Google+ redesigned their layout and nobody even noticed



Unarmed Gunman said:
I'll give you an example, a lot of larger sites are using Facebook comments because they know you are less likely to spam and act abusive if your "Facebook identity" is tied to your comments. Now imagine that on a much larger scale, but instead of comments, we're talking all the content online. The best way for them to stop us from manipulating their results is to have our Google identities tied to all our sites.
Click to expand...

http://www.wickedfire.com/1700491-post801.html that's what I been saying mangg, people aren't thinking about just how much this potentially helps Google scale their "SPAM" prevention and "nip it in the bud", from my post earlier:

I'm just wondering when they are gonna get rid of backlinks completely in terms of being a major ranking component/relevancy identifier. They have all kinds of data coming from different avenues now, but social still has major reliability issues IMO. It will be interesting to see how they progress...

I think Google+ while not the most successful "social" platform, is a HUGE win for them in terms of helping their algo/webspam team/etc combating garbage SERPs. I mentioned this several months ago when I was setting up all of my sites and connecting them, Google is making it VERY difficult to "fake" THIS type of SERP influence going forward.

What better way to combat internet marketers that build properties for profit (where the website itself IS the moneymaker, not necessarily the products/services/etc) than to make them gradually put their own identity on these properties and connect their identity with their past, present, and future properties.

By designing the whole G+ AuthorRank stuff in this manner and emphasizing: "Hey man, OWN YOUR CONTENT IF ITS GOOD LET US KNOW ABOUT IT AND WE'LL CONNECT THE VARIOUS DOTS BEFORE POTENTIALLY RANKING YOU ANYWHERE WORTHWHILE YAYYY GOOGLESPEAK", Google is putting another roadblock (that will probably grow larger and "More intelligent") in front of people that they believe are not helping their bottom line.

I should add to what I wrote above, the goal is to not see it as a roadblock, but as a new opportunity, which most of here are already aware of and currently doing with authority sites, using paid authors/rel author on our own sites etc...

But I see the whole G plus/authorship/OWN IT platform as another way for Google to weed out the "churn and burn MFA/warrior forum/click bank typical IM spammy aff crap" business mindset in the long run if implemented a certain way in the future...we'll see though.

So once again, Google's your grandmother. Respect her, show her you're an honest to goodness stand up dude, dress up for church on Sundays, and maybe she'll brag to the Internet about great her son is to the whole world etc...
 
ly2 from WF said:
Dude, if you have a Gmail account you have a G+ account. They may technically have 170m users. However, .00001% of those are active users.
Click to expand...

I think that 170mm represents actual high end google users. Everybody in India has like 100 gmail accounts, so that's like 100,000,000,000 gmail accounts, aka low end google users.
 
JCash said:
I think that 170mm represents actual high end google users. Everybody in India has like 100 gmail accounts, so that's like 100,000,000,000 gmail accounts, aka low end google users.
Click to expand...

No fucking way in shit is there 170m *active* users. The place is a fucking ghost town, and I'm pretty sure there are not 170m SEOs in the world.
 
guerilla said:
It's not about you. He has this irrational hatred of Google+ and an inability to understand the blending of social signals with search (and yet he buys likes and tweets, go figure).
Click to expand...


I don't buy likes because 99% of the fb accounts you get likes frrom have privacy turned on so Google can't see the like.

I do buy tweets and shares. And yes even G+'s from time to time. All three of those things come cheap and if they didn't, I wouldn't buy them as much. Because they are so cheap to buy it's sort of a "why not?" type of thing I do.
 
ly2 from WF said:
Dude, if you have a Gmail account you have a G+ account. They may technically have 170m users. However, .00001% of those are active users.
Click to expand...

I think they only count the people that take the time to set-up a G+ profile, so every Gmail account doesn't count towards that total. But you're right about the number of active users being a lot lower (although that can be said for Facebook, Twitter etc).

The bigger concerns in my mind is the time on site is so much lower and they have a significant lack of female users. They need to address those two areas regardless of their intentions with G+.
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
I think they only count the people that take the time to set-up a G+ profile, so every Gmail account doesn't count towards that total. But you're right about the number of active users being a lot lower (although that can be said for Facebook, Twitter etc).

The bigger concerns in my mind is the time on site is so much lower and they have a significant lack of female users. They need to address those two areas regardless of their intentions with G+.
Click to expand...

Nope, they're definitely counting every new signup for any service. They have purposely been dodging the question of how many *active* plus users there are. Even if you never once click on the Google+ tab in Gmail, you're still counted as a Google+ user.
 
subigo said:
Nope, they're definitely counting every new signup for any service. They have purposely been dodging the question of how many *active* plus users there are. Even if you never once click on the Google+ tab in Gmail, you're still counted as a Google+ user.
Click to expand...

350 million Gmail users
170 million G+ users

Maybe new Google accounts are counted towards the total, but not existing ones. The numbers don't add up.
 
JCash said:
Matt Cutts and Rand Fishkin and Neil Patel and the 50,000 people who envy them?
Click to expand...
Correct, that is how social works.

momchil9 said:
I cannot really comment on how efficiently it can be used for SEO
Click to expand...
That's sort of my entire argument.

ly2 from WF said:
But Guerilla said it's not a failure.
Click to expand...
No one listens to me, they listen to really successful marketers like JCash.

ly2 from WF said:
I do buy tweets and shares. And yes even G+'s from time to time. All three of those things come cheap and if they didn't, I wouldn't buy them as much. Because they are so cheap to buy it's sort of a "why not?" type of thing I do.
Click to expand...
So on the one hand, you say it's a fail, and on the other hand, you buy into it as a "why not?".

Makes perfect sense!
 
Unarmed Gunman said:
they have a significant lack of female users.
Click to expand...

Google will always have an uphill battle with this because girls just want to have fun, post risky pics of themselves, tease boys, etc. But everybody already knows google as a search engine, i.e. easy for the world to find my shenanigans, while for whatever reason a lot of people don't get that facebook is just as public if not more so. Google's going to have a hard time earning the same kind of groovy relaxed feeling of trust that Facebook pulls off so well.
 
guerilla said:
That's sort of my entire argument.
Click to expand...

all i'm saying is that they tried to compete with facebook and they failed miserably. And in the process pissed off a bunch of people with their bullying people to use g+.

how it affects SEO - i do not know and I do not care.

This thread was about a redesign and why no one saw/cared about it. It is because NO ONE USES IT.


It's like someone saying on a music forum:
"hey a new zune came out last month, how come no one talks about it?"

And you come in and say:

"But it can play mp3s!!!"
 
MSTeacher said:
Google will always have an uphill battle with this because girls just want to have fun, post risky pics of themselves, tease boys, etc. But everybody already knows google as a search engine, i.e. easy for the world to find my shenanigans, while for whatever reason a lot of people don't get that facebook is just as public if not more so. Google's going to have a hard time earning the same kind of groovy relaxed feeling of trust that Facebook pulls off so well.
Click to expand...

Women also like to get deals, coupons, promos etc so I would think that would be an easier path to the womens for Big G. Plus Android, Youtube etc don't discriminate...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom