61–70 of 120 posts
Not surprised at all. Any time I ever see a social photo next to a search result, I automatically assume it's a social media post or page and won't even bother to look at it, if I'm looking for anything else. Why on earth would anyone want a face associated with a program, website, or anything that's not a social media account? But, very good to know the statistical result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Why on earth would anyone want a face associated with a program, website, or anything that's not a social media account? A coworker runs one of those aggregate-amazon-affiliate-link sites (think http://www.thisiswhyimbroke.com/ ) for camping and outdoorsy things. He saw a noticeable increase in traffic by associating his wife's picture in his search results. He's of the opinion that a pretty face helps sell things.
I've watched that website launch and develop with some interest. Without disclosing any particulars, does the site do well for him? I imagined he was raking in the dough, but if he's still your co-worker I guess that's not the case?
It's a little extra money in his pocket, but not something profitable or rewarding enough to do full time. (He also has a few other attempts that don't do as well as the camping one, and with the camping one the income is pretty seasonal).
Not surprised at all. Any time I ever see a social photo next to a search result, I automatically assume it's a social media post or page and won't even bother to look at it, if I'm looking for anything else. Why on earth would anyone want a face associated with a program, website, or anything that's not a social media account? But, very good to know the statistical result.
If I search for "digital camera" and see results from friends that are heavily into digital cameras I will likely consider that result.
If I search for "video editing software" or "ramen recipes" or "pizza in sf" I would love to see which things my friends are recommending more than I would like to see what is highest ranked by some algorithm.
Authorship had nothing to do with this site's drop. The site has been affected by our Penguin webspam algorithm and that accounts for the drop. See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/penguin-2-0-rolled-out-today/ for details of the recent Penguin launch, or http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-s... for more information about Penguin in general.
Authorship had nothing to do with this site's drop. The site has been affected by our Penguin webspam algorithm and that accounts for the drop. See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/penguin-2-0-rolled-out-today/ for details of the recent Penguin launch, or http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-s... for more information about Penguin in general.
Still #1 when I search and that's not even what he's talking about. He's claiming that having a G+ picture inserted next to search results is resulting in a much lower CTR than they previously had. Which I think is plausible as it detracts from the search experience, I often skip those results as the text isn't lined up so I can't scan it properly. Wish you could turn them off, it's really off putting. I also wonder…
That sucks; sorry to hear it happened to you. But I can tell you why I will usually scan search results (or C-s) for Wikipedia over other results: Wikipedia won't jerk me around. What I mean by that is that (currently) Wikipedia doesn't require JS, flash or any other BS; WP pages load quickly, and are often informative, not some wink-wink-nudge-nudge advertising that may or may not tell you about the product without…
And when I think about it, that's the whole issue: I'm beginning to think that images (of authors or webmasters or product logos) don't belong on the serarch results page--ever. I can't see a case where it helps the average person who is searching because the photo is always once removed from the actual content.
If I search for a "thingamabob" how does the photo of somebody who wrote about thingamabob help me choose a result? If I'm searching for a company, even the company logo doesn't help because I may not know it ahead of time. Or if I'm looking for a blog, how would I know the face of the blogger ahead of time? I just can't see that many searches where the author's face is relevant to choosing the content you want to see.
Then there is the issue of Google putting the photo in the hottest part of the user's heat-map eye-scan of the search results page. If you put an irrelevant item where the user is looking for immediate relevancy, that result will get skipped (just as the OP postulated and so many commenters are confirming here on HN).
Finally, you have to wonder what Google was really thinking. If images do have an impact on click-through rate, then the images will get SEO'd and become useless. There is a comment on this thread that confirms that putting a woman's picture for the authorhip increased hits. Great, soon every website will appear to be written by a hot babe showing skin (or hot guy depending on the target audience), or if logos are allowed, all competitors will have a logo that looks like the #1 in the field.
Google is killing the golden goose.
That would concur with my personal experience, and is pretty much the same as what happened to standard size display ads.
Not surprised at all. Any time I ever see a social photo next to a search result, I automatically assume it's a social media post or page and won't even bother to look at it, if I'm looking for anything else. Why on earth would anyone want a face associated with a program, website, or anything that's not a social media account? But, very good to know the statistical result.
This. IMHO a lot of people are tired of blog spam/social spam and just want the original content.
Authorship had nothing to do with this site's drop. The site has been affected by our Penguin webspam algorithm and that accounts for the drop. See http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/penguin-2-0-rolled-out-today/ for details of the recent Penguin launch, or http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/04/another-s... for more information about Penguin in general.
Also, are you sure the site was hit by Penguin? This doesn't look like the typical Penguinized site. You would know, but have you checked?