Google authorship

Jump to Last Post 1-15 of 15 discussions (82 posts)

89
Pcunixposted 12 years ago
Where are we on this?

I see Google has added a new way to verify authors: http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … er=1408986

That would seem to make things easier, though we would have to go back and edit hubs unless HP would provide a way to do this automatically if we wanted to (and of course some definitely will not).
reply report
1. 74
  Mikel G Robertsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank You.
  reply report
2. 60
  LindaSmith1posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Confusing if you ask me. Besides, unless we have an actual, legal copyright to our hubs, articles, there is not much we can do but rely on the honesty of others.
  reply report
3. 96
  incomeguruposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I strongly believe hubpages will definitely take care of that. Thanks for alerting us.
  reply report
76
Richieb799posted 12 years ago
This was discussed a while back by Marissa Wright, I haven't done it yet..I think you just add it to your profile
reply report
1. 71
  AEvansposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I haven't did it yet either. I still have to link mine from Google to here.
  reply report
2. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, I'm not talking about what Marisa wrote about - this is something that HP could do to make it easier for us.
  reply report
89
Pcunixposted 12 years ago
Specifically, I'm asking about what http://glennstok.hubpages.com/hub/compl … directions mentioned

"HubPages will be making this easier. New profile changes being planned (possibly before the end of 2011) will have a field where you can specify your Google Profile URL and HubPages will take care of the HTML for you."
reply report
1. 61
  SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Has this been implemented, already?
  
  I checked my Google Plus profile, and there I found a link to my HP profile. I don't remember doing that myself.
  reply report
  82
  homesteadboundposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I had to do mine today. so it was not done already.
  reply report
61
Lisa HWposted 12 years ago
PC, I thought you were talking about that "Option 1 (new) at the link you posted first. My question on that one would be whether by "sites where multiple users post content" (may not be an exact quote) Google means something like blogs with a lot of contributors or something like our own subdomains or HubPages' "overall" site. (Different from what you asked, I know; but this was the first I've seen of this "new" thing.)

Sidd, if you have your Google profile set up Google may/will eventually run into stuff that's yours and add it to your list of links. I'm not sure, though, that seeing that they've picked up your link means that you've got the "reciprocal-link" thing on your HP profile. I've had links show up to stuff I have around the Internet. Also, I've had a new link show up with a message like, "We found this. Do you want to it added to your list?" (or words similar to that) Sometimes that message doesn't show up. Just the link does.

I could be wrong, but I think there's at least the chance they know your profile page is yours but may not know that all the Hubs "attached" to your subdomain are also yours. From what I understand (and unless HP has started putting the "rel thing" on profiles), each Hubber needs to do the two-way linking between his HP profile and his Google profile. (For anyone who doesn't know, that's where it's explained on the "how-to-do-it" thread mentioned above.)

I've got the whole business all set up, but I'm thinking I may start adding my name and e.mail address (which I have "out there" anyway) as an added thing. (Have to think about that, though.)
reply report
1. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have 200+ hubs and really don't want to go through them.. I have read the stuff that says all that you need is your HP profile, but as I read what Google has to say, I think you need it on each article. That's why I'm hoping that HP will implement this.
  reply report
  61
  SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think doing it once on the profile page (or "About" page for any website) will do - individual hubs anyway contain at least two links to the profile.
  reply report
2. 61
  SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually, my HP profile was listed under "Recommended Links", and not under "Contributor to" (as I would have done, had I added it myself). So, I guess what you are saying is right.
  reply report
3. 82
  homesteadboundposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Lisa HW - are you thinking about adding your name and email address to each hub?
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @homesteadbound - There is no need to add your email address to each hub. That was stated as an optional method in Google's support site. For that metter, you don't need to do anything with your individual Hubs. That would be unacceptable, especially for those who have hundreds of Hubs. HP already put the links in our Hubs with rel="author" pointing to our HP profile. Thank HP for taking care of that part.
  reply report
  61
  Lisa HWposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  homesteadbound, now that I've seen it mentioned, I am thinking that it may be a good thing to do even if it's not necessary (but nobody should go by me, because I'm just guessing and might later discover some real disadvantages to doing that).
  
  I don't think doing it would make the Hubs look bad, provided it were positioned unobtrusively at the bottom. Although I think I've seen signs that Google has caught some stolen stuff and at least buried it, I've still had stuff stolen and posted in places where I don't think Google can/will do anything about it if a report is filed. I don't mean to come across as discouraging here, but I've lost quite a bit of earnings as a result of thefts; and people will steal stuff one would never assume might be stolen.
  
  Maybe one theft-deterring step is never enough, but I can't help but think taking advantage of every little one can't hurt. My big concern is getting a bunch of spam and junk e.mail in the address I'd use. It's a separate, online writing, e.mail; so I don't care about it in a lot of ways. I have it on blogs already, so it's no big secret. My blogs don't get the traffic my Hubs do, though.
  
  I might start doing it with future Hubs, and then copy/paste it into old Hubs a few at a time (or at least just start doing it now). I suppose I could set junk-mail filters on "high". I just don't know if there's some hidden consequence that I haven't thought of, or don't know about, other than the inconvenience of it.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But you don't need to use the email method here.
  
  Read Glenn's hub..
  reply report
81
GmaGoldieposted 12 years ago
Wow! What a change! I was about to go through my hubs once and for all but now I will have to wait and see.

It would be nice to have an universal capsule for our profile and FTC disclosure. I know I can place the FTC disclosure on my profile but for the exercise and water information, I feel it needs to be on that very page. For the FTC disclosure it would be nice to simply check a box and have the info appear.

Oh, my goodness, the wild west of the Internet remains a wild ride.

Thanks for the great info. Will stay tune for more bumps and bruises!
reply report
97
Glenn Stokposted 12 years ago
I see there was a lot of confusion in the prior thread two months ago. And I see in this thread that there still is confusion.

Your confusion is understandable because Google changed things after the first implementation when people complained that some sites, such as HubPages, did not allow using HTML coding. Unfortunately if you follow old discussions you may not do it right if that info was not updated.

That's why I wrote my hub explaining how I did it. I have Google Authorship verified on HubPages and on some other sites where I've also implemented it. And my only desire is to help others successfully do the same. I'm trying not to be self-promotional here. Just want to help my fellow Hubbers.

Just to bring you up to date and answer various questions I see in this thread, allow me to clarify things…

1. Authorship requires reciprocal links. That is, your HP profile (or your profile on any content site) needs to point to your Google Profile AND your Google Profile needs to point back to your HP profile. That two-way link is something ONLY YOU can do. So no one else can claim authorship of your content.

2. Google will know what content across the web is yours because you also need to have a link from all your content (Hubs) pointing to your author profile which in turn points to your Google Profile. Once you implement this it will be hard for scrappers to copy your content.

3. HubPages has already placed the links in all our Hubs pointing to our HP profile. So you don't need to update hundreds of hubs.

But what about the link to from our HP profile to our Google Profile? According to Jason (it may have been Paul, I didn't go back to check) in one of our prior threads, HP will include a way for us to enter our Google profile URL so they can place the HTML required link in our HP profile. But that's not done yet as of this post. However, anyone who wants to take advantage of Google Authorship on HP now, can use the new method Google created, as I explained in my hub.

Pcunix, thanks for mentioning my hub above.
reply report
1. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes - and did you see the comment I left there about the "+" requirement? Either I missed that when they first announcec it or they changed it.
  
  http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … er=1408986
  
  "Your link must contain the ?rel=author parameter, and your anchor text must end with a + character. (You don't need to be a Google+ user to do this, and you can use any anchor text you want.) If either of these is missing, Google won't be able to associate your content with your Google profile."
  
  They also say you need
  
  "a good, recognizable headshot as your profile photo. " which may mean that cartoon characters may not cut it.
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I had made reference to all that in my hub about how to implement it. The + can go at the beginning OR the end of the anchor. The recognizable headshot is only required if you want the extra ability of including your authorship info on search results. But that's not required for simply having the authorship markup installed.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It says "end" rather specifically, so I don't trust anything else even if it seems to work now. Besides, it fits - at my site the link says "Find me at Google+"
  
  By the way, do you know what they mean by " "certain results will display an author's picture and name"? I have seen precious few results that have this and have never seen any of my own so annotated. Do you have to be Danny Sullivan or something damn close before they'll do this?
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That support page is new and I noticed that too, saying it must be at the end. I have the + at the beginning as they previously explained and I just tested it with the Rich Snippets Test Tool. It still works. They DID say somewhere else that they will continue to support prior methods as they continue to make changes. I wish I can find that to show you but there were just too many Google support pages already. The thing is, they don't want to break whatever people did who followed the old rules when they first started this. SO I believe them that the old methods work.
  
  I think they now say it must be at the end because a lot of people got confused with too many options. lol. Not to mention that the very first method used rel="me" as a separate tag, not appended to the URL. And THAT still works too. And is the preferential method for those of us who can enter HTML (not on HubPages though). I use that old method on Squidoo and it still verifies successfully. I really don't think they would want to break old code.
  
  As for your last question, where they said "certain results will display an author's picture and name" --- all I can say is that non of mine show my picture yet either. I see in various Google blogs that many people are not seeing the picture and info yet. I had a poor quality headshot on my Google Profile. That may be why mine didn't show up. I just recently updated it using the same one I use here. Google says it can take a while before pictures and info get included. I'm not going to worry about that part. It really has nothing to do with Google Authorship itself. It's just a nice extra.
  reply report
  82
  homesteadboundposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I just did what Glenn's hub said, and I am able to click in my profile here and it takes me to my google profile, and back again. The + is on the front.
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't see the "Find me at Google+" on your HP profile. Am I missing it somewhere?
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not here at HP - at my own site.
  
  I honestly forgot about HP and just added this stuff here a few minutes ago - and did it with a link around my name with a + at the end (I just don't trust them!) - then I changed it to Find me at Google+ later.
  
  They certainly did make a mess of this, didn't they (Google, I mean, not HP)? Confused it completely..
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yep, I see it now. Works great. You can remove the duplicate link to HP under "Contributor to" as you only need it under "Other Profiles" as you do have it there. I don't know if it can mess thing up to do both. The "Contributor to" list is only for sites where you don't have a profile.
  reply report
  82
  homesteadboundposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So on google I added to contributor list, so I need to go change it?
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You know, I checked my profile page and thought I was all set.. but when I check any actual hub (using http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets ) , I get
  
  Error: Author profile page does not have a rel=me link to a Google Profile
  
  And they are right: HP puts a
  
  <a rel="author" href="http://pcunix.hubpages.com/"
  
  So.. NOT working..
  
  Sheesh.. :-)
  
  Which is why I wish they'd let us input our profile id and link directly to that - that's the way I did it on my other sites and they all work..
  
  @Glenn: your pages get the same error:
  
  http://glennstok.hubpages.com/hub/compl … directions
  
  Extracted Author for this page
  author
  linked author profile = http://glennstok.hubpages.com/
  Error: Author profile page does not have a rel=me link to a Google Profile (learn more)
  
  Now, from one of my own web sites pages:
  
  Extracted Author for this page
  author
  linked author profile = https://plus.google.com/113844487094333 … rel=author
  google profile = https://plus.google.com/113844487094333 … rel=author
  author name = Tony Lawrence
  Verified: Authorship markup is correct for this page (learn more)
  
  But those are done with direct links to my Google profile..
  
  Like I said, Google has confused and FUBARED this..
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Pcunix - Go back and read the section in my hub with the title "Google Has A Bug - Don't Let It Confuse You" and you'll see I made reference to that. I guess you missed it.
  
  Google's Product Manager, Sagar Kamgar, made a comment about the erroneous error in the test tool but they never fixed it.
  
  As I mentioned in my hub, this is only an error with the Rich Snippets Test Tool. But your code is correct.
  
  You will notice that the test passes on your HP Profile. It passes for your profile and it passes for mine. It also passes for everyone else who followed these instructions.
  
  The only place where the erroneous error is reported is when you run the test on a Hub. And by the way, you confused your Hub with your Profile in your (this) post. Maybe that's why you think HP did it wrong. HP is not mess up. They put the rel="author" link in all our Hubs and that is correct. Please read my hub again as you are missing important points. I respect you as an author and a great a great writer. But I am worried about these posts confusing people who may think HP messed up their part of all this.
  
  Let me explain what I said in my hub. All content (Hubs) need to point to our profile with rel="author" and HP did that for us. Our profiles need to point to each other with rel="me" and Google does that for you when you put your HP Profile URL under "Other Profiles" in your Google Profile.
  
  Now, as I mentioned in my hub, we can't use rel="me" on HubPages because they don't allow HTML. So Google made "?rel=author" as an alternative method, which we append to our Google Profile URL and place that in our HP Profile with an anchor. HP allows us to do that. But the Rich Snippets Test Tool was never updated to recognize rel=author from a profile to another profile. That is why the test is erroneous on your Hubs, but passes on your Profile.
  
  I hope this helps clear the confusion.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not confusion - it's mistrust :-)
  
  Not of HP, but of Google. I have seen them bungle so many things, and leave them bungled for so long, that the inescapable conclusion is that that they have some real dopes writing code.
  
  And as I said, I don't trust the way I did it either. Just because the Snippet tool says its fine doesn't mean they really have made the connection.
  
  If they HAVE, this stuff should be helpful in many ways (as we discussed above), so I remain hopefully pessimistic :-)
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have to agree with your statement. And I can pinpoint where I feel they (Google) messed up.
  
  When they reacted to complaints that people on sites like HP that don't allow HTML, they reacted too quickly without thinking it through. So they added the alternative method using the rel=author appended to the URL that points to ones Google Profile.
  
  That was a big mistake because in other support topics they made it clear that rel=me should be used to point from one profile to another, and rel=author is only meant for pointing ones content to their profile.
  
  But then they decided to use rel=author anyway. Not only did that totally confuse a lot of people, but they never updated the test tool to recognize that discrepancy.
  
  So, yes indeed, Pcunix, I totally agree with what you just said. But I am optimistic that the code works anyway because I am seeing a higher traffic since implementing this.
  
  And don't forget that the original method works well and verifies fine (as you and I have done on other sites with HTML). And HP will eventually (as mentioned in prior thread) implement that so we don't need to use these tactics anymore with the alternative method.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Knowing that you have measured better traffic makes me much more hopeful.
  
  I don't know how I forgot to do that here for so long.. I've been aware of this since they first announced it and had started adding microformat markup even before that. I can't say that any of it has helped me, though of course with Panda being so crushing, that would mask any positive effect anyway.
  
  Onward and upward - we hope!
  reply report
2. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't trust the "Profile" method. Yeah, it sounds good, but Google screws up so often and seems to have such amazing incompetence that I won't believe it until I see my face in a search result.
  
  That's why I'm hoping that eventually HP will let us enter Google profile id's and automatically link every one of our pages. And even then I won't really believe it means anything until I see some indication of that in SERPs. Checking that links work or that the rich snippets tool validates it doesn't say that Google really sees you as the author - I'm sorry, but I just don't trust them. I don't mean in an "evil" sense; I mean that I don't trust their coding competence.
  
  I know that some might gasp at that - after all, they hire the best and brightest of the world, right? Yeah, so they say, but all you have to do is look at the mess GWT is or remember the many, many bugs of Google Calendar and many other projects to realize that they screw up regularly (and often take forever to fix it). A "bug" here is not something we can see or test unless and until it appears in SERP, so that's when I'll believe it!
  
  That form they added ( https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreads … mp;ndplr=1 ) also seems very odd to me.. why wouldn't they just automatically check "implementation" when you edit that profile?
  
  Anyway - I'm glad I remembered to fix my profile here - if it works, great and if not, well maybe it will someday :-)
  reply report
67
Michael Willisposted 12 years ago
A Thanks "shout-out" to Glenn! Your hub and advice from your hub helped me get this set up.
And to Pcunix for starting this thread! I would not have done this today if I had not found this forum.
reply report
1. 0
  Motown2Chitownposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Me too! Thank you, gentlemen!
  reply report
2. 97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And a hearty "you're welcome" to you Michael and to Motown2Chitown. I am pleased to have helped. There are so many wonderful Hubbers here who I have learned many things from. It's the least I can do to give back something. Pcunix, you've added a lot of additional useful info in this thread. Thanks from me to you too. And to all the others who were part of this today.
  reply report
85
Jlbowdenposted 12 years ago
Hi Glenn:

I can see that your article certainly did justice for so many hubbers. I also want to personally thank you for helping me set up my own google authorship link, within my hubpages profile page. I know I cheated somewhat by not fully reading your hubpage article on google authorship. Mainly because you were available to give me hands on help, at our last hubpage meetup of 10/22 if you recall. Thanks again for your help as always. I see my traffic increasing on a steady basis since adding the link.

Jim
reply report
1. 97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Jim - No need to read the whole thing anyway because a lot of it is about how to implement Authorship on other sites such as Squidoo and Wizzley. You read the important parts and you got it right. Since our last HubMeet, Quill also completed his authorship and has it verified. Thanks for the feedback. Good to know it's helping your traffic.
  reply report
80
David 470posted 12 years ago
Very useful thread! Definitely going to set the Google authorship up. Hopefully, there will be a way to claim all our hubs at once instead of linking them individually.

This will help against others plagiarizing our work, correct?
reply report
1. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately, I doubt it.
  
  Think about it from the other side - what stops you (aside from pesky morals!) from taking someone else's work and putting it on your own site with an author tag?
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Pcunix - The beauty of the Authorship is that people will not be able to take someone else's work and put it on their site with an author tag because your own authorship already makes it clear to Google who owns the text if your work. In addition, they can't point their own profile to your work because they can't make the required reciprocal link.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The beauty of authorship will be IF IT WORKS. I see no evidence so far that it does.
  
  I think you have much more faith in Google than I do :-)
  
  I HOPE that you are right, of course.
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, I guess I do have more faith in Google. From reading their blogs I see what they are up to. In addition to verifying who owns what, they want to use Authorship to know what quality various writers have.
  
  It all works in combination with the +1 button, which shows quality too. Then when you write a new hub, you don't have to wait as long for the quality of it be become obvious because Google will already know, that since it was written by you, it's written by someone who is known to have quality. So they might just give it a boost in rank from the start.
  
  That's the theory. Let's hope it works.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Indeed. That is the theory. Another part of the theory is that Google should realize that I write a lot about Unix and that a number of those articles have good traffic, links and plus-1's.
  
  If I then plus someone else's Unix article, that +1 should mean more than if I happen to be amused by an article about Sumerian pottery and also bless it with a plus..
  
  Bu, again, it's all theory and I honestly feel that they are not only sometimes clueless but often incompetent to execute even when they do have a clue. Remember, they hired away a lot of Microsoft programmers :-)
  reply report
2. 61
  SiddSinghposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It cannot stop others from plagiarizing your work.
  
  What it can do (as I imagine) that if you have everything set up properly in the Plus profile, Google will (sort of) stamp your authorship as soon as you publish anything. If the article is later plagiarized, then perhaps Google will simply ignore it (the stolen version).
  
  Also, it appears more useful for someone looking expressly for your content, by typing your name etc. This is why they want a real name and photo in your profile. Does this mean that writing under pen names is not a good idea, I wonder?
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It does make things more difficult for those who want to write under different names and hide that fact. You'd need to create multiple Google profiles and keep track of them.
  
  Early on, it was starting to look like Google was going to hold the line on using real names in profiles, which would seem to inevitably lead to not allowing multiples eventually, but they seem to be backing off on that (I think that's a mistake, but opinions differ and it is their business, not mine).
  
  So, sure, you can use a pen names, but if you don't want people to be able to backtrack them to "you", you'd need profiles for them and email addresses and passports .. no, not passports :-)
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Pcunix - you don't need to publish your email address. That was optional as stated on Google's support site. Google gave us two ways to do it.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I didn't say you'd need to publish it - I said you'd need it to get another Google profile.
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry Pcunix, I misunderstood your comment. I'm not sure if Google let's one have more than one Profile. Even if you use different email addresses, they will see the same IP address. But like I say, I'm just not sure.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure they do. My wife and I have different gmail addresses and different G+ profiles - we are behind the same IP and although she isn't "made up", she certainly could be.
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @SiddSingh - I just read your post after responding to the same question above. You answered it very well and with more detail than I did.
  reply report
  80
  David 470posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I sure hope Google would ignore a stolen version of someone's content.
  
  It would not be right for someone to make money or get traffic from someone elses content.
  reply report
  61
  Lisa HWposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Something I've thought might eventually deter SOME theft is the fact that the person who has an Ad Sense account (that he hopes to earn from with stolen stuff) may possibly think twice before posting stolen stuff if he thinks there's a chance it will show up as "duplicate" (anywhere duplicates are checked) to anything with a well established author. Maybe it would just feel safer to steal from non-Google-established authors.
  reply report
82
Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years ago
I've got a really quick question here - is this "Google Author" thing only relevant to those who have their own website? Or is it something that someone like me who does not could benefit from as well?
reply report
1. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No, it's definitely relevant everywhere you write.
  reply report
  82
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thanks!
  
  In that case - I'll be taking a closer look! :-D
  reply report
72
Quilligrapherposted 12 years ago
@ Glenn
I actually thought I had accomplished this Google+ Authorship thing correctly until you pointed out it wasn’t working. I appreciate your noticing and your council on how to fix it. Your skills are a real asset to us computer challenged word merchants. Thanks a heap.
reply report
1. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Don't be happy yet - as I said just above your post, neither Glenn nor I have actual HUBS working correctly.
  reply report
2. 97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Quilligrapher - No you're not computer challenged. I see what you have done and you do it well. Please note that Pcunix says that his hubs and my Hubs are not working. He missed the fact that Goolge's Product Manager Sagar Kamgar has reported a bug with the test tool. It's only an erroneous result on content pages that use the alternative method, as we need to do on HubPages for now.
  reply report
89
Pcunixposted 12 years ago
@Glenn

I see that at your hub you assume the errors I mentioned above are meaningless.

You could be right, but I don't see any reason to think so - if they broke it there, it could be broken everywhere.

I did my website using direct links to mt Google profile, and those DO verify correctly.

I'm not even sure we can trust that, but I'd trust it before trusting a method that their tool doesn't like.
reply report
1. 97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Google's Product Manager, Sagar Kamgar, made a comment that they know about the bug that gives an erroneous test result when you use the alternative method. Mine passes on my own business site since I was able to use HTML there and I used rel="me" as it was originally designed. If you are worried, then wait until HP implements the code with that method.
  reply report
80
cameciobposted 12 years ago
Glenn, after following your instuction in the hub I'm still not able to succesfuly test the whole damn thing! so...the link I put on my HP profile is:
https://plus.google.com/(then here goes my number a very long one without())then what? - my Google profile name+
could not figure it out!help.
reply report
1. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Follow Option 2 at http://www.google.com/support/webmaster … er=1408986
  reply report
  80
  cameciobposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  yey.. I did it!
  my mistake was that i considered this: </a> as part of the link but that was HTML editing.
  so what I did I entered http://plus.google.com/XXXXmy numberXXXX?rel=author
  and this: XXXXmy numberXXXX
  is
  a personal number different for each of us that can be found in the URL of our Google or Google + profile page.
  
  thank you Pcunix.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You didn't need anything after "author". The rest was just an example of what the actual HTML would be.
  
  Oh, and there is nothing secret about the number - no need to obfuscate it.
  reply report
  80
  cameciobposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It is hard for someone who has no html "education". It was my ambition to manage this link, no hopes on more traffic or more Google appreciation.
  I did the link manualy ...no copy/paste. number was way too long,lol. Before I came to the forum I tried numerous variants including something similar with the example in the link you provided.
  I was looking for an example as how the link should look like and everything I saw or read was very confusing to me, all explanations also.
  I reedited my previous post.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can get a lot of HTML education by using "View Source" in your browser. That will show you what links and so on look like.
  
  In the old days, most HTML was very simple, so you could really learn everything that way, but CSS and JavaScript made it much more complicated. Still, if you look around, sometimes large sections of a page are still pretty easy to understand.
  
  In the HP editor, you are allowed some HTML editing, too, so you can experiment to a limited degree.
  
  Finally, googling for "HTML tutorials" will find more than you could read over the rest of your life.
  reply report
2. 97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  cameciob, you did it right. I checked your HP profile and your Google profile. Everything is fine. Read the section "Google Has A Bug - Don't Let It Confuse You" in my hub and you'll understand.
  reply report
89
Pcunixposted 12 years ago
And.. with some reluctance .. now that authorship is working everywhere, I decided to standardize my profile picture everywhere - the "clown" is gone.

My wife always hated that anyway..

RIP

reply report
1. 80
  David 470posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  reply report
77
Greekgeekposted 12 years ago
Google authorship is so frustrating.

It worked. I had it working for a month. When my articles came up in search results, it had my photo and author name in the Google snippet, making them nice and official-looking. The icon (which is a professional photographer's portrait of me, all hail airbrushing) draws the eye, which is great in a bunch of text-only search results.

Then, starting 3 days ago, Google REMOVED my authorship from my content. I hadn't changed a thing. I'd think Google didn't like me, but it's done the same thing to some industry experts and profressional bloggers as well; I noticed this change being discussed on SearchEngineLand, one of the better SEO industry sites.

The question I have:
-- Has Google concluded my content isn't worthy enough to deserve the "authorship" perk?
-- Having changed how authorship is verified for the third time in a month and a half (it's now got an email option), has Google disabled the earlier form of authorship it told us to do?
-- Or has Google changed it so you have to be a Google+ member, rather than just a Google member with an ordinary Google profile?

Then, taking a step back, I am NOT well pleased. Consider: the icon and authorname mean that your content will receive more clicks, more traffic. Google is determining that the official web standard for indicating authorship -- rel="me" and rel="author" -- is not sufficient. Instead, authorship (according to Google) means you are a Google member of good standing, perhaps a Google+ member.

When your content is ranked not by the quality of the content but by your participation in social networks gathering your personal data, there's a problem. When membership in Google's social network causes your content to rank better in search engine results, there's a problem. When Google is dictating the credentials we must have to establish our online identity and be recognized as a published author, there's a problem. Google's criteria would disqualify Mark Twain, Ellis Peters, Will.i.am, and anyone publishing under an oppressive regime or who for whatever reason needs the protection of a pen name.
reply report
1. 97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Greekgeek ~ I looked at your profile and I see why your Authorship is not working. You didn't implement it correctly. I'm surprised your picture showed up three weeks ago. Just follow the steps in my hub about it and you'll be fine. You can avoid the frustration by just skipping down to the part about HubPages.
  reply report
2. 89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's something I have never seen. The only time I have seen search results show photos is when it's someone mildly famous like Danny Sullivan.
  reply report
3. 81
  Mark Ewbieposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with GG. Google has reached right up its own ass and pulled out a bunch of meaningless crap - designed to force people to buy into yet another load of scummy, crappy, Facebook style love-me-and-ill-love-you-back total garbage.
  
  I am sick of the buddy club mentality, the never ending attempt to monetise every f'cking thing that moves, and the problem for someone who might just write something because they want to write the f'cking thing.
  
  Is quality being a +1 member or having those +1's pressed?
  
  Our high streets in the UK are filled with the same faceless monopolies, our TV programs appeal to lowest common denominator - and the intention seems to be to do the same to the internet.
  
  Every time I see Google have created another oh-so-funny graphic for their search box (because that's all it is, a f'cking search box) it winds me up.
  
  It's OK.
  
  I'm stopping now.
  
  Thanks.
  reply report
  82
  CMHypnoposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nothing wrong with a rant Mark - it gets it all out. I think that its a control thing with the big G - make you use their accounts, then they have loads of information about you, and then you have to bow and scrape to stop them chewing you up and spitting you out.
  
  I want to write, not spend my days wracking my brains on how to appease a search engine.! Back to clay tablets LOL!
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your frustration. I have lost a good pile of money since Panda. I am also of the opinion that Google has a lot of really incompetent programmers and their attitude toward support ("What do you expect for free?") is atrocious when you realize how much money they make from that "free" stuff.
  
  However.. +1's and authorship really are intended as improvements. They have the potential to improve search results and improve the value of your content.
  
  Google can be annoying, but these two things actually do have value to us as well as for them.
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Mark, I agree with you and that's why I decided not to join Google+. I see no need to have an additional social network to maintain. People can follow us via HubPages or Twitter. That should be sufficient.
  
  Nevertheless, I have high hopes that the +1 button and Authorship, neither of which have anything to do with Google+, will help increase ranking were ranking is due.
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm going to disagree about G+.
  
  Facebook is a steaming pile of.. oops.. wrong forum :-)
  
  But seriously, the ONLY thing that keeps me on Facebook is some family members who won't (yet) switch to G+ and that I play Scrabble and Cribbage with them by way of Facebook. Other than that, I'd have no interest - G+ is far more useful to me.
  reply report
  97
  Glenn Stokposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not sure what you meant.
  
  So which social networking site do you prefer? Google+ or Facebook?
  reply report
  89
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  G+ by far. No question whatsoever for me.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Google authorship

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Google authorship

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies