 months ago I was watching real time server logs and noticed from a few test posts (which I had friends +1), Googlebot would arrive at the destination page within a day. Normally, the pages I would put up on a test site would take anywhere from 3-7 days (that's with inclusion into a feed + xml sitemap that pinged Google's servers). If my research still stands from 6 months ago, Google + is the fastest way to get a page crawled > indexed.
2) "Pages and posts on Google+ not only accumulate PageRank, but because links to posts are followed, they pass link equity on as well."
This is the most important point IMO but I I can't seem to find any posts with TBPR... Been using Using site:plus.google.com/ inurl:posts with time restrictions to include TBPR updates and looking through various link reports, but I can't find anything. Would love to see some examples with a TBPR > 0 from anyone please! It would be interesting to see a community test much like we did with tweets around "Jennifer Lopez" in 2011.
Dave, you can see the PR of Google+ Profiles, Pages, and Communities by plugging their URLs into https://prchecker.net. (If the user has a vanity URL, you'll need to find their name somewhere on G+ and right click and grab the numeric URL.
Of course, toolbar PR hasn't been updated since February, so results are going to be way out of date.
We suspect that individual posts have their own PR, but have not yet discovered a tool that can show it.
Here's a post with Toolbar pagerank, but it's a very old post: https://plus.google.com/108621512304373089316/posts/bBMbKGJZ1QZ
Brilliant, thank you!
Ok, if anyone cares, just figured this out. Sorry if I'm repeating anyone's advice. To get the TBPR of an author's page: when you see the username in the URL with the + sign, look for the oid=" in the source code to find the real author's ID. Using this https://plus.google.com/+BrianGlick/posts/HYtEEpyA2Pg as an example, the oid="103515259519634902605" in the source code need to be in the URL, so you end up with this https://plus.google.com/103515259519634902605/posts. Now he's got a TBPR of 4. Still haven't worked out how to get individual TBPR of posts, hopefully someone will clue me in.
I can confirm this correlation is strong, check out https://socialmediatoday.com/andykinsey/1642706/google-penalty-checker-tools newish post - 104 +1's - out ranks lots of competition and is number one for "google penalty checker tool" (and tools) - pretty cool
Redstar, I just recently had a similar experience. Search "google authorship" logged out of Google. You should see a post from me on the first page, with my Authorship snippet. I've ranked high for some time now on lots of long tail terms associated with "google authorship," but because of the intense competition for that head term, never got even close for it.
The post now on page 1 got 650 +1's. Suddenly I'm ranking for the most competitive head term in my content niche!
Whoa, hang on. QDF might be the reason for the high rankings in this example (amongst many other factors). The post in question was published on August 4th, and is the freshest result on the first page for that query (assuming google.com, "google penalty checker tool" as the valid search query criteria from the comment). When we throw out examples like this, we confuse others. For the sake of the community please try and make data driven decisions and provide more information - there's not enough evidence that concludes +1's are taking your result to the top. In fact, the #1 spot has fewer +1's than you (7 versus 104) https://spinsucks.com/social-media/free-google-penalty-checker-tool-check-your-site-in-two-minutes/ - sorry, not trying to come off in a negative light, but we all need to provide more proof.
Sorry, I wasn't trying to offer that as absolute proof. But...even though I write extensively on Google Authorship and am one of the best known experts on it, even though I have long-time rankings for a lot of long tail combos with "google authorship -" I have never before broken into the first page for the head term itself.
And now it's been there for over two weeks. We'll see if it lasts.
Again I'm not saying for certainty all my +1's did it. Actually I'm not saying that at all. In line with Cyrus's article (and my thinking for many months now), I believe it is the fact that a great many of those +1's were from shares of my post on Google+, which means a damn lot of links!
Some of this goes way over my head, but I think I understand the gist of it. My business is in an artsy niche, TAFA, where we work with handmade textiles and fiber art. There is no comparison between my experience on Facebook with that on Google+. I have felt befuddled about how to engage people on Google+, while Facebook feels intuitive and we would not have grown so quickly without it. We have a public page and private groups on both of them. Both of the groups are for our members and the Facebook ones share constantly and openly while the Google+ ones never interact. The content I share on our public pages is similar and the Google+ ones get very few shares.
I joined one community on Google+ after they launched them, an organic gardening one that I was interested in and got hounded out by some fanatic within minutes. I've never had a nasty experience like that on Facebook.
In reading this post and all of these comments, I can understand the potential of investing time into Google+ but have to say that my heart just isn't into it. The question I would like to pose is that even if content might get higher rankings through that platform, aren't the viral capabilities on Facebook more valuable? In other words, even if posting on Google+ ends up showing better in searches, if there is no community there to support it, won't it just get lost? Facebook is our number 1 referrer after search engine results and in looking at how we show up on search engines, the referrals are coming from our site, from images, and from other social media places (like Pinterest), not Google+ postings. So, I really don't see the value of investing a lot there.
Go with what you're passionate with!
Now a days Social media networking sites and Google Plus is playing vital role incerasing traffic of website. Thanks for your article Cyrus-Shepard very valuable information. Once gain thanks
Finally reading this post after all of the constant debate I've heard online, mainly from Twitter not G+ ironically enough. Good to see SEO's always challenging each other to be better marketers.
I tend to agree that the "shared links" are the result of the rankings influence not the actual +1, but regardless great post as always Cyrus.
There are indeed some points in this article to ponder about however it's seems a bit conspicuous about +1 and rankings but one must always has a notion in mind that Google plus has become the second largest social media platform in internet marketing industry! Moreover I read somewhere that If you want to make "Google" happy; start using Google products :P Food For Thought ;)
Nice link to Rand's blog! And speaking of social buttons, you guys should add a social button for Linkedin on the Moz blog.
+ a bufferapp button would come in handy too...
We've talked about that a lot actually, but we found that most people use the Buffer toolbar button.
SEO Community bend over get ready and play the Google game again. They have not had any success with social so let's find a fuzzy way to get SEO's knickers in a twist and send them flocking to Google + to grow and build it. Then when the job is done Google will change it algorithm and sites will drop like rocks again. Sigh!
LOL. Absolutely with you.
Cyrus,
You get my +1 for being the most talked about post of the day in the online marketing community and possibly for the next few days to come :)
Not only does he host one helluva conference - the man puts together a mean blog post that makes you think, spawns debate, and earns 3K +1s (at the time I am submitting this comment). Cyrus Shepard, YOU SO TOTALLY ROCK DUDE!
This and the post by Dustin Stout that came out yesterday make it clear that as an online marketer, you need to start using Google+ as an SEO tool, more than a social platform. Great read!
I'll be honest. I never thought that Google Plus was going to take off. Particularly after Google followed corporate (and possible NSA) interests in instituting their real name policy shortly after launch. They didn't differentiate themselves enough from Facebook to be any sort of cool competitor that would really inspire the imagination of people to get them to switch over when their friends are all on Facebook. But the ballgame changes if they ultimately end up tweaking their algorithm so that posts and social sharing on Google Plus directly impacts search results in a positive way as mentioned here. How far could Google go?
If Google tweaked their search algorithm in a certain way to favor Google Plus, it could be an amazing kick in the pants for every business out there that is currently putting their Facebook page in their TV ads, using the types of services at
Facebook is trying to create a real search engine and search features, but outside of their social data I don't think they're there yet and that will take time for them to develop what Google has over the past decade.
So the real question is if Google can become Facebook faster than Facebook can become Google?
It will take off now with the SEO community wresting for rankings :)
Hasn't that always been the reason for SEOs to be on G+ though? :)
I think I'm getting confused about the terminology being used in this article. When you say "a URL's number of Google +1s is more highly correlated with search rankings than any other factor" - how do you exactly +1 a specific URL now? I know you used to be able to from the SERPs, however, I don't see that capability anymore.
Or......are you saying that just +1ing a domain's Google+ profile is highly correlated with search rankings?
Google provides an API to pull +1 data from. Tom Anthony has a nice write up here how to use it here. https://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blog/google_plus_one_button_seo_count_api/
Thanks Cyrus for the post. Although I am not completely familiar with how Google+ works with search rankings, from reading your article and other links that people have posted here, it seems like G+ helps a ton for SEO.
In some weird way it almost feels like this website is becoming a mouthpiece for Google..
We get that sometimes. We also watch our backs very carefully :)
How could Google possibly choose not to use +1's if they use Twitter data as a ranking signal, as per M Cutts' Dec 2010 confirmation? Ref: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ofhwPC-5Ub4
Great example. Sorts of puts Matt's entire recent argument in a different light.
I find this incredibly fascinating. One question I'm wondering about is how to compare the link equity influence of a highly influential Google+ profile (over a million followers) compared to a web page on a high domain authority site. I started doing my own case study (a couple weeks prior to this Moz post) after I noticed the highly influential Guy Kawasaki shared one of my guitar blog posts on his G+ profile. My findings: https://www.kernmedia.com/google-plus-search-results-rankings/ ...still a lot of questions.
Fascinating study! Thanks for sharing. Let us know if you reach any further conconclusions.
Hey @Cyrus,
It seems that Google+ pass SEO benefits. As discussed in this week's WBF, (weighting-the-ranking-factors-whiteboard-friday) social signals do play a role in the ranking factors.
was very logical that "Google" bet its monopoly, the fact of the matter is that now the seo has taken a new direction, where social media plays a big role
wow great post and a great debate here!
G+ is just so hard to integrate into our company's social/seo strategy because none of our customers are on G+. Fb and Twitter were nice because they made a sense from a customer communications perspective as well as SEO (debatable)... but G+ will have to be built with a completely new set of content strategy and a goal that doesn't involve things directly to do with the bottom line.
And Google can just decide that g+ links are not worth it one day.. sounds like a really risky strategy, at least for me.
I have 14 sites that are specific niches and a Google+ page for each with authorship set up also. I have noticed if I type my name into Google and search it my picture will come up with the last post I made from something I posted on my main page (related to my name) and not anything related to my other pages.
Example: I have an Antiques and Collectibles site. I write an article on Art Glass and post that to my corresponding Antiques and Collectibles Google+ page. I Google my name and the last or most recent post for the last thing I shared on my name page not my Antiques and Collectibles page related to the post is what appears.
So am I still gaining Google love from my posts on those "pages" built under my Google account? Each page has numerous followers and receives +s frequently.
Thanks Cyrus, a great post and thank you Mark Traphagen for your continued clarification
Great post Cyrus. Post + comments give one a lot to think about in terms of resource allocation and how different social platforms fit into bigger picture of trying to grow a business.
I would hope regardless of why G+ offers the most SEO value that holistic marketers remember that if your audience is better suited to FB (or any other social platform) that that is where the effort should be. Chasing algo and links and putting all one's eggs in the G basket only leads to Panda/Penguin type outcomes. That's not to say you made any such point, or anything close to it, but that I think some take posts like this and go from a strategy to abusing one tactic in the blink of an eye.
Cheers
OOOOOOOOOOOhhhhhh. How I love a good controversy.
Ok, so I just read Matt Cutts "kind of" refutal of this article on Hacker News. Let me just say that IMHO, Google+ does effect SERPS and I will tell you why. I think that Google uses +1s and other social metrics in their "author rank" algorithm I also think that author rank has a direct impact on search.
Obviously, I'm not Matt Cutts (and I have the upmost respect for him) but I think that there is a 2nd level connection between +1s and rankings....
What do you think?
Personally, I agree with this controversial post. The amount of +1's do not influence the rankings of blog post, article post, etc, its the amount of times this content is posted on Google +. We all know from experience that google favors itself (Google +, Youtube). Your content on a Google + high influencer would go a long way..quality backlink, etc.
It just seems inevitable that Google will remove any SEO value from this once it reach whatever goal they have with the site as far as user ship. It happened with Youtube. I've seen this happen with so many other social media sites too. It's worth using for sure but there's a limit to how much effort I would put into Google + if that effort is taking away from other things that will stand the test of time.
Wouldn't surprise me either. The only thing that makes me doubt this is that they use Google+ to crawl and index new content, which means either 1) Keeping the links followed or 2) Changing the rules specifically for Google+
I posted to my main G+ page and another page I built for a niche site. Examining visitors path for the site I posted for I saw where Google either began a crawl but at least visited the site in a very quick time from my G+ post. Actually two visits for both posts to G+.
First let me thank you for your amazing post. Second, as you mentioned +1's help SERP and we know Google care a lot about speed. which one do you think is more effective practice for clients with little competition on their criteria? and which one come to an earlier results??
thank you in advance.
Cyrus@
first of all thanks for sharing this post. G+ is creating curiosity since it was launched by Google. Initially we wondered that G+ must be going magical as it is launched by Google but soon we all got to know that it is only using by Internet marketing Professionals only, Yes i agree that G+ contributes in Ranking. I just want to know what are the other contribution of G+, no common people are using it, Facebook is still first choice of common users of social networking sites. Even i wonder many of Internet Marketing experts are not aware how to use G+ effectively and fluently. If we Internet Marketing experts are using G+ then it must contribute in ranking other wise we have lots of social networking sites.
Hi Cyrus - thanks for some correlation data to support engagement in Google+ as a platform.
That being said, I think the benefits of Google+ go way beyond rankings and links to what you infer by making comments, talking about what you post etc - having been on G+ for a while now, it is truly the connections, conversations and engagement that seems of a much better quality than, say, Facebook. Social media should be first social - and that's where 99% of its value is. That being said, it's great to have the extra 'add on' of ranks - so long as we talk about ranks as a side-benefit not a core motivator I'll be happy :)
It wouldn't suprise me if Google came out and said they block all PageRank from Google+ posts and links pass no value. Even then, I couldn't agree with you more. Google+ has the benefits of a really great user base.
After Matt Cutt's retort yesterday about +1's not helping ranking (which if the posts on G+ area followed links, then in the least the sharing on G+ must by definition influence rankings), then I would also not be surprised if they suddenly made all G+ nofollow (the way Twitter pretty much always has). It would be 'negative publicity' for Google, but then again, that's never stopped them.
Which would be a shame.
And also your data speaks correlation and Moz have always said correlation!=causation - correlation is mathematical relationship, not one-way causation. Be interesting to see how Google respond ultimately to this.
Thank you Cyrus, for this awesome post and laying things out in such a readable fashion, as always. After Moz, Google+ is the best thing that's ever happened to me (well, except for some beautiful personal things). Where else can you develop such fascinating, growthful relationships, be supported for your growth, encouraged to write and share ideas, AND gain SEO benefits for your company while building your authorship.There is a plethora of brilliant folks to follow and interact with. For instance...Mark Traphagen. His contribution is awesome and pioneering.
I think my favorite from the very beginning on G+ was adding real value intro to entice the reader to click the link to further explore...so many here still just post a link with 5 words and run...engagement and interaction with learning is why I can't resist this platform! thanks
I think that very few people in most industry niches are using google+. The number of people using it in the niche of my website (and probably Yours if your website is not about SEO or Google) is not high enough to be a critical mass. And, I don't think that the people using Google+ are a representative group of people.
Therefore in my opinion Google+ is about as effective at measuring the importance of your website or your content as an Alexa ranking. The only difference is that Google is trying to stuff Google+ down the throats of the public and just might give it value just because they own it. They are using their visibility, plus a little smoke, to leverage adoption.
Completely agree, IMO after seen the success of Facebook and its commercialization google launched the G+. But the mass was with the Facebook already and who wants to go somewhere else leaving the friend's network for the similar stuff, a poor response was given to the G+. Now to make it a success G may become a bit biased towards its own social signal.
The debate may go very long about the correlation of G+ with SERP but there is economics that play a major role in everything we do or build.
Just wondering how many users are there in G+ now? People still prefer to use FB instead of G+. Another question is, are this +1 effect tested on all verticals? If not which verticals probably have some effect?
We don't have any exact numbers right now. Undoubtedly less than Facebook (what isn't?), but still a huge number. I know this is anecdotal, but I have nearly 60,000 followers there and more activity than I can keep up with.
Yep I just checked your G+ profile; you have a pretty big community. My 1st question attached with 2nd one, May be my assumption is wrong but I think G+ is mainly used by tech savvy people general people still away from it (is it?).
I wouldn't make such an assumption anymore. It's true that most of the early adopter crew were techies, but I see a much more diverse crowd on G+ these days. The one characteristic though is that it tends to attract people who aren't necessarily all that active on other social networks, but I see that as a good thing.
This recent article below says half the users of Facebook which was closer than I thought the numbers would have been. Out of my friends on Facebook, 1 in 10 has a G + account. The people that do have one have much less activity compared to their Facebook page.
https://venturebeat.com/2013/07/08/google-plus-one-number-two/
Great article - not surprising that Google search results will be favoured by Google+ results in a favoured way compared with other social engines - always a battle trying to optimize a site on a product such as Stainless Steel fasteners as there are so few Google+ accounts in parties related to it.
Does anyone know if comments on other sites, posted with a google+ account, lend any benefit to the URL associated with that google+ profile in Google Authorship?
I totally agree. Google has been using Google+ to discover new content. Many web professionals also have discovered that URLs shared on Google+ are crawled and indexed very quickly. Great post here Cyrus. I will definitely share this post.
Great post. Some excellent insight into the potential benefits of Google plus vs other social networks.
Hi, I find the thrust of this post a bit confusing; is it about encouraging +1s on your content, or posting to G+? (...or both, in some sort of not well defined way?)
This sentence in particular:
(Edit: This should say "posting on Google+" instead of Google +1s. It's clear that Google doesn't use the raw number of +1s directly in its search algorithm, but Google+ posts have SEO benefits unlike other social platforms.)
Doesn't this sort of change everything that is said in the whole post, or at least much of what comes after the sentence? It almost feels like the post needed to be rewritten but wasn't; this sentence was just injected in
Thank you very much, because it's true today google+ day gives much weight for SEO
I find the best way to be counting, is installed and ready ahy mozbar bar leaves you the amount of product obtained in 1 g+ determined
Another interesting thing to note is that in algunosg + gplus liogran get too high in the serps PA, Greetings
I have read few articles which tells about importance of social sharing but I don't understand that when you get no-follow links from these sites than whats the benefit. Does no follow links also have importance.
Visitors / traffic from these links is a benefit, especially if people buy things from you, or fill out lead forms. To be perfectly honest, I would hardly turn down a nofollow link on Boing Boing that links to our model warship site, for example. It would be a good match for the audience, and I'd get enough sales and buzz and people talking about the site and adding links in their own posts that I would be (mostly) fine with it being a nofollow.
Just a basic question, from an SEO standpoint, is it correct to add Publisher and Author HEAD link details to every web-page on a site?
Informative article, thanks.
For anyone interested, Google's Matt Cutts responded to this idea here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6243451
Really interesting.
What better way to get people to sign up to a social media site which actually gives financial benefit? such as SEO - Google will do everything they can be remove the monopoly if Facebook and to start their own.
"the relationship between +1s and higher rankings goes beyond correlation into the territory of actual causation"
How can you conclude that? I don't see any valid justification in this article. You mention that shares on G+ create followed links, but +1 don't create links!
Oliver, when someone clicks a +1 on a web page, they are prompted to share to Google+. On my blog, the vast majority of +1's result in a share. The share contains a followed link back to my post, and it is those links, I'm convinced, that are causing this effect, not the number of +1's in and of itself.
You make the assumption that people who +1 also share, which is not proved.
And this article is only about "Google +1s" (cf. the title).
Maybe it would be interesting to study the impact of Google+ shares.
I can only tell you that a very high percentage of the plusses on our Virante.org blog result in actual G+ shares with a followed link. We also get huge traffic from those links. Google+ is our number one referral traffic source.
And yes, the title is about plus ones, but read again carefully. Cyrus brings out that the real power here is the created links.
Mark or someone else, what plugin or snippet of code do you use that creates the "shared" view of G+ on your blog articles?
The way I have my blog setup up appears to not share the content, but just +1s it.
Mark, can you tell me if there is a mean (a tool) to measure the number of G+ shares a page of my website has?
We can see the number of +1's, but what about the number of shares?
It's possible to know it for Facebook (the number in the widget is the sum of likes, shares and comments) but for Google+?
Thank you!
Oliver.. OK forget about the sharing.. look at the list of other factors. There is no other social space that packs those factors. The title may have been about +1's but the body content sure provides a lot of other compelling data.
Many of my posts receive +1's but few shares. I do not produce the same volume or type of content that Mark or Virante does. I do not have 60,000 followers either. However...
I get more traffic and business from Google+ activity than any other space.
The +1 just got a boost in social factor value and we just discovered that the body links in + posts carry the engagement to the externally linked blog post. (ty Dustin Stout)
How much do you think both of those factors impact rank? When you stack ALL of the information regarding Google+ engagement it's hard to argue the value over any other social space.
But forget the data, my accountant seems to think Google+ rocks.. That's the bottomline really. :)
Hey Oliver, that's the one sentence I wish I would have stated more clearly. What I should have said instead was this:
"..there is reason to suspect the relationship between posting on Google+ and higher rankings goes beyond correlation into the territory of actual causation"
The relationship is not with +1s, but with the posts themselves. Hope that's a little more clear.
"The relationship is not with +1s, but with the posts themselves."
=> Yes, it's more accurate like this. Thank you for editing your post.
What about for who is working in adult niche? Does creating a google +1's account linking it to an adult site impact negatively on SERP?
FYI - did you see this recent study on Google+ impact (or lack of impact?) on SEO:
https://searchengineland.com/study-shows-no-clear-evidence-that-google-plus-drives-ranking-171789
I believe it was one of the most discussed(confusing) topic on all SEO platform including MOZ, SEL & SEJ.
Higher search ranking is always a dream of an SEO whether it is of fresher or experienced. this high ranking achievement need an very hard work.
Could this be a product placement and a prize of highier rankings in G?
Very informative post on Google +.
I always had this feeling that Google+ helps much more than any other social media. It would have to, cause it's Google.. and I felt that even my google blogs get a lot of attention as i check my webmaster.
I am into eBook Conversion and I depend a lot on google traffic.
I completely disagree with you. I have 17,000 Google +1 links on the front of my site here if you want to check the evidence https://www.femme-classic-art.com and it has not made one iota of difference. I will go even further and say Google Plus and Sharethis discourage people from linking to your site. Because as long as they have these features people will use them instead of linking. Notice I have almost 30,000 of these (its taken 3 years for me to get them). But I am only credited with about 90 links on Google.
Lately i'm trying to use and prove that google plus profile really helpful for increase our website visibilities on search result page. My website running on page one on keyword as i assign before. Could it be just a cache for the browser or it's fact to got the number one page on several days with google plus :-)
A very interesting read. Of course, it makes sense that it's not purely the number of +1s but the links they generate (especially if the user doing the sharing is an authority). Curious how strong the correlation will be on the 2014 Moz Ranking Factors study ... My guess is still quite high.
Yes, it is correct to a large extent as I have tested it on some of my pages and it proved that G+ and twitter shares do affect ranking to a extent. Nice informational post. Stay blessed
What about LinkedIn? Was it just not a part of the study, or is it not relevant?
So nice information ! thanks a lot !
I know that G+ is in decline but posting there new articles is sitll powerfull to our link strategy, I trust! ;)
Your post gives some great tips that I am hoping will help me out with my website. I'm still learning the ins and outs of Google Plus, and this is a post I'm bookmarking for future reference as I move forward. I recently had some problems with it and ended up getting some help with this matter from Internet Marketing Experts Australia. Thanks for sharing your expertise.
i would like to add some important factors of using Google Mybusiness (not G+ only). It increase my brand popularity and ranking with some good local keywords. Google+ communities are vast source for related visitors.
I'm confused by this. i am new to SEO, and am trying to market a site to improve it's rankings. I have been using the G+ page as a way of doing this, along with other methods such as backlinks from ranking pages etc. Yet the site is still not showing a single backlink from https://99webtools.com/banklink-with-pagerank.php tool. The site I am trying to rank is https://www.peakremovals.co.uk/
If anyone could give me some tips on what I'm doing wrong / how to better use G+ for this site, it would be much appreciated.
Thanks.
Cyrus thanks for this interesting piece of information. You guys have done extensive research to put out those figures.
I tried to test +1's amazing correlation with search rankings on one of my articles. Through extensive promotion of that article, i received around 50 +1's. There was slight improvement in search rankings, but not drastic.
I like to know, how much +1's is required to impact search rankings. Is Google going to give priority to the no of +1's or the quality of +1's ?
I have very little number of +1s but if You say it'll boost my rankings...:)
Confusing cause and effect serves no purpose apart from servicing Google's corporate propaganda model.
Higher search rankings tend to lead to more visits and more interaction of any kind including +1.
It would be an outrageous fallacy to suggest that this +1 caused the high ranking, because it could equally be the direct opposite of that.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Google+ has any SEO benefit. If it could be demonstrated, it would likely trigger antitrust investigations at the very least in the EU and US.
It concerns me profoundly that Mozilla, which is practically a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google, repeatedly promotes this sort of sensationalist hype about Google products. It is corporate propaganda when spun and presented in such a way, raising the legitimate questions about the degree.to which Google is behind stories like this.
Who can make the argument that Google+ engagement for any small business outside the online marketing industry is worthwhile? Whether we're talking SERP personalization, dofollow links from other authoritative G+ profiles, or ranking unique content on your own G+ profile, you STILL need PEOPLE. People who are in your target market that actively engage with G+ on a regular basis. Yes there will be people on G+ who just love blue widgets, but they're an outlier. No one ever seems to talk about how G+ can be used in the real world with real clients outside the online marketing industry.
So who can make the argument that a mom and pop shop selling blue widgets would actually benefit from using G+ to market their business?
Now a days Social media networking sites and Google Plus is playing vital role incerasing traffic of website. Thanks for your article
I saw several websites with G+ likes/shares ranking in the top of Google. But how about G+ pages themseves ranking?? Yes I also saw G+ pages ranking in Google for a search term of 60,000 per month. How is that possible? b/c the pages themselves do not have content? A puzzle for me!
I also saw only domains ranking without any content whatsoever. How??
Nearly a year on I wonder if this is still relevant I know G+ has change a bit but the other factor which could be larger is Google reviews (though its not the same)
That was informative. So is G+ the only social media that incorporates SEO?
Nice post and thanks for given awareness about Google +. But i have one question if we get best responses on blog such as wordpress , why we never get the ranking effective on Keywords.
I working on these two keywords Driving Training India and vehicle recovery Techniques with domain name https://www.drivingtrainingindia.com. But, i never get the improvement on ranking....:(.
Please provide some effective points....thanks.
[link removed]
Hi.
I'm late to the party! I found this great article and did some tests on my own. I am only seeing nofollow links regardless of how I share them. I have shared via the SERP, via cut & paste, and by using the Google + button. All of the links are nofollow. I am wondering if something has changed.
Awesome article, thanks for the info :)
Was already proven that pure +1s cant create traffic. THey may be a rankign factor at some point - ie if few pages ghet to top10 then +1s help to some point. But surely wont make it top1.
Correlation is not causation.
"Correlation is not causation but it sure is a hint."
-Edward Tufte
Really, Google+ stand has behavior that builds it an extreme better raised area for SEO. It recommends distribution of content on Google+ that gives weight to search rankings in important traditions.
Do higher SERP rankings = more G+1s.
Great post Cyrus. Thank you.
Thaks a lot for this post Cyrus
Actually there was a list of doubts regarding the power achieved through G+, Even it is not 100 clear, got some sort of idea. And quit happy to read the dicsussions held in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6243451 through this post. I belive it is my great time to read this post. Actually it was better than the ideas got in ICTT 2013 conference held at Kovalam regarding social media marketing.
Insightful post as always Cyrus! I totally agree that the impact of +1’s Google + reviews in rankings really has a great impact. It is a strong signal as compare to others social networking sites. Thank you for the post.
When you're on a android phone you are already logged into Google. Being that Android has close to 50% market share, it is extremely important to use Google +1.
Maybe it's just me but I think the whole main point of this article needs to be clarified:
"After Page Authority, a URL's number of Google +1s is more highly correlated with search rankings than any other factor."
Since Google removed +1's from Search results, there is no real way to "+1" a URL other than the URL of a Google Plus post. That being the case, it seems to me that this article would really be talking about either (a) the Search rankings of Google Plus posts, or (b) URL's that received +1's via organic search when it was still available.
Obviously that is not what you're talking about here and that's where my confusion begins. I'm also confused, though, on what links are followed:
"Only "shared" links (the links that show up beneath your post) are followed. Any external links you add withing the post body itself are nofollowed, so these don't pass any link equity."
Does this mean links dropped in the comments below your G+ post? Or does this mean that the link you originally posted is only followed when others click the little "share" arrow and post your post to their own stream? I tried checking out the Moz extension to verify but it won't load.
Again, maybe I'm just missing something but if you can help clarify these points that would be great.
Charles, Cyrus is referring to +1's made on your site, via a +1 button on a content page. When someone clicks that button, they have the option of sharing the page to Google+. If they do, it creates a post on that person's Google+ profile with a followed link back to the shared page. That's where we're saying the ranking juice comes from.
In a Google+ post, the only link that is marked "follow" is the "featured link" this is the rich snippet link that is created below the post itself, with an image from the shared post and a title. That featured link only occurs if
a) the poster copies a URL into the Link box on his post
b) the first link pasted into the Google+ post if no featured link has yet been created
c) automatically if the share is generated from a +1 on the web page.
Thank you for the clarification Marc. I think it's not clear in the article that that is what's being talked about. Unfortunately, I'm also a little confused by your comments - was Cyrus' study of a correlation of pages that were +1'ed via the +1 button (https://developers.google.com/+/web/+1button/) only? Or that were also Shared or posted to a users stream?
Plus one'ing via the button is separate from a share but it is not treated so in this article. It seems to me all Google+ activity is sort of lumped into one without carefully compartmentalizing the difference between Plus'ing a page with the G+ button, Plus'ing a Post on G+, Posting a link, and Sharing a Posted link.
Since the links Posted in Posts (I think it's confusing to talk about the link "below the post" because any link included in a Post is maybe below the original text a user adds, but it is still within the Post and not separate from or below it) are followed, it makes sense those URL's would have higher position since they should also have higher Authority.
But, that's not what this article is about - or is it?
(And P.S. - Mods, the "Submit" button is not always working when you edit your comments here - Chrome)
The Google +1s listed in the correlation study are pulled from Google's own API. Tom Anthony has a nice write up here how to use it: https://www.tomanthony.co.uk/blog/google_plus_one_button_seo_count_api/
Right, so the URL's discussed in the study were +1'ed via a +1 button embedded on the web page studied, correct? You were not talking about web pages that were Shared via a Google+ post, which post was then consequently +1'ed, correct?
Actually, I believe if a Google+ post is +1'ed, then those count as +1s towards the page, as well according to Google's API. So I don't think it has to be directly shared from the page.
Are you saying that according to the API, +1's on a Post containing link "A" are being attributed to link A as well as the Post itself? Is that just a hunch or something confirmed? Thanks
Interesting article. I may be able to test the causal theory. I have a website with an incorrect CMS implementation that's preventing crawling of the sub-pages. As a result, I've done no promotion of the site (duh) and have slowed content-generation. I'll start cross-linking from Google+ to the site and see how quickly the pages get picked up and if they get any ranking without any other external links. Still not proof, but could be an interesting case study. As always, even if true, it's best to use this knowledge to engage users in valuable ways via Google+ rather than load up on lots of low-quality links.
I also hope Google+ sticks around. Google flakes out on their failed services a lot.
To me it seems like people get caught up in the technicalities of "If I do this ______ rankings will follow". The simple fact is Google and Bing are in the business of providing valuable information. Now what is more valuable than what people are talking about. If you cannot see the correlation between social trends and the way the search engines are implementing those metrics into their rankings then you should consider another line of work...
I predict that within the next 5 years rankings will be very short lived. I predict the SERPs to stress much more with more emphasis on what's "Trending" and by who. If you listen to what Matt says in the video he says, It's not going to matter if the site has great on page seo, or great back links, but if the influences are talking about you, then the rankings will follow.
This is nice post. i agreed to go through this post. there seems great advise and beautifully explained about G+/Facebook ect. This is true that Google plus, Facebook, Twitter as well as other social media sites are very helpful to increase our website visibility on search engine result page (SERP), and its important to get more up our ranking on search engine. Thanks a lot for such a great advice!!
And now Search Engine Land releases a statement from Matt Cutts saying that Google Plus data does not affect rankings. What a load of cr***:
https://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-once-again-1s-have-no-direct-impact-on-rankings-170200
Cyrus -
You state "Google+ posts pass link equity".
I disagree with this statement. If you click a link shared on Google+ and check out the URL as it opens and resolves, you'll see that it goes through an intermediary redirect with the URL plus.url.google.com. This is a method that's been used for a long time by sites, for many different reasons, but I believe it's been shown that when links internally redirect before going elsewhere on the web they don't pass link equity.
When you click on a link, it's only a javascript layer that goes through an intermediary redirect. The source code contains a valid a href link without nofollow, linking directly to the destination.
Check out this post you made: https://plus.google.com/112310499813770104747/posts/Gk3pWZP6YSP
and the cache version (text only): https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-Q0Kytrc-A8J:https://plus.google.com/112310499813770104747/posts/Gk3pWZP6YSP&hl=fr&gl=fr&strip=1
Agree?
It's an interesting one. When you turn off Javascript, the post doesn't redirect through the intermediary URL.
I've asked some Googlers on G+ (oh the irony) and reaching out to some privately.
Some thoughts from Pedro Dias here -
"> 2. Google+ posts pass link equity
Maybe to the naked eye they do. Nevertheless Google still can cut this in the backend if they chose to, moreover I wouldn't be surprised if they can adjust it individually to each user depending on algorithmic analysis of behavior and what kind of stuff you share + engagement"
John here. I'd agree with Pedro.
Also, if we're not confusing correlation/causation (and Cyrus I know you're saying causation) then raw numbers won't cut it. It matters who shares it, the engagement it gets, where it spreads elsewhere, etc. Therefore, chasing +1s isn't the way to go. At least, I'm not going to chase them.
John, I agree with all of that. I believe (notice I'm using the word believe that some sort of link authority is passed, based on my own very extensive experience left with little way to explain things otherwise, but I agree it could be limited in many cases and vary with the user. The most fundamental (but certainly not only) way it varies is the fact that different G+ profiles have different levels of toolbar PageRank. I wouldn't take that alone as an indication of their complete authority, but it does indicate that Google wants to rank profiles by authority. What else would they be doing that for but to pass on that authority to others they engage with and point to in some way?
Good points John, it wouldn't surprise me at all if Google devalued the links from Google+, but like Mark I don't suspect they do, at least not yet.
Oh, great Google+ thread, by the way. https://plus.google.com/u/0/112310499813770104747/posts/Fbhfc2zLbWv
I'm totally confused. It's not +1's that matter, it's Google+ posts, correct? If so, an editor or the writer should fix the first few paragraphs of this article.
Speaking of high-quality content....
Thanks Hipmunk. I don't think there's a black and white answer, hence the broad debate.
Regardless, your point is well taken. I wish Google+ was as easy to navigate as your website. :)
https://xkcd.com/552/
Looks like there are a lot of strong opinions going both ways on this one. One thing that I do find interesting is that I rarely see plus.google.com OR facebook.com OR twitter.com links in the list, or anywhere near the top of the list, of recognized and/or valuable links for my sites whether checking them in Open Site Explorer, ahrefs, even GWT... I don't have a lot of followers yet in most of those cases, though, so it may not be a relevant sample size.
Nice...
This is intriguing. As far as I can remember, this is the first time since Google lost their access to the Twitter firehose that we've been able to prove the connection between social media and SERPS.
I still think Facebook/Twitter have an effect on rankings but Google+ seems to be aggressivlly impacting the SERP. :)
At the moment I did not get any ranking through Google plus activities. Anyways thanks for your clues.
Umm , i think that link from google+ have SEO weight, but i will not suprised if google nofollow all link ( like squiddo) , and when the next pagerank update ? Are google not updating pagerank bicause Google + , this is realy stupid but i think Google now has confused to rating a website. Because there are 200 point when Google ranking a website, and it keep increased, are pagerank still useful ?
Thank you Cyrus to reminding us that Google plus and Google search results are highly related.You have included all the points to keep in mind when dealing with the Google Plus.
Thanks for putting in the additional resources at the end. You make a great case for using G+, now all I have to do is put the effort in.
Cyrus,
I love how your post does not come out of left field; rather, it dovetails nicely with what others seem to be figuring out organically as well.
Ryan,
I, too, read Dustin's blog on G+ yesterday. ...Really illuminated some key benefits of G+. My takeaway from that piece, Cyrus' work here and the stuff I've read on KaiserTheSage's blog is G+ should not be ignored.
Regardless of which "side" you fall on, we are at least seeing some strong indications that G+ has the potential to be a powerful vehicle for marketers.
When clients ask which social media platform(s) I recommend for their business, I now make it a priority to single out G+.
RS
"Matt says it isn’t surprising content with more likes or +1s have better rankings. Matt explains, “If you make compelling content, people will link to it, like it, share it on Facebook, +1 it, etc.”
Source:
https://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-once-again-1s-have-no-direct-impact-on-rankings-170200
People forget, Google is a product that is not owned by the public. Once the won the court case stating they could favor their own results over competitors true unbiased search died a quick death. Can I get an over/under for when Analytics becomes a paid service/
Great post as always Cyrus! I myself also have experienced the impact of +1’s, shares and no. of possitive Google + reviews in rankings. Google + is a strong social siginal as compair to others Facebook or Twitter etc. I once read a post about social siginals where it was mention that 10 facebook likes = 1 “+1” on Google +.
Is there any correlation between Google +1's and higher search ranking for Google AdWords PPC?
Hi,
Ranking algorithm of organic SERP and Adwords are quite different. There are about 200+ (content, other on page factors, back links, anchors, social signals etc.) signals that determine organic ranking whereas in Adwords the first thing is your Bid value. Adwords algorithm has nothing to do with your content, back links, social signals etc. in determining your Paid Ranking.Keep your CPC high and you'll rank high.
Adwords DOES look at your content. it gives you a very low quality score if your page is not relevant, thus making you virtualy impossible to show your ad
G+ is too large of an animal. In time, you would need a zillion pluses to out rank people with a billion pluses. It would be a never ending game. I believe it does effect traffic. I also think the effect will decrease over time.
Do you lose author juice by giving out +'s to posts that you like? How important is a vanity URL on G+?
The quantity of +1's received verse +1's given out by a particular author may have an effect. For example, if I give out a + to every post that I like, am I wasting some of my own author juice? As a user, I think it is appropriate to give someone a plus if they posted something I like. For SEO, it may not be the best idea. Anyone have facts to support one way or the other?
I have seen quite a large amount of Google plus presence in the search results, at least regarding certain search terms.
If you go through the results for those search terms, most of the smaller sites "ranking amid the "big brands" had Google Plus profiles.
It definitely seems to give an added boost within the ranking results, though, more than likely as one part of many ranking factors.
It completely makes sense that Google would include G+ in it's algorithms, but at some point in the future there's got to be a consolidation of all these sharing options. Expecting readers to read an article, hit the twitter share, G+, LinkedIn Share, and Facebook Like for a post seems unsustainable in my opinion. Out of my personal and professional network G+ seems to be the least used of the networks. Also wonder if this is going to be another way for some blackhats to try to game the system again..."buy 100 (fake) G+ shares for higher rankings"...
Thanks MOZ, its such a great research.But unfortunately in Matt cutt's opinion there is no big relation between with Google plus and SERP.Any way the results make me to get on some good decisions on the seo strategy.
Cyrus Shepard Your article I think will be a defining moment in the history of the Internet. Google owns market share percentage I think will be hard pressed for anyone to compete with, until a new form of communication arises. It's not just a matter of time until your average internet marketer and SEO company understands the playing field. Not sure how long that will take but it will happen at some point. Great work and thanks a bunch
I was trying to keep this a secret! ;)
It creates confusion in my mind before, will +1 working for me or not. Thanks @Cyrus for sharing with us.
It blows my mind that G+ has become it's own SEO microcosm. Thanks, Cyrus!
Really useful!
thanks Cyrus
How surprising that GOOGLE plus has a direct correlation with GOOGLE rankings. It's funny that they claim Google+ is this giant social media network yet I don't really know anyone that uses it. Pretty sure they fudge those numbers since all of Google's apps are connected. I use Gmail and Google Drive but have never used Google+ in my life. Thanks for this information and article though - it shows that businesses should have a presence on Google+ even if people aren't really using it. Good read :)
I need to see my psychiatrist, because my nearly 60,000 followers, hundreds of comments and notifications everyday, and the thousands of visits per week driven to our site directly from Google+ must all be in my head ;-)
What you're experiencing is called confirmation bias. You're looking at your own limited sampling of experience on G+ (combined with what you've probably heard about it from "experts") and assuming that extrapolates to the whole. It doesn't.
The thing about G+ is you likely won't find your existing social media friends there. But why would you need another network to talk to the same people. What G+ makes incredibly easy (and how I worked up to 60K followers and a very active network) is finding existing conversations in your wheelhouse that you can enter into and get to know new people.
G+ has connected me with hugely influential people I never would have met otherwise. That has led to all sorts of opportunites in my professional life. It's literally the best thing that ever happened to me outside of my family and friends.
"It's literally the best thing that ever happened to me outside of my family and friends."
That's a really strong statement. Well, if what you're saying is true, then I stand corrected.
OK, I'll come clean.
After my family, friends, and....Guinness draft in bottles ;-)
A man after my own heart!
Yes its true that google plus profile really helpful for increase our website visibilities on search result page. I did some testing on this issue. I only promoting my website through google plus without doing any SEO on it & I was so happy that I got ranked up for many keywords without did seo. my website was related to education.
getogy may you please share your viral strategy to us on Google Plus?
The biggest question that arrive here is:
WHY. THE RULE OF MAKING OUTGOING LINKS NOFOLLOWED NOT APPLIED IN GOOGLE+ case?
Since google suggests the NATURAL LINKS ARE ONLY EDITORIAL LINKS. Then what about link that I can generate myself that pass PageRank as well like in case of G+
IS IT NOT THE VIOLATION OF ITS QUALITY GUIDELINES?
WHY IT HAS GIVEN A TOOL THAT CAN CREATE OR MANIPULATE THE ANCHOR TEXT WITH LINK?
SHOULD IT NOT BE NOFOLLOWED?
We don't really know exactly how Google handles these links (see the comments from Pedro the ex-Googler in the comment of gfiorelli1 above). But I think that repeated links from the same user may have a diminishing return. Google likes domain diversity in your backlink profile. If all your links always come from the same few sources, the links start to lose some authority. So if you're the only one posting links to your site, over time I think that would lose what little value it had.
It won't surprise me that links shared by an user and that are linking to site he is contributor to would be considered somehow as they were "internal links", hence with a lesser value than real editorial backlinks... at least that's what common sense tells me, and common sense usually is the real secret of SEO :)
I don't know much about SEO, so I wouldn't really know, but to be honest I wouldn't be surprised if it's just to get users and make google+ less like a graveyard. Whenever a platform that allows follow links is discovered, those in the business of SEO jump on it and all sign up, just to make a link. This is facilitated by people sharing the information, take articles like this one, as well as "n ways to get follow links etc blog posts. Once Google has enough users that it actually passes as a decent social platform, I imagine they would remove the follow links with the pretext of it being abused too much as a way of getting back links.
very nice post sir.... i agree with your style
[link removed by editor]