FIXED: Can't get Google Authorship with new Hubpages Profile

1. 79

   Greekgeekposted 12 years ago

   Okay, this is why I dreaded the coming changeover -- Google authorship was working just fine under the old format, but the new profile page won't recognize my Google profile URL because I have an old Google member profile.
   
   Which works just fine with Google authorship, but Hubpages' new profile editor absolutely refuses to recognize it.
   
   I have tried to enter into the Google plus box:
   https://profiles.google.com/ellenbrundige
   https://profiles.google.com/ellenbrundige/
   https://profiles.google.com/ellenbrundige/about   
   
   The first one is correct. The first one has worked for a year. The first one makes my hubs, blogs, and other articles stand out in Google results thanks to the author icon and author links.
   
   Nevertheless, Hubpages has now disabled it and won't let me enter it:
   
   
   
   So, what are the magic steps to make something that wasn't broken before unbroken again?
   
   Please don't tell me, "You have to upgrade to Google+." My Google member profile works just fine for authorship on every website, blog, and publishing platform I use -- which included Hubpages up until now. Therefore, this is an exclusive-to-Hubpages glitch.

   replyreport
   1. 86

      Marisa Wrightposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Waiting with interest.  This was raised by Glenn Stok some time ago, what's happenin'?

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Dale Hydeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      When I raised this issue back when I first upgraded to the new profile, the staff answer was that once we provided the Google+ link in our profile there in the upper right, HP took care of the rest and the Google authorship is taken care of by them. 
      
      This is how my Google+ link looks here on HP: https://plus.google.com/115613837084324061009/
      
      I get those numbers in the URL when I log into Google+, click profile and they appear up there at the top in the browser.

      replyreport
      1. 83

         kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Thats exactly what my Google+ link looks on HubPages AND Google+ (well, not exactly, as I am not you).
         
         I think Google may have changed the way the addresses to profiles work. Perhaps that is your problem. Maybe you need to update the profile address.

         replyreport
      2. 79

         Greekgeekposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Dale, like Glen and I said, that only works if you've got a newer Google plus account with numbers in its URL.
         
         Those of us who have older Google profiles have our member URLs in an older format. We cannot enter any numbers, since they don't exist for our Google accounts.
         
         When I paste my Google link into profile settings, I get an error message as per the screencap above, and Hubpages won't save it.

         replyreport
         1. 83

            kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            I signed up for Google+ before it even came out. I was one of those "Beta members."
            
            I have numbers in my profile. I'd double check that if I were you.

            replyreport
         2. 73

            Dale Hydeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            This is one solution that is supposed to work for those that have the +Names active:
            
            "For those with their +Names already active, the page may load with the name in the browser address bar, but the ID is still in the links present on the names as they display in the stream... you can right-click those names and "Copy Shortcut" to get the ID."
            
            I can not see your stream to try the right click to see what comes up.
            
            I just tried this on my feed on Google +.... one friend posted a comment, when I placed my cursor over the name (link) at the bottom left of my screen it displayed the number....when I clicked it went to his profile page that displays a vanity URL or name URL in the browser.

            replyreport
   3. STAFF

      pauldeedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      You should be able to use any of those profiles.google.com urls now, even though they aren't technically Google Plus urls.   We don't have one to test with, so I can't say for sure if it will solve the authorship problem or not.

      replyreport
2. 79

   Greekgeekposted 12 years ago

   Bueller?
   
   Okay, I realize this is a new post, but this bug was first reported two months ago!

   replyreport
3. 59

   paradigmsearchposted 12 years ago

   Read from http://hubpages.com/forum/topic/103956? … ost2212183 on down. Success may be within your grasp...

   replyreport
   1. 59

      paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      .
      
      .
      .
      .
      The first person with the older address to succeed, wins.
      
      You know... Google, themselves, will obsolesce those older addresses eventually...

      replyreport
4. 79

   Greekgeekposted 12 years ago

   *exhales with relief*
   
   pauldeeds, thank you. It just went through. Settings accepted my Google link.
   
   Sorry for the snippiness; I had a richter scale 9 migraine yesterday, and was starting to feel like the little dutch boy trying to plug multiple leaks... new ones kept springing up while I was still trying to fix the earlier ones.
   
   (And yes, paradigmsearch, I'm aware of that, but will burn that bridge when I'm dragged to it. I'm not on Facebook, and I don't need Google shoving a substitute down my throat.)

   replyreport
   1. 59

      paradigmsearchposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I just drive off them. Quicker that way.

      replyreport
   2. 71

      livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Even though it has accepted your +Name (I went to your profile and verified that it does indeed go to your Google profile) it does not go to a Google Plus page which is ultimately what you want.  The old profile pages will do you no good in growing your online presence since there is no way for anyone to follow you.  I think it would be in your best interest, and the best interest of anyone using the old profile, to upgrade or create a new Google+ account.  A Google+ account is social where the old profile is static.

      replyreport
5. 79

   Greekgeekposted 12 years ago

   Livewithrichard, believe me, after 21 years of using the internet for social communication and publishing, I understand the pros and cons of choosing to abstain from certain forms of social networking.
   
   I have specific reasons for objecting to the Facebook/plus social model, and support alternatives that permit pen names and greater control over who has access to personal data.  Those alternatives existed prior to the ascendancy of Facebook. (Twitter is a good example of a web 2.0 version of that approach.)
   
   I get followers and search traffic anyway. Useful content promotes itself.

   replyreport
   1. 83

      kathleenkatposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I am not sure 21 years, or any amount of years, could assess the pros and cons of something that is a relatively recent concept.
      
      Social networking isn't new, no, but Facebook is among the first to require the use of your real name. It think it would involve networks like this having a longer lifeline to really assess pros and cons to the same extent that we can assess alias-networks (like LiveJournal, MySpace, etc) and their effectiveness.
      
      
      Also, a tangent here...What was it like on the internet prior to its commercialization in 1995? What did you use it for? Was it easier to get exposure, because there were less users? Or because there being less users, was it easier to get exposure as a writer in traditional means (books and mags)? I rarely come accross someone that really used the internet before '95, when stuff like AOL and email came out, so I do hope you answer my questions (though off topic). I don't remember much from back then, as I was born in 1990.

      replyreport
      1. 73

         Dale Hydeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I was thinking along the same lines.  I did not start on the internet until 1995 or maybe even 1996.  Not sure what it was like 21 years ago being online.  My wife has shared some of the things that were prior to that, but it was not areas that one could become known for writing and such.  It was more for sharing files and things of that nature that she recalls.

         replyreport
         1. 71

            livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            So much has changed... 1995 was when I too bought my first computer with a 486 processor and connected to the the internet with a 1200 bit/s modem through CompuServ...  Remember it would take almost 10 minutes or so for a picture to fully load.  Much prior to that, in the late 80's, I had friends that introduced me to the BBS.  It was very cool and nerdy, so being in the Army at the time is wasn't really talked about in general.  It was something saved for private moments... I guess I was a nerd bigot at the time.

            replyreport
            1. 73

               Dale Hydeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I reckon I missed that. Was in an area that simply did not have access to such things during that time period of my life. But it does sound awesome. Do remember when I first got on, the free minutes CD that you would get through the mail from AOL, and the extremely slow time to load the pages back then and certainly any graphics...... and the "You Have Mail!", lol.  One good thing about those days and AOL, I met my wife in an AOL chat.

               replyreport
            2. 79

               Greekgeekposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               I has to use my printer's fax settings yesterday to send something to my Dad, and we both got a laugh out of the dialup tone that gave us flashbacks to an old 1200 baud modem. Bzzzt bzzzzt bzzztt ding a crunch ding... You could always tell if you were getting connected or not by those weird noises.
               
               Here, a blast from the past (although this sounds like a 56k modem I think):
               
               http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHW1ho8L7V8

               replyreport
               1. 63

                  prettydarkhorseposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  On a different note, I started with Wordperfect, now Microsoft Word improved a lot !!

                  replyreport
6. 79

   Greekgeekposted 12 years ago

   Hmm. I wrote a "history of the internet" article to commemorate the web's 20th anniversary, but maybe I should write up a more personal essay on my memories of IRC, Vax, and what it was like trying to get a file to a friend in Virginia before the various regional and university internets coalesced into THE internet.
   
   It was very, very different! After all, in those days, "nobody knew you were an emu."
   
   Seriously, it's a good topic, and I could go on at length about it. Some of the changes have been fantastic; other times I long for the days when we were judged solely on content. Content was all that mattered, since money earning never entered our minds as a reason to post something. Too few people you knew were online to use it as a social tool for connecting up with anybody except other nerds who shared a particular interest, hobby, or academic project you were posting about. Nearly everything was driven by and related through subject matter, not personal information or social connections and interactions.

   replyreport
7. 63

   prettydarkhorseposted 12 years ago

   This thread is important - I saw this one posted by sunforged at Facebook http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-prepa … -on-google

   replyreport
   1. 71

      livewithrichardposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That is an awesome read and great insight into not only what is to come but a fantastic outline of how to make sure you are ahead of the game instead of always playing catch up.

      replyreport
   2. 73

      Dale Hydeposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Most interesting. What concerns me is that HP has lost the Google+ button on our hubs...yet this article states that this could be an important aspect.
      
      Thanks for the most insightful link.

      replyreport