'To the best of Matt’s (Cutts) knowledge, there are currently no signals in the ranking algorithms that put any weight on how many Facebook likes or Twitter followers a specific page has.'
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/matt … lly/87277/
Drive traffic okay. Forget organic search rankings.
This may or may not be true, I don't know. But having things for people to look at on social media can drive them to the page in question to look at it, increasing traffic. Also, the more likes, shares etc on FB etc, the more people look at potentially visiting the page. It does work.
Imagine sharing a hub on a page with 1 follower. You're not going to get much traffic there. Now share the same hub with 1 million followers....you're bound to get more traffic (assuming your hub is noteworthy enough to attract attention). Do you see what I mean?
Obviously organic is important for traffic. But social helps get people too. Organic can take a long time. Social is quicker but shorter lived.
I'd add that Google are very unlikely to use +1's as a ranking factor as well (despite so many believing that they do).
G+ is as fake as Bubblews.
The only users are people who are scared of losing out SEO-wise and those who have been forced to join in order to comment on Google Play and You Tube.
As social media goes it is a joke.
It is worth reading the Matt Cutts proclamation, all the same, as it goes into a long discussion about the issue of identity. Google wants real people on G+. And it wants full disclosure so it can use real people's opinions as a reliable ranking signal.
But what sane person wants to throw away the last scraps of privacy so an untrustworthy corporation can use them in that way?
Well +1s do offer link juice where other social network likes might not. I was using +1s 3 years ago and they did improve link juice when you collected 5+ for each article.
The thing with G+ is that the people that are attracted to it tend to be more techy types. I doubt my local carpenter would benefit from being on there! For most businesses G+ is totally irrelevant. But it is all about finding where your particular audience hangs out and if they're on G+ then you better be too.
My prediction is that Google will never get to that point of using "real opinions as ranking signals" through G+ because not enough different types of people use it - or will ever use it. People are too content with their existing social networking platforms to change.
Yeah I'm not comfortable with Google knowing too much about me either! Nor Facebook come to think of it.
Paul Deeds discussed G+ traffic referral in another thread.
This is how it looks globally up to October 2013:
https://blog.shareaholic.com/social-med … s-10-2013/
Oh nice share! That's interesting.
The thing to note (not for you but for the newbs) is that 99.99% of all that Facebook traffic is not from hubbers sharing their own work - it's from readers who shared because they found something they liked enough to share.
That used to be the case, but I now see many sites in very competitive niches with comparatively few backlinks.
It is still 99% the case--what changed is that they take into account the relevance of the links and their organic nature, not just number and page rank of site. But it is still really all about backlinks
I'm not understanding of the whole Google stuff yet as I am a new Hubber.
I believe him when he says it though. It's the standard correlation vs causation. Pages that rank well have great social signals because they are great and the social signals are an after effect of that rather than a driving factor.
I follows several people on G+ who post great stuff. If you have gmail the big G already knows all your secrets -- G+ account makes little to no difference
Like many tools it's worth is in how well the person uses it
Personally I believe that this year will be a big one for Google +, because it is in fact a property of Google. After taking away keyword data from analytics while a user is logged into their Google profile, they have begun using social signals from your Google Plus circles (per your followers visits to different sites) to adjust search rankings to you because it is giving credit to the people that you interact with that have visited a site. You trust them = you trust the sites they have visited.
Don't rule out Google Plus when you are looking at rankings.
H'mm. let me see if I have this correct. If I create a Facebook page, I won't be found in a search engine....? Well I am looking at myself right now in the Google search results. And same on Twitter. Same on Pinterest. My hubs are being pinned fine. And yup, there I am on LinkedIn as well.
So I won't be found in a search engine using social media? I disagree, respectfully. I see plenty of do-follow areas where my tweets or hubs or links have been picked up, and where my poetry and my writing and guest posts have been successfully carried.
Should I worry?
If everybody did what Matt Cutts suggested they would be contradicting themselves after about 5 minutes, turning one way then another then another... on what must simply be a wild mindless dance.
Google want to kill SEO, but the animal just won't die.
Get over him.
Seems this is an issue that very few people can grasp...
Still, I imagine some will find the Cutts stuff useful. If you want to make a living online, it is all about where you put your effort.
No one is saying that social media is unimportant in terms of garnering traffic, or that your personal profiles are not listed in the search results (should someone search for them), only that likes and tweets don't directly affect search rankings.
Likes and tweets can be bought very easily, so it would be extremely easy to game the SERP's if they were a major ranking factor. Google wouldn't be that stupid.
My "grasp" is just fine. Google Plus is also a Social media platform. It is extremely similar to Facebook and to other social media platforms. So is Cutts including the weight from that social media as well, or is he totally stupid?
He would prefer a world of no-follow links from his competitors but just not where poor lagging little Google is languishing behind Facebook Pinterest and Twitter, and poor little Google plus needs a boost. It is not making the strides it needs to make, as not enough people use it, apparently. (I actually use it myself.)
I said something similar to this on LinkedIn recently, since Matt Cutts is being observed and mentioned on social media - other social media, that is...
Cutts is a businessman. If Matt Cutts told me to stop eating because food was bad for me, I'd need to know which food exactly before I make the big mistake of believing a man who works for the world's biggest internet search engine and biggest web advertiser. There are times when his advice runs contrary to common sense. That is too much to take in, and I'm very dubious when Cutts make some so-called announcement about blogging, posting or no-follow links or posts that originate on other social media. Or how we need to browse the internet. Who's internet is it anyway? Not Google's. Google thinks it's the internet's self-appointed Govt. It isn't. It's a big internet advetiser who would like to own a big slice of the cake, or just the whole bakery.
Matt Cutts would love us to click on all his ads. He'd love us to use his search engine full of adverts. This all seems to be perhaps part of a conversation we need to maybe have with Google. He wants it every way.
Regarding his rant recently on guest blogs, - if he or his bosses in Google were to punish or penalize anyone who posts a guest blog, then most of the media and publishers as we know it would go out of business. BBC, Fox, AOL, Huffington, Conde Nast... basically all his competitors. And somewhere in the mix is HubPages, with whom we all are connected right now.
Cutts has a logic that doesn't cut it. Treat all guest blogs as no-follow? How about treating the main evening news as no-follow? Bill O'Reilly or Obama no-follow. War no-follow. Poverty no-follow. (Politicians - don't ask.) Charity love, life, Love, Art, Literature and taxes, no follow? Really? No follow. Tell me that sounds like what an intelligent person would say... it isn't.
Unless you see it from a monetizing point of view and a revenue stream point of view, then it makes sense. I am not impressed, and I weigh up very carefully any advice from Mr Cutts. He made a bizarre point recently about guest blogging. Guest blogging is not all about the money, or the precious revenue streams of Google, as he seems to think. Guest writing, guest appearances and guest appearing anywhere have been the mainstay of human endeavors and entertainment for a long time. He is speaking from both wide corners of his mouth.
If every other social media platform stopped links from anything from Google or filtered links good or bad from Google, or filter and prevent a like, pin, or tweet from a Google origin - would he change his mind? That 1.2 Billion members list of Facebook can say a lot.
Some day Mr Cutts might find a big firewall between Google and the rest of the internet, and the day can't come soon enough, I reckon. Google has too much power...
The issue is simple.
Matt Cutts, as the official spokesman for Google on matters related to search says that the number of 'Tweets' and 'Likes' has no impact on search rankings. This settles a long running in the SEO world.
Frankly, all you are offering are baseless and ridiculously fanciful opinions. Why waste your time and mine?
I am a writer, like every hubber here. Including you. I wear ONE HAT. Mr Cutts and Google wear TOO MANY HATS. And those responsibilities and obligations just cloud their collective ability to make sound decisions or judgements about anything related to the internet.
A lot of people have never heard of Matt Cutts. Some people act like he is the 2nd Coming or something. Sorry for saying that. He really is just some guy.
When it comes to who can cheat and have it every way they want, whether with searches, email privacy, or advertising - Google in the end will be whipped back by laws, rules or events like this week when they were hammered with an EU ruling that forced them to settle rather than be fined over their usual bad practice...
Recognize contradiction when it stares you right in the face and call it what it is. Street view, ads filling up search results, Gmail privacy... yet more chapters in the book of Google fails...
Ever wonder why businesses have a Facebook page and a Twitter page - but not a Google plus they want to share with the world?
Cause and effect?? Chicken and egg??
Pages could have lots of likes etc on Facebook etc because they are high in the Google SERPS or they could be high in the Google SERPS because they have lots of likes etc...
Bit hard to say which is right!! But why would Google lie???? Is Google not honest???
But if you can generate traffic through social media then you should... as long as it is worth the effort..
Meanwhile I hear that if you wear ruby slippers and believe in fairies you can also gain a few extra places higher placement in the SERPS... But you have to get your hands on their dust!
'Pages could have lots of likes etc on Facebook etc because they are high in the Google SERPS or they could be high in the Google SERPS because they have lots of likes etc...'
Pages are not high in the SERP's because they have lots of likes. This is the main point that Matt Cutts just clarified.
If you decide to assert that the guy is deliberately lying you will need some evidence or you will look like your average paranoid nutjob.
Or just someone who cannot weigh evidence reliably.
Well, I would hope that everyone here is entitled to an opinion, without being labelled paranoid or stupid. After all, that's why you wanted to share this topic right? To discuss it? If everyone's so dumb they can't get what you are trying to say, then maybe a forum discussion isn't the place....just saying.
To clarify the above point, in the video, Matt Cutts says that likes do not make the page high in the SERPS, but that the page might have garnered lots of likes because it is so awesome and that is why it is high in the SERPS.
However, he also mentions the importance of letting people know that a page is there, and of course there's not much point to an awesome page if no one finds it. Plus who knows why Matt Cutts would want to give this information away just to help seo people...when really he's probably just turned on doing what he's doing and you can read into this Google PR what you will.
Myself I'm off to write more hubs and waste less time watching Matt Cutts videos.
by Elxar8 months ago
Hey guys! I'm a new Hubber and I just wanted suggestions on how to get more followers and more clicks to my articles.
by John Mark3 years ago
I have read many forums over the last couple of months on how traffic to HubPages has dropped considerably since July. After much investigation I believe to have figured out what has caused this drop (and I don't think...
by Christin Sander2 years ago
I know, we should write for both and I do, but the majority of my traffic comes from social media and lately I've stopped honestly caring about trying to figure out what Google wants. My highest ranking hubs for...
by Oyewole Folarin5 years ago
I noticed that 98% of my hub organic traffic is from google, why not from other search engines, specifically yahoo search engine and bing?
by Janis Leslie Evans2 years ago
If we pump up our use of social media, i.e., marketing our articles more, will it help increase our traffic much? Or won't it make much difference because we are more dependent upon organic traffic? Something tells me...
by Marisa Wright2 years ago
For those of you hoping you can ignore Google and become successful via the social networks, this survey is not good news:http://searchengineland.com/study-organ … l-5-202063Basically, for most websites, the...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.