Facebook vs Google+ which one is better for SEO

[universal4]

Neither one are designed or meant to be for seo.

Rick
Universal4

[rtgbonus]

Google (always) loves Google !

[louie.wilson]

WERE.
I believe this is becoming less and less true as social search grows.

Neither one are designed or meant to be for seo.

Rick
Universal4

[taurus king]

In terms of potential virality Facebooks works better, but Google+ works much better for SEO, look up some blackboard friday videos at MOZ for detailed explanation.

[emmaw]

Google+ is better than facebook for SEO, But the problem is that so many people are on Facebook rather than on google+

[Casino Online Rating]

I also think that Google+ is better for SEO, but on the other hand it's less popular than Facebook, so if you want to drive some traffic to your website you should focus on Facebook, as you will find there more players.

[muffincrumbs]

Google Plus went the nofollow route about 1 year ago. Before then it was mostly dofollow making it quite good for seo. CBR google pulse page out ranked some pretty big sites all by itself. Then they cut off the juice and now it is the same as others.

[LottoRevenues.com]

In my view both are equally important for SEO, as long as they are authentic followers.

[excel.ashutosh]

Very easy Google plus hands down..Google authorship is now almost necessary to rank higher on the Google SERP...

[Bettingsites]

Like many have mentioned, as Google+ is Google it likely has the edge for search. However, many people 'live' in Facebook a lot - it depends on the circumstances...

[Frank Benjamin]

If G+ is better for SEO, why would it matter that people "live" at Facebook?

With Google integrating Google Places and G+ with the rollout of Google Places for Business, it is becoming more important for local search and businesses.

However, I still don't know how beneficial it is for niches such as Online Gambling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ocreditor]

If G+ is better for SEO, why would it matter that people "live" at Facebook?
...

It wont matter because its just another market segment, if people need to fine something and facebook will be good enough for their needs they'll not visit Google thats the meaning of "live" at facebook, that you need to go out to find what you need.

Moreover, G+ is better for SEO because its part of Google naturally

[Frank Benjamin]

Saying G+ is good for SEO because it is part of Google means and proves nothing. If that is the case, why aren't we all using Google Sites (G's free site building service) to build our sites. According to your logic, that would be best for SEO because It is part of Google. Your statement is an assumption.

There is argument that authorship helps, and I believe in adding it to a site, but no one knows if it really does help rankings.


However, I do know the G+ page for businesses that is made when you submit to Google Places for Business does help SEO. It helps the business be out on Google Maps and show up in the top slider that now appears for local search results.

Google Reviews, like authorship, has also been suggested to help increase rankings which makes sense since it would help deliver quality results.

I would not be surprised if Google uses G+ to help with general rankings (non-local) - it only makes sense. But I just don't know how it helps in the gambling niches. I am not convinced that G+ really helps niche sites. No one can show the benefits like there are with local SEO.

Maybe it would help if you could develop a brand like local businesses do on G+. But you are provided more options for a Places for Bussiness Page than you do for a regular G+ Page.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul Becker]

Social signals are associated more with branding rather than SEO, although it is something that Google is tooking more and more into account. Also,
it depends on your business and where your audience is. Neither one is more important that the other in my opinion but one make work better than the other depending on what you sell which is something you need to look at yourself.

[RacingJim]

When Google+ first came out I think they were really lifting the Google+ people in the searches and that was really helpful for small guys like me. I've noticed things seem to have returned to normal now. With the recent 'brands' update I think they put brands over and above everyone, an attack on small webmasters so we all have to go running to Adwords. They knew people were spamming Google+ like crazy so I think they've pretty much zeroed any effect it has on rankings (maybe still some very small effect but in my testing rather negligible at this moment).

[ocreditor]

When Google+ first came out I think they were really lifting the Google+ people in the searches and that was really helpful for small guys like me. I've noticed things seem to have returned to normal now. With the recent 'brands' update I think they put brands over and above everyone, an attack on small webmasters so we all have to go running to Adwords. They knew people were spamming Google+ like crazy so I think they've pretty much zeroed any effect it has on rankings (maybe still some very small effect but in my testing rather negligible at this moment).

I generally agree with your analysis on Google+ effect its natural to think that way, however in my opinion its not a black & white thing here, I think we're missing something here we dont know because there must be an effect of Google+ but I think Google is doing it behind the scene somehow, I still need to figure it out how ...

[sampendleton]

The purpose of social networking sites are not mainly for SEO, but it can be an alternative way to increase your online presence. To reach your target audience and to engage with them. That's why social networking sites are more beneficial on giving traffic to our sites.

[grem]

focus on traffic >>> facebook