Facebook vs Google+ which one is better for SEO

[diggdirectory]

Facebook vs Google+ which one is better for SEO and online marketing.

[Christiaan]

Maybe you should read a bit more before you start putting comments and new topics on the forum to get your 5 posts

In my opinion Google+ will be better for your SEO. But the problem is that not so many people use Google+, everyone is on Facebook.

[louie.wilson]

Google+ obviously as it's related to Google, and you may have heard how much they care about social recommendations.
Having a Google+ writer profile helps a site. Now don't forget Facebook, it's virality can in the end be a good asset for your SEO (lots of shared links, views, etc)

[bettinganalyst]

Facebook is better as it has too many users but regarding SEO , Google+ is better .

[Frank Benjamin]

I think it depends on how you are defining "better for SEO."

Neither site provides dofollow links, so in one way they are equal. However, social signal are becoming more and more important, and even Google says they account for at least a small bit in their algo. With that in mind, the one that gets you the most shares, likes, etc is the best. Probably depends on your audience.

But I don't look at Social Media as SEO, it is more marketing and promotion as you are getting the word out. If you have the audience, they likes and shares will come. But if you give them actual information and link it to your site, it is truly targeting traffic. By the way, YouTube is also good for this. I know a person in another niche that gets most of her traffic from YouTube videos.

Finally, you might want to consider looking into Tumblr. Tumblr is like Wordpress.com and Facebook combined. You can post articles, memes, etc and people can share, or reblog, it. If you have a nice following, that can be quite a few shares. Best of all, the links are dofollow! So think of all the links you could get if your post goes viral. This is something that I am looking into more.

[Jay_v]

None.

Build your website with visitors/users in mind. Make sure they get what they want when they visit, you should be fine

[wettFORM.AT]

google want to see you use their products so google+ is definitly good for your seo but google wants to see real persons and no comic pictures f.e. these profiles will be possibly reported in the near future. imo all social media channels become more important this time and if google sees a good facebook page with some fans it could definitly increase rankings. so if I have to choose between facebook and google + in terms of seo I would say google + in terms of online marketing I would choose Facebook.

[Frank Benjamin]

None.

Build your website with visitors/users in mind. Make sure they get what they want when they visit, you should be fine

Are you suggesting the "build it and they will come" mentality?

Sorry, but that just doesn't work - especially in such a competitive niche.

You have to do some kind of website promotion. Some people choose to go the SEO route and build links, while others do some good old internet marketing on FB, G+, YT and other outlets. This is known as the "Be Everywhere" approach by veteran IMer Pat Flynn. Having an optin email list is also key.

I personally think a nice small base of off-site SEO and strong on-site SEO and quality content can get the site a jump start. Once the site gains traction and you get some subscribers, you can solely focus on marketing the site.

Regardless if you go completely white-hat and build no links except for Social Media marketing, go Blackhat or somewhere in between, at the end of the day, you need quality content and provide a quality experience to your visitors or they will never return or become conversions for your affiliate programs.

[Rostick]

strictly SEO speaking, for sure google+.

[Frank Benjamin]

strictly SEO speaking, for sure google+.

Really? How so? Any evidence that it has any more SEO benefit over Facebook, Twitter, Pintrest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[louie.wilson]

I'm not expert enough to give unbeatable proof, but the simple fact that Google+ belongs to Google should make it good enough.

Now to be more complete, the google authorship is supposed to have positive effect on your content and then your SEO. It has been criticized by some SEO guys, but it's still something google launched to avoid stolen content and reinforce Google+ to add value to content sites. Since we know content is king (in most of the cases, except when smart ass manage to trick google), i believe it's an asset for long term.

In the end, none of these social media site has any do follow link. So no direct impact on link building.
But it's social SEO, and it's getting more and more important.
Tip: Tumbler still had do follow links last time i checked. Might be something to consider.

Really? How so? Any evidence that it has any more SEO benefit over Facebook, Twitter, Pintrest?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Frank Benjamin]

Yeah, just because it is owned by Google doesn't make it better in my eye. I could argue that it makes it worse considering their campaign against anything that resembles link building.

Tumbler does still is dofollow. I'm actually testing a network there.

However, at the end of the day, the link should really be secondary. I know it's a hard concept to swallow if you been doing this for any period of time, but my strategy is evolving to write content with click-through potential and try to get that on quality sites, which is seems to be extremely hard in this niche.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[louie.wilson]

Yeah, just because it is owned by Google doesn't make it better in my eye.

True in some ways. But don't underestimate what they want to do with G+

However, at the end of the day, the link should really be secondary. I know it's a hard concept to swallow if you been doing this for any period of time, but my strategy is evolving to write content with click-through potential and try to get that on quality sites, which is seems to be extremely hard in this niche.

I get your point. But having a click through content is good for conversion, won't impact your SEO. So not really relevant for this discussion.
Unless i'm missing something.

Good SEO Strategy (involving link building) = more traffic
Good content strategy (click through oriented, valuable content) = more clicks

[Frank Benjamin]

Not irrelevant at all! Good Content and Good SEO can go hand in hand. I'm many niches, it does and the link is secondary.

If you can write a quality article and get it published on a quality and popular site, you will get the link juice and possible traffic from that article. I understand that isn't always possible, especially in this niche, but that should be the ultimate goal. But I definitely will settle for lesser known sites as long as they are quality and don't have an spammy link profile.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[louie.wilson]

Not irrelevant at all! Good Content and Good SEO can go hand in hand.

It always should
I think we're looping. All your points are valid, was just explaining a point of view on G+ potential impact.

Cheers

[Frank Benjamin]

I agree. Think my point is that Social Media is not the best place for SEO. That being said, social signals are supposed to mean something.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MichaelCorfman]

I added a poll to the question posed, and moved the thread from the SEO forum to the poll forum (leaving a permanent redirect so this thread continues to be listed in the SEO forum). That way we can feature this thread as the poll of the week in the GPWA newsletter we are sending out today.

Michael

[sweetbet]

The "social signals" from G+ will definitely outweigh the ones from facebook and twitter as far as google is concerned anway, but exactly how important are social signals when it comes to ranking. I really can't tell.

[edgarf76]

I think google plus is better, however I have not evidence to support the statement. It is my opinion.

The reason I say google plus is that when someone is in your google plus circle and you do a google search, their post of like of a post may come up.

[Frank Benjamin]

My final comment on this debate is that no Social Media is "better" for SEO per se. While it seems that maybe the number of people in your circle might influence your authority, the point of social media is to market to the masses. If your posts, videos or links aren't getting shared or liked, it doesn't matter where you are.

I guess it depends on where your audience is. I don't think a Share on G+ is better than a Share or Like on FB, or visa versa in terms of SEO.

When it comes to Social Media, I wouldn't think about SEO at all, but marketing and getting the word out about your site and content. I know that this isn't in line with the OP's question, but that is because I don't think there is a real answer to it.