How does Google Plus affect SEO?

[steitieh]

I almost don't focus on Google plus. I still believe it doesn't have enough social presence when comparing with other networks. Do you guys here use Google plus for social marketing? How does Google plus affect for your SEO? if yes please show me any examples I should do?

 

[Cochel]

Using google plus can increase a website's search rankings. Your google plus page and profile can actually do it for you yet you have to take time to optimize your page, share some valuable and timely content would be a very big help. And, its not just a usual social media platform, it helps you rise all your seo efforts and it's one of the best powerful weapon in your seo arsenal. When using google plus, take time to create your page and content valuable as possible. A good in return will come soon.

 

[ericplotz1]

ericplotz1

This is not at all true. Google+ has some SEO (many would argue it has 0) value but I think you're giving it way more credit than it deserves. Google My Business pages and citations/directory submissions work for maps optimizations.

You can rank a G+ posts and drive traffic with it.

As for the OP:

I use G+ and verify my website. Then I list multiple (approx. 20-30) Google properties in G+ under the "Links" section in the "About" tab.





What I then do is syndicate the content I publish on my site, to all of the properties with citation links back to the site.

I know your gonna ask about dup content here. Don't worry about it. For some reason listing those properties in G+ makes it legit. Works like a charm and once you set everything up its easy to manage.

Oh BTW you can syndicate your blog content out with IFTTT very easily.

This is new age sheet! Jump on it

 

[savidge4]

I almost don't focus on Google plus. I still believe it doesn't have enough social presence when comparing with other networks. Do you guys here use Google plus for social marketing? How does Google plus affect for your SEO? if yes please show me any examples I should do?

Depending on your target subject its not even about how Google plus might affect your SEO - tho in ways it does.. its about conversions. I find G+ to be the best converting of all the social networks. Less overall traffic, less work, and more in return.. its kinda a nice thing. All you do is post.. time of day doesnt matter.. frequency doesnt matter.. you never hear a conversation about "reach"

I would go on to say that even the content that floats around is a better quality as well. Exposing yourself to good parralel content helps in developing your own content,and in turn it helps the performance of your own writing. I really thing G+ is probably the most under rated Social network.

 

[Hawker]

Interesting thread, I used to use Google Plus a lot when it gave dofollow link in posts.

But since their change to nofollow I stopped using it as much for that purpose.

I still post to it, I have about 20 Google accounts/profiles that I post to.

When I used to do that I used to see some results from it but these days it doesn't really do the same on its own.

Here's a question. Does the amount of circles you have give your Google+ profile any presidency in the SERPs?

Such as giving a profile page more authority by building internal links to it would do.

Also, do you build links to your Google+ profile page the same as you would any other Web 2.0 profile?

Or do you do real networking of it, adding similar people, commenting, posting on other peoples things etc

 

[Nytshade]

Do you guys here use Google plus for social marketing?

Yes I still do and it works well for my audio engineering niche but when I try other niches they don't work well, others do. So I think it really depends on whether people in your niche do hangout on G+ or not. But it's a good social platform, from my experience.

How does Google plus affect for your SEO?

Nofollow links mean no effect in SEO, it's that simple.

So directly, G+ doesn't have any SEO value/benefit.

The only thing G+ can do for you or your business is to help your content get indexed a lot faster especially if you don't have your site on webmaster tools (search console). This is why some people post something on G+ then they start to see the content rank and think G+ has some SEO benefit.

Google can't rank something they can't find, so G+ is a good way to let google know about your content or business and if it's good enough to rank it will.

Another great thing about G+ is that if someone follows/circles you and they use google search while logged in with their account then your G+ posts will show in the search results if they're searching for something related to what you've post on G+.

People on G+ can also share your content on other online portals and generate organic backlinks for you. So G+ doesn't affect your SEO directly.

 

[savidge4]

savidge4

Ntyshade, I am not picking on you directly... its just the statements in general.

If the practice of SEO was to only include link building..it would be LBO ( Link Building Optimization ) just because it is nofollow vs follow, does not make anything a factor in SEO or not. Post an article on your own site.. share that page on G+ and see how fast the Google bot comes to that page... it is literally minutes. There is a point where indexing alone is a part of SEO, and G+ is hands down by far the best and fastest method in doing this.

I have found that G+ is very different than most other social platforms ( with the exception of image platforms - flickr, Pintrest ) it is not the profile page that is listed in the SERP's it will be a specific post. if you can use a property to increase the number of locations you have in the SERP's.. that again is SEO.

with that,,I would disagree completely that G+ has not SEO value..i find it to be the exact opposite... with the aspects of SEO it does perform, it performs well.

 

[Nytshade]

If the practice of SEO was to only include link building..it would be LBO ( Link Building Optimization )

I don't really get this, who said SEO was only about link building?

Ntyshade, I am not picking on you directly... its just the statements in general.

because it is nofollow vs follow, does not make anything a factor in SEO or not.

Ooops, just in 20 seconds a google employee, someone who worked in search department just told you:

Nofollow links were dropped out of google's link graph so they are irrelevant (wow this is an important word in this sentence) from a search engine point of view.

You can even join John Muller live on the webmaster hangouts and ask him yourself instead of arguing something that was debunked long time ago.

I know you won't even believe the video I shared with you above because I was in the same position as you but join John Muller live, ask him yourself in front of the whole world. He's the one who's dealing with the search spam department since Matt left.

Post an article on your own site.. share that page on G+ and see how fast the Google bot comes to that page... it is literally minutes. There is a point where indexing alone is a part of SEO, and G+ is hands down by far the best and fastest method in doing this.

I said the exact same thing, G+ makes content indexing fast.

Most importantly, that is why I also said:

Google can't rank something they can't find, so G+ is a good way to let google know about your content or business and if it's good enough to rank it will.

Just because after you post your content on G+ and it get indexed then ranks that doesn't necessary mean G+ has some SEO benefit because you could have just submitted your sitemap and get the same results. Google can't rank something they can't find and when they find it they rank it, if it's worth ranking.

If you still don't get it then I don't know.

I have found that G+ is very different than most other social platforms ( with the exception of image platforms - flickr, Pintrest ) it is not the profile page that is listed in the SERP's it will be a specific post. if you can use a property to increase the number of locations you have in the SERP's.. that again is SEO.

Again, I did say that G+ posts rank in search results. Even if you build links for your posts/page/profile if I don't follow or don't have you in my circles I won't see your posts in my search results, period. I've never came across content from people who're not in my circles on G+ showing in search engine results.

Even worse, when I'm not logged-in your content won't even show in SERPs.

with that,,I would disagree completely that G+ has not SEO value..i find it to be the exact opposite... with the aspects of SEO it does perform, it performs well.

No, that's what you think. You think G+ is adding value to your SEO and it's not, simply because it offers nofollow (irrelevant) links. If google chooses to ignore nofollow links, why would you say they have value in SEO?

What you're not telling people is that your content will get some traffic then drop after a couple of days. Why is it that when you post content on G+ it ranks then after a few days it drops? Have you asked yourself that? Or you just created 2 or 3 tests and thought you got it?

Next time just submit a sitemap and you'll see it's no different than posting on G+, the only possible difference will be speed, G+ will always get content indexed faster.

One more thing, indexing is simply letting search engines know about your site, but that doesn't make it's a ranking factor. Yes it's part of SEO but it's just letting google know about your content. Indexing doesn't guarantee results!

 

[savidge4]

savidge4

who said it? well you are saying it. the remainder of that post and then the need to follow up again with nothing but information about links. There simply is MORE to SEO than links.

Forget the links here.. you post something on G+ and it is listed decently in the serps... that unto itself is SEO. no fuss no muss no linking no on page, but a listing in the serps.

I rank pages without the use of external linking all the time. it really is not that hard. onsite SEO will in most cases beat out lame off page SEO any day of the week. and I do say most cases. If you look at the term "Tokyo SEO" in Google, there is NO question the #1 listing ( K Grammer ) is juiced. Onpage SEO will NOT beat that out, but that is not LAME off page SEO either.

Part of the targeting discover aspect in any SEO effort is to identify where you can get in to fit in, and in the case of "Tokyo SEO" where you may have to put forth a bit of effort and work a bit more with offpage after your onpage efforts are complete. ( I am not saying I could rank for "Tokyo SEO" here - nor would I want to )

Again, all i am saying is there is so much effort and focus placed on linking.. and I think that effort and focus is miss directed. The flip side of this is that people are getting into niches maybe they shouldnt to start. Im going to get rich quick and start a site for payday loans... that simply is failure waiting to happen. but it is repeated over and over and over. There is a full range of concepts and ideas that actually work in SEO and link development is justa piece of the overall picture.

 

[Nytshade]

I would also like to share this with you so that you know that backlinks are the main core and they're going nowhere. They will always help google offer people the best results:

 

[Nytshade]

One thing I don't like about this forum is that there are people who know that you're talking crap but won't say anything, yes crap because you're misleading people. I'll prove it to you below.

I just don't understand whether you just want to be right or you truly believe what you're saying because I debunked your stuff long time ago.

Let's just settle this, give us a screenshot of the traffic you get from search engines using on-page optimization only (prove it to us that the page you're ranking has no/zero links). Prove it to us and let's see if you get daily traffic from search engines without link building.

Give us concrete evidence and prove that I'm the one who's wrong, prove it.

who said it? well you are saying it.

OK Cool it just sounded like you said, but it's fine I said it.

the remainder of that post and then the need to follow up again with nothing but information about links. There simply is MORE to SEO than links.

This is why I said you're talking crap. I just gave you a video telling you that there's no version of Google that excludes links. The google version that doesn't rely on links is used internally but it doesn't provide the best results.

There's no SEO without links, stop that. We shouldn't even be discussing this because I debunked it long time ago.

Forget the links here..

No, I can't because we'll no longer be talking about SEO but your own imaginations and assumptions.

you post something on G+ and it is listed decently in the serps... that unto itself is SEO.

No, it's not. It can't be, not even close. Nofollow links are irrelevant for SEO. So how does G+ become part of SEO if it's offering you something that is irrelevant to SEO. It really doesn't make sense.

You can get your content listed in the SERPs by submitting a sitemap and bypass G+. All G+ does is get your content indexed. Nothing more than that!

I rank pages without the use of external linking all the time. it really is not that hard.

Show us, yes we want to see. We don't care about your keywords, show us traffic stats instead.

onsite SEO will in most cases beat out lame off page SEO any day of the week. and I do say most cases.

If you know that on-page SEO doesn't work all the time then why would you recommend something that works sometimes. See why I say you're misleading people? See why I say you're talking crap?

Teach people what WORKS, period!

If you look at the term "Tokyo SEO" in Google, there is NO question the #1 listing ( K Grammer ) is juiced. Onpage SEO will NOT beat that out, but that is not LAME off page SEO either.

Like I said, it doesn't make sense to teach people something that is not guaranteed to work. STOP IT!

Again, all i am saying is there is so much effort and focus placed on linking..

Yes, because it WORKS!

and I think that effort and focus is miss directed.

How is it misdirecting people if it works?

You're the one who's misdirecting people by giving them something that is not guaranteed to work. So you should just stop it because I showed you that there's no version of google that doesn't depend on link building.

Did you know that you can rank a blank page? Of course you know, so where is on-page SEO there?

That should be more than enough proof that on-page SEO is never going to beat off-page. If there's no "public" version of Google that doesn't rely on links then on-page can't be more important than off-page, simple logic.

 

[savidge4]

savidge4

you mean something like this? worst page in the top 10 statistically. Semi competitive keyword.. not overly but not a roll over either. the listing is a bit bouncy but stays on page 1. fluctuates between 2 and 6 most of the time. please do note... it is beating out terms that do have back links. please do note, as I have been saying backlinks are not the only game in town.

can you "RANK" a page without backlinks? F yeah you can. now what? gonna try and de-bunk me some more?

 

[Nytshade]

Nytshade

If you're calling that proof then you're smoking bananas.

This is why I said we don't care about your keywords, just show us the traffic you're getting by ranking websites without backlinks. Show us, that's all I want to see.

I'm never impressed with rankings that bring 1 visitor a month, you can rank for that as much as you want. Or worse ranking for keywords no one is searching for. I'm not impressed by rankings, if you only rely on on-page SEO then prove it to us that it brings a good amount of traffic.

It's really easy for someone to share a screenshot of rankings that are not bringing any traffic or someone else's rankings.

OK, what's the use of sharing a screenshot of rankings that I can't go to google and prove for myself? I said concrete proof of traffic stats.

 

[savidge4]

savidge4

Actually there big guy.. I was rather selective with the choice I made here. the keyword term is "Office Cleaning Tampa FL". I think google adwords says it gets like 300 clicks a month or something, and I am getting that plus a few more. I specifically shared this page, this term for the reason you have stated... but this is not some BS term. and in a bit more than round about.. you can figure there is traffic there.

If you read what I say consistently.. I do go after low traffic terms in general. I do TARGET my terms, I do this multiple times per site to get a traffic flow This is an example of 1 term and one page on that site.

At this point you can rattle off and say you want more more more but seriously.. that screen shot is more than enough. I can give you many more, that admitadly are flaky.. they get 10 20 hits a month.. nothing to spectacular.. do that 20 40 times however with an increase conversion rate due to the targeting and things are pretty decent.

I am not in the traffic game for volume, I am in it for target and conversion... who care how many visit, its how many buy. super targeted terms are just what I look for. Buyer terms, People interested in a service terms. terms that convert.

 

[AndiLim]

G+ basically helps in driving traffic to your website, but I might suggest that you try to use other social media channels like facebook and twitter if you really want to target a massive amount of users to your website.

 

[acquisto]

Google plus is still pretty new but the way I see it, Google will really try to integrate the social signals they can extract from Google plus into their search engine rankings. Here are some of the reasons why:

It’s easier to measure social signals from Google Plus because they own it.

 

[SEOPub]

SEOPub

Ummm... You do realize that they have basically dismantled Google Plus, right? The man in charge was fired and almost all of the rest of the team working on Google Plus was reassigned to other divisions.