Why do google all of a sudden put high value on social signals.?

[dfsa]

This topic stated a interesting debate and went off topic from the original thread.

I feel Google is busy with a long term strategy to gain some advertisers back from facebook, therefore their sudden strong change in giving more link juice to social signals.

Why do goolge all of a sudden put high value on social signals.? This would be a good debate.

[Rod]

Why do google all of a sudden put high value on social signals.?

An interesting TOPIC would be: Why do goolge all of a sudden put high value on social signals.? This would be a good debate.

It makes sense that social links and signals are of high value now days. Firstly most social links are not permanent. This would require constant social engagement every day to create a constant flow of inbound social links. Google would value this since you cannot just place a link forever and leave it at that.

Secondly in todays world, social media networking is massive. There are millions of people using social media platforms today. People respond better to a 'friends' recommendation of a website or product as opposed to other reviews available online. This means that a social link is much more valuable since it is most likely a valued review by a genuine person, not link spammed 2 years ago.

I hope this makes sense.

[dfsa]

It makes sense that social links and signals are of high value now days. Firstly most social links are not permanent. This would require constant social engagement every day to create a constant flow of inbound social links. Google would value this since you cannot just place a link forever and leave it at that.

Secondly in todays world, social media networking is massive. There are millions of people using social media platforms today. People respond better to a 'friends' recommendation of a website or product as opposed to other reviews available online. This means that a social link is much more valuable since it is most likely a valued review by a genuine person, not link spammed 2 years ago.

I hope this makes sense.

Yes sure that make sense. Remember this is Google that we talk about. Why would they want to use social signals. They would want you to think as you just mentioned. In real terms google do not like Facebook as facebook are now very close to surpass them on traffic. Google tryed to buy facebook and the answer was no. When Youtube became a threat to google, they were bought out.

Now google can not just go and not take facebook out their serp model they will be sued. They are now looking to strengthen their own social platform. G+. It is all about keeping their advertisers and not loose them to Facebook

This is just a view, think about the real reason why!

[Dave A]

An interesting TOPIC would be: Why do goolge all of a sudden put high value on social signals.? This would be a good debate.

I don't think it's anything "sudden" - Google has always paid close attention to social media links. And for good reason, for the most part they're generated by real people.

The original Google strategy was to lean into people's behaviour on the net to learn what was important and what wasn't. Ultimately the power of that principle hasn't changed - they just have to work harder to seperate genuine user generated content from link stuffing activities.

[dfsa]

I don't think it's anything "sudden" - Google has always paid close attention to social media links. And for good reason, for the most part they're generated by real people.

The original Google strategy was to lean into people's behaviour on the net to learn what was important and what wasn't. Ultimately the power of that principle hasn't changed - they just have to work harder to seperate genuine user generated content from link stuffing activities.

Yes it was always part of link diversity, and had a good standing. Now by putting more value, and seeing what they do in the back ground, then it sort off give an where they are heading. Social activity is extremely powerfull. G is loosing big advertisers to facebook. They can not get facebook so now they start with a long term strategy ( We will not know what exactly their goal is, but for now facebook will love it) Google did not become this powerfull because they are everybody's friend. It is a business and they loose money.

[Rod]

In real terms google do not like Facebook as facebook are now very close to surpass them on traffic.

I know it's just a view, but I don't think Google are going to not count Facebook links just to spite them. Facebook provides a genuine source of relevant links and Google needs Facebook as a source

They are now looking to strengthen their own social platform. G+. It is all about keeping their advertisers and not loose them to Facebook

I agree with that though. Google wants more people to engage using G+, so openly saying that G+ give stronger social links, would definitely increase use of G+. I'm not sure if they have mentioned that in any press relases but it would certainly help.

[Rod]

Although Google puts strong value on social links, I suppose we cannot assume that they will put even stronger value on G+ links. But we must also remember that this is Google's 4th attempt at a social media platform (1st Google Wave, 2nd Orchid, 3rd Google Buzz, and now it's Google+ ). They must have some sort of plan of action to get G+ off the ground and I believe it will be with the use of the SEO industry. This is just hypothetical though.

[dfsa]

I know it's just a view, but I don't think Google are going to not count Facebook links just to spite them. Facebook provides a genuine source of relevant links and Google needs Facebook as a source



I agree with that though. Google wants more people to engage using G+, so openly saying that G+ give stronger social links, would definitely increase use of G+. I'm not sure if they have mentioned that in any press relases but it would certainly help.

G is not looking to spite facebook, they are looking to get their advertisers back. They might end up in court if they give stronger juice to their own signals.

See if you agree with my thinking here: We know they bought youtube because they were loosing traffic and advertisers. They simply bought them out.

This was a tactic google did slowly over a few years. IN the SERP'S you all know we fight to get our sites in the top Three positions. Right! Now google looked at this and thought, damn we give this traffic away for free ( The top Three positions take 60-70% of the traffic for the keyword) Now all of a sudden google make those three positions available to their advertisers. Was it fair, hell no it was not fair, but who is actually going to take them to court. ( Google is a free search engine and they state if you have a good quality site, you rank top.) If people do not submit their sites for inclusion, google will not exist. Now they simply move your site to spot 4, and not the top spot. Before their advertisers had the right pane to advertise their sites.

Why would google have a problem with facebook: The biggest way to guage this is a few Year ago advertisers in the US would pay $US50 - $US100+ per click for certain highly competitive keywords. Now those same keywords are maybe $US20 - $US40. The reason, advertisers are spending less money now as they have moved their other end of the budget to facebook. Some even moved their biggest portion of their budget over.

Google have been trying to buy facebook for a long time, but Mark is not interested. The stats that was released end last Year showed that facebook now are very close to google on total traffic. Imagine this. The billions of searches that google get per day. Facebook are still growing and migh go past them in the next Year or Two.

The exact method that google are going to go about to get those lost visitors and advertisers back, well nobody know, but for sure google are not going to help facebook taking more away. They have to be very tactfull in how they do it. Facebook have the means to take them to court on the smallest infringement.

So by giving link juice to social signals, they are only starting. Somewhere they are going to have a strategy that they can stand up on in case they get legally challanged.

Yahoo was much bigger than google, but google out meneuvered them, with staying ahead. Yahoo mail, made good money, but google then started Gmail with a few different twists. Now Gmail is also bigger than Yahoo.

Do you really think Google give prefrence to social link juice just becuase it is the fastest growing trend in the last few Years. No I don't think so, cause then google will become a charity. It is all business that fight for advertisers to spend money with them.

[dfsa]

Although Google puts strong value on social links, I suppose we cannot assume that they will put even stronger value on G+ links. But we must also remember that this is Google's 4th attempt at a social media platform (1st Google Wave, 2nd Orchid, 3rd Google Buzz, and now it's Google+ ). They must have some sort of plan of action to get G+ off the ground and I believe it will be with the use of the SEO industry. This is just hypothetical though.

That is exactly what I think. They do have a plan of action. They have tryed to get Gmail users socially active, but I don't think they are happy with the results so far

[Rod]

G is not looking to spite facebook, they are looking to get their advertisers back.

I understand that, but what I meant was that Google won't stop using Facebook as a source of relevant links. I'm not too sure about this but I don't think Facebook Ads count as do-follow links.

This was a tactic google did slowly over a few years. IN the SERP'S you all know we fight to get our sites in the top Three positions. Right! Now google looked at this and thought, damn we give this traffic away for free ( The top Three positions take 60-70% of the traffic for the keyword) Now all of a sudden google make those three positions available to their advertisers. Was it fair, hell no it was not fair, but who is actually going to take them to court.

No one could sue them in any case. There are still 10 results on the first page, not including the featured results. As the owner of a search engine, you can display your results anywhere on the page. The truth of the matter is you don't pay anything to Google with regards to your organic listing, so they don't even have to index you if they don't feel like it. They are doing your website a favor by listing you. As for paying advertisers, they have to be guaranteed a place since they pay for those positions.

[dfsa]

I understand that, but what I meant was that Google won't stop using Facebook as a source of relevant links. I'm not too sure about this but I don't think Facebook Ads count as do-follow links.



No one could sue them in any case. There are still 10 results on the first page, not including the featured results. As the owner of a search engine, you can display your results anywhere on the page. The truth of the matter is you don't pay anything to Google with regards to your organic listing, so they don't even have to index you if they don't feel like it. They are doing your website a favor by listing you. As for paying advertisers, they have to be guaranteed a place since they pay for those positions.

MMMM it is a search engine and they just changed the top position as and when it suit them. Now If they do something like that to facebook, they will be in for a long battle. Yahoo and Bing did not merge for no reason. Google hit Bing a few Year ago on some infringements. Now they have to fight that side too. Bing is busy with some big things for the future.

[Rod]

I noticed that Bing are going more social with the social sidebar in their search engine. I think the reason is that Microsoft have just bought a social media platform (here). Can you see the trend?

Google will never ever buy or merge with Facebook. Mark is too proud of Facebook to sell it.

[Mark Atkinson]

I would just like to point out the fact that Google only displays ads above the SERPS if it deems the landing pages to be extremely relevant to the search term as well as of sufficient quality. If you're not 100% trusted, you end up on the side, not the top.

[Dave A]

But we must also remember that this is Google's 4th attempt at a social media platform (1st Google Wave, 2nd Orchid, 3rd Google Buzz, and now it's Google+ ).

Add blogspot to that list. OK - perhaps not a total failure, but just try putting a link to any blogspot blog in an email and see what happens. Blogspot's online reputation stinks (because it's been hammered by scrapers, link stuffers and outright fraudsters). It's as credible as having a Yahoo! email account.

They must have some sort of plan of action to get G+ off the ground and I believe it will be with the use of the SEO industry.

It certainly sounds like it - clicking a G+ "like" button is supposed to be a "plus 1" vote for search and result in higher SERPS. But just like anything else contrived so far, it'll have the ring ripped out of it soon enough and become worthless too. The surest way to screw up Google+ would be to link it to a special SEO benefit. It'll go the same way as blogspot.

The key to successful social media is establishing and maintaining a healthy culture in that community. Google+ may get big, but it'll be 90% meaningless junk (or more) if there is inadequate leadership establishing a healthy culture. Trying to get the SEO crowd on board would be the last place I'd start - it's a seriously unruly mob just looking for plunder for the most part. (Present company excluded, of course )

[Rod]

The key to successful social media is establishing and maintaining a healthy culture in that community.

I agree with you 100%. Google wants natural so the only way to build a successful SMO campaign is to go natural. Engagement with your community, quality content and a solid plan for the future.

Trying to get the SEO crowd on board would be the last place I'd start - it's a seriously unruly mob just looking for plunder for the most part. (Present company excluded, of course )

Amen to that