Now that Google Authorship is Gone: Do You Still Believe in “Author Rank”?
Danny Sullivan, the most important pundit in search is still advocating the so called Google “Author Rank”, a hypothetical ranking boost based on your cross-site popularity as an author.
I’m not sure what Danny Sullivan’s motives are to try to convince us to use an obsolete feature
but personally I asked myself: do you still believe in Author Rank? Here are the pros and cons.
There is no official Author Rank
Why do I ask whether you believe in Author Rank? Unlike PageRank, the underlying ranking algorithm of Google named after Larry Page there is no official Author Rank. It’s a hypothetical concept based on several of Google’s patents and features.
The term Author Rank has been coined by Internet marketers not Google itself.
Google never fully confirmed the existence of such a ranking algorithm. Now that Google removed all visible authorship features thus the question arises why there is some almost religious fervor left when it comes to the Author Rank concept.
Google+ is undead and voluntary identification with it
When Google launched Google+ it was not just to compete with Facebook for the social networking market. Facebook dominated already so Google’s chances weren’t the best. For Google the whole “+” endeavor was more about uniquely identifying real people and assigning social relations to them. Then, in the best case, Google could use the input from people as an additional way to separate the wheat from the chaff of search results.
Spammers rarely identify themselves as real people. They try to stay elusive.
The Google+ adoption was disappointing and thus the search giant decided to push their social site wherever they could to make all their other users from Gmail, YouTube and the likes to join the “+” identity service and thus create a unique Google profile. That was a huge gamble and Google lost. Soon after they gave up and finally allowed anonymous users to sign up with Google+.
Google can identify people automatically now
For Google the problem with voluntary identification and Google+ was that people rarely tell the truth or rather they hide their true self when acting in public. They will only +1 things that do not make themselves look bad. Many Gay people won’t publicly admit to approve of LGBT sites because they may be afraid to lose their jobs for example.
By now Google has the means to determine who you really are and what your really like.
While Google+ never really took off other Google projects overtook their respective markets by storm. One of them is the Chrome browser, the other one is the Android mobile OS. Both a smartphone and a browser can be traced back to a person without too much effort. The NSA does it all the time and Google is right at the source of that data.
Every mobile phone has a unique ID built in and Android browsers require to register at Google. Every browser has a unique “finger print” as well but Google doesn’t even need to tap into that as Chrome is so well connected with Google services that you get identified anyway.
Thus there is no need anymore to ask you for your name and what sites you like. Google knows everything just by tracking your personal online habits using their hardware. Unlike the NSA they may “anonymize” that data for their purposes but any information that is extensive enough can be associated with a person with ease in many cases.
Does Google still need human input for ranking sites?
So technically it’s possible to track a large portion of the online population simply by accessing the data from Android pones, Chrome browsers and other Google services without having consent by authors adding some meta tags to their sites. The question is whether Google still needs human input to ensure the quality of search results.
Spokespeople of the search giant were pretty clear in recent statements that social media activity does NOT count as a direct ranking signal yet.
In recent years they seem to have changed their minds about the necessity to include those signals into the overall algorithm. In recent months they rather stressed that they are unreliable. Why did Google try to use social signals at all in the first place? Well, the competition from both Bing and Blekko did. Blekko gained notoriety by providing curated search results and banning content farms Google was full of. Google reacted by launching Google+ and the Panda updates to combat content farms.
Now that Bing didn’t succeed with Facebook enriched results and Blekko returned to complete obscurity after several internal management mistakes there is no more need to catch up.
Authority vs Branding
Instead Google has focused on other types of inputs to verify the credibility of content published on the Web.
The most obvious aspect that gained influence over the recent years is branding. Large international brands tend to dominate search results these days whereas small sites by average people have a harder time to compete with corporations.
The so called brand bias is so obvious few pundits still doubt that it exists.
Former Google CEO Eric Schmidt is known for his quote that the only way to clean up the cess pool that is the Internet you need brands.
The focus thus shifts from what you claim to have authored and trying to gain authority by what other people ascribe to you as a brand, be it a personal brand or part of a larger brand identity.
Many people still believe in some “entity” similar to Author Rank
Personally I’ve always been wary of the authorship and Author Rank enthusiasm. I preferred the curated model by Blekko. Just recently I finally gave in and connected my Google+ account to the blogs I write for. It took literally just a few weeks before Google turned the features off then. At least I didn’t advocate Author Rank like some others did and haven’t been trying to convince readers of clients to use it.
I understand that Danny Sullivan can’t just say that he erred in supporting Author Rank without actual proof.
There are other people who invested a lot of effort in building up their perceived authority on Google+ and beyond so they are still evangelizing the obsolete feature in order to exert some pressure on Google I guess not kill it off completely.
I’m not a true expert on this topic, others have delved in much further, but even some of them backtrack now.
The general public seems rather to be just angry. Internet marketers by and large are hard to assess but those who answered me are not yet completely disenchanted with the Author Rank phenomenon. Here are some comments from my social media followers on whether they still believe in Author Rank now that Google authorship is gone:
Natzir Turrado of Analistaseo.es explains that it’s not over yet but the focus shifted from authors to entities and expects that website authority will get combined with author authority to determine content quality.
Bernd Rubel argues along similar lines with a focus on overall authority explaining how he defines entities:
“the difference is that authority is not necessarily allocated to “one person”, but to an entity and its relationships, whether it’s
- a person
- a group of people
- a company
- a website
- a page
- a picture
- an event
- a product.
So author rank can/will be a part of the authority concept in general, but neither a stand alone nor a overpowering ranking factor.”
What will you do with your authorship markup?
Will you remove the Google authorship code altogether and rely on Google tracking you by other means or rather let the code in place to be prepared for future ranking algorithm updates based on “Author Rank”? I won’t probably remove anything out of sheer laziness but I won’t add any most likely useless code to new projects in future either.
I’m still active on Google+ out of habit but I’m already on the look out for alternatives. For example I use Prismatic for curated content by my peers and industry leaders. There is far less noise and much more signal than on Google+. How did you adapt your strategy?