Look at this expert search result!

Then, over two years later, it happened. First, Authorship pictures were significantly reduced. Then they disappeared entirely. Next was the data from Webmaster Tools. Finally, a modest Google+ post formally announced its death. This is the way Google authorship ends; not with a bang but a whimper.

Upon hearing this grim news, I mustered the strength to send an email to my fellow Portent marketers to get their thoughts and predictions about the death of Authorship. What’s different now? Why did it happen? What does its death mean? Did it ever really mean anything in the first place?

Why did it happen?

The first thing many asked was “why?” Why did they do this to us. Marianne Sweeney, our own SEO/UX expert gave her insight on this:

“Google is a for-profit company. I believe that they initiated the enthusiasm for Authorship to build participants for their social network. They have failed miserably to draw close to Facebook’s membership numbers and so have decided that the cost of processing results with this feature does not warrant the benefit that they are getting.”

Another one of our SEOs, David Portney, is suspicious of Google’s motives:

“I’m not the only one who finds it pretty interesting that the death of Google Authorship markup does not include Publisher markup… but can it be far behind? Same for Google Plus altogether?”

For me, the main take away from both Marianne and David is that Google wouldn’t be doing this if it wasn’t somehow making more money. How that is, exactly, is the question. Perhaps our VP of Search and PPC expert, Elizabeth Marsten, has the answer:

“More space for ads.”

How will it impact websites and authors?

“Is it really dead or just keywords dead, which is not dead at all, but just not something you can’t track anymore? ” – Meegan Kauffman, Content Strategist

The impact of this is difficult to say since, unfortunately, none of us at Portent are also Google. But a few Portentites did have some thoughts about this, starting with our CEO and Overlord, Ian Lurie:

“Google is being carefully vague about this. “They’re no longer processing this data” but we should still use schema markup. And they’re still using publisher markup? My gut tells me they’re still tying citations together across the internet, and this markup is still playing a role. They’re likely seeing abuse, and want to nip it in the bud.”

Marianne similarly predicts that the data driving authorship may still play a role:

“This is hard to predict as it was not so much the Authorship use but the association with Google+ that seemed to enhance ranking during Google’s fascination with social annotation phase. Authors may notice a drop in traffic to their sites from searchers that actually clicked on the thumbnail image or the More from link in the SERP blurb. “

Another of our SEOs Katilin McMichael, saw a silver lining many people were skipping over:

“Google+ profile pics still show up, if they’re in your circles. I think that’s a distinction most people miss. “

While this may not seem significant, people should remember that the default setting in Google search is to have your results personalized. This means that if your active on Google+ your activity still affects people in your circle. As a matter of fact, since sharing a post still actually puts your profile picture in search results, you could argue that this move highlights the person who shares a post on Google+ even more than the author that actually wrote the post! And down the rabbit hole we go…

What will you miss most?

For whatever reason, the Authorship show has come to an end. And, as with all endings, opinions differed. I asked the folks at Portent if they wanted to share any parting words before heading back to our respective corners of the Internet.

“[I’ll miss] the image of the author in the SERP. I actually found it to be useful amongst the noise.” – Elizabeth Marsten

“Nothing. Now I can delete my neglected Google+ page.” – Marianne Sweeney

“The awkward headshots” – Mike Fitterer, Account Wrangler

“My thumbnail made me look fat, so good riddance.” – Braxton Kellogg – Social Media Diva

In the end, though, our Social Media Strategist Madelaine Kellman probably summed up the number one concern for most all of us consultants out there;

“This was my biggest argument for a brand to actually use Google+.”

I guess we’ll see if Google sees things the same way.

What are your thoughts about Google’s shutdown of authorship? What will you miss most about it? Share your thoughts and concerns in the comments below.

The post Team Portent Bids Farewell to Authorship appeared first on Portent.

A bold ruler ascends—going by the name Google AuthorRank – and his reign will be a long one. Because, in the very near future, information will take a back seat to who supplies it.

We can no longer trust content – there’s just too much of it.  And many of “the facts” are flat-out wrong.  In an online environment, false information piles up, improving its credibility with every link, citation and reiteration, becoming exponentially more “trustworthy” despite an intrinsic lack of veracity.  It’s one big evidentiary “toilet bowl of death”*.

The danger in this climate is that repeating a lie makes it “true.”  Repetition = reinforcement = legitimacy.  And the situation only gets worse as the amount of information grows.

So, if we can’t trust the information itself, we will have to trust its source.  The sorter.  The filterer.  The “expert.”  Those we designate to vet our reality.  Thus, the evolution of Google AuthorRank.

Like Billy Joel says, “it’s a matter of trust”.

What is ‘Google AuthorRank’?

So just who is this new monarch?  Google AuthorRank is a system that allows the search engine to verify and rate sources of content by ascribing trust rankings to writers.

Rumored ranking factors include:

• The average PageRank of the author’s published content
• Engagement levels, both on the author’s Google+ page and the pages where the content lives
• The number of contacts in the author’s Google+ circles
• Authority across other G-trusted social media platforms (Twitter, LinkedIn)
• The author’s inclusion (or lack thereof) on marquee authority indicators like Wikipedia
• Posting frequency
• More, etc., and To Be Continued…

AuthorRank will help readers by allowing them to be more confident in the content they consume.  And if you are wondering if it’s worth it to the writers, check out the following example of its predecessor Google Authorship…

My amazing article in search results:

Yoast founder Joost de Valk’s amazing article in search results:

His listing is a lot more utilitarian from a branding perspective and, well… cooler.  Not only does the result direct readers to additional Joostian content, it includes his PICTURE.  (And since we writers are known for our matinee idol good looks, this is a definite plus.)

But I’m not alone: according to an August study, only 9% of tech blogs (TECH BLOGS!) have “fully implemented” Google Authorship.

How influential will Google AuthorRank be in SEO?

In 2011, Google’s Othar Hansson said the following:

“We hope to use [author] information and any information as a ranking signal at Google.  So in this case, we want to get information on credibility of authors from all kinds of sources and eventually use that in ranking.”

So I’m guessing pretty darn influential.

Potential issues

But you gotta take the good with the bad… And there’s certainly the potential for some bad:

• Google AuthorRank gives the search juggernaut even more influence and muscle.  Monopoly ain’t just a boardgame.
• AuthorRank is rather incestuous and self-serving: it requires connection to Google+, which assists the social media network in its endless quest to crush arch nemesis Facebook.
• Like all SEO, this preferential treatment can prove self-fulfilling.  Writers who have become informational cottage industries can potentially spew content that, regardless of quality or accuracy, immediately goes to the top of search results.  Better researched, but ultimately less authoritative material is trumped.
• Who watches the watchmen?  There must be a constant process of vetting and validating those who we trust – mitigating risk by absorbing a larger sample – but not too large a sample or all information loses perspective.

Our collective conscious continues to grow, but not all information is created equal.

It’s time to cybercircle the wagons around specific, legitimate, attributable human sources.

Consequently, in today’s world and moving forward, not only must you have content that matters, you must have writers who matter.

*™Ian Lurie.

The post Google AuthorRank: Heir to the Throne appeared first on Portent.