Google +1 Do Not Improve Your Rankings!

[edgarf76]

I just read a thread one an seo site with an article about Matt Cutts. It states that Matt Cutts says that Google +1 do not improve your rankings. It seems that many people do not believe him, and I do agree. However I think this example on fiver is a good reason why he is saying this. Check this out http://fiverr.com/google_plus_/get-y...rank-on-google


This is a good example of a blackhat seo using automated software to make money on people by creating fake google plus likes. However I think that if you have a good circle of friends and you share good content and many people like it and it is REAL it will help. Perhaps I am wrong, I am curious to see what other people think about the article I will paste below and the ad on fiverr

http://www.seroundtable.com/google-1ranking-17252.html

[thebookiesoffers]

I think it is true that G+ has no direct link to ranking. As I said in another post to someone on here though I don't think it is quite as simple as looking 2 dimensional at it and thinking yes or no. I believe you could (could being the main word) get indirect benefits from having more G+'s FB likes and retweets etc

[Nibor]

I have read similar articles saying the same about G +'s, and also other ones that agree with what Moz said: http://www.searchmetrics.com/en/serv...-factors-2013/.

It's possible that the correlation found is simply a case of reverse causality. So it's not the G+'s that are boosting the rankings, It is just the good content or good site design, architecture etc; that are boosting a sites rankings. Of course when people see something they like they will then G+ it.

[rod.collins]

The only positive effects of having a high rating with Google+ or Facebook likes is a bit more confidence from potential buyers, it seems having a good amount of likes etc gives the end user a bit more confidence. While I have not noticed it as much with casinos I have seen better conversions with lets say beauty or weight loss products.

[edgarf76]

I have read similar articles saying the same about G +'s, and also other ones that agree with what Moz said: http://www.searchmetrics.com/en/serv...-factors-2013/.

It's possible that the correlation found is simply a case of reverse causality. So it's not the G+'s that are boosting the rankings, It is just the good content or good site design, architecture etc, that are boosting a sites rankings; and of course when people see something they like they will then G+ it.

I read the article that you posted last week which contained all factors in US rankings. Google 1 were pretty high

[Rostick]

nice post, and I agree with your opinion. Matt Cuts could or could not be truthfull. From what I know, posting links via the Link option in google+ gives you some small link juice (do-follow).

[Sergej_AGR]

Well, everybody knows that Google devalued social signals and you can not longer rank with building bookmarks, "social backlinks", likes, g+1 etc. But I am 100% sure that g+1 supports the worth of backlinks and trust. If you have a website with backlinks, google also expect a good number of social signals, which also include g+1.

[sarahangel]

I agree that posting links on Google+ which are do follow gives benefits to ranking.

[Nibor]

I read the article that you posted last week which contained all factors in US rankings. Google 1 were pretty high

Yes definitely, it does say that. That's why I posted it (as it seemed interesting that it suggested that), and for the other information about ranking factors. However, more recently I have read other articles saying the opposite - with regards to ranking factors.

In all honesty, I do believe there is some SEO benefit in social signals generally. I don't think G+'s are necessarily more important than other social signals, and I don't believe they are the most important cause for ranking well. As far as I'm concerned - whether there is a direct benefit or not in terms of rankings - G+'s are worth having. As has been mentioned above, there are other benefits to social signals.

[edgarf76]

Yes definitely, it does say that. That's why I posted it (as it seemed interesting that it suggested that), and for the other information about ranking factors. However, more recently I have read other articles saying the opposite - with regards to ranking factors.

In all honesty, I do believe there is some SEO benefit in social signals generally. I don't think G+'s are necessarily more important than other social signals, and I don't believe they are the most important cause for ranking well. As far as I'm concerned - whether there is a direct benefit or not in terms of rankings - G+'s are worth having. As has been mentioned above, there are other benefits to social signals.

I was suprised to see you write that. The article you posted was amazing, I downloaded the graph it is really helpful. Some people are more active in google plus that others, for instance I joined a community/page of a baseball team. I emailed the owner of the page and told him I write articles on MLB and sometime write about this specific team. I asked if he would mind me posting and he was fine. I think this is a more active way to be involved in google plus.

There is a legit reason Cutts says what he says. There are alot of scammers selling fake google pluses. If someone can buy 100k pluses and rank higher when someone just posts manually that is not fair. I do think that is the bigger issue, to discourage people from using shady services.

[benji]

I think at the moment it may not be a massive ranking factor but it is certainly a 'factor'. Ranking well is going to be much more about author trust and rank and less about how many links to can obtain. So G+1 are good to get even if they aren't a major ranking factor at the moment, they will be in months to come. The more influential people in your G+ circle the better your content must be.

[NorwegianViking]

Well, it certainly can't hurt either. So I would still put the option there, in case someone wants to like it, then why not? But I would agree that it is not such an important factor at the moment that it's worth chasing pluses or anything. But I also think this may change in the future...

[Nibor]

There is a legit reason Cutts says what he says. There are alot of scammers selling fake google pluses. If someone can buy 100k pluses and rank higher when someone just posts manually that is not fair. I do think that is the bigger issue, to discourage people from using shady services.

This is the reason why I believe that G+'s aren't as valuable as that article says - the same goes for other social signals. Not to say there is no value (like I said I do believe there to be value in G+'s still. It's just the same thing we always see with regards to Google rankings. People catch onto something being perceived as good by the Google algorithm, and then it gets spammed to sh**t. Subsequently, it gets devalued or even negatively valued.

This is what happened with directory links. They didn't used to be bad links, until people started to spam it, making thousands of pointless directories. You could add your site to loads of directories, and start ranking over night! Understandably Google saw this as spam, and of course link directories (link farms) are now bad - except for a 'VERY' select few.

With regards, to your baseball team example. I think that's a great way to use G+, I too have been able to use G+ in a similar way. There are quite a few people that do get really involved in G+. Probably more people would get involved with G+ if it were better designed, unfortunately I don't find it particularly user friendly. It does have a lot of useful options, but Google could have designed it better.

[Maria678]

In my opinion, if Google + passes PR and allows anchor text, it must have effect on ranking.
Now webmasters are overconcerned about social media, so probably Matt Cutts wanted to emphasize that likes are not enough.

[iOnlineCasinos]

Matt Cutts have said a lot of things in the past...I stop listen to him, I hear my inner voice and its telling me to use G+ (or any other social method) wisely and not in a "spammy" manner, this way I'm always on the safe zone

[Zuga]

it wouldnt be the first time Matt Cutts was misleading

[Maria678]

On the other hand, Google+ authorship has influence on SEO. There is an article to to use autorship properly
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/g...ine+Journal%29