• studiumcirclus

    I actually really like this post – once again someone champions the theory that we should “step back, and imagine what you would do if there were no Google or Bing”.

    In this instance though my reaction might be the same either way, let me explain:

    a) If Google does use AuthorRank as a ranking signal, we want to get authors with high credibility to post on our client’s site(s). Once we tag the authors up and link their content to their profile (be that Google+ or other), we might gain a fraction of their authority through association.


    b) If Google does not use AuthorRank as a ranking signal, it’s still advisable for us to bring great (and relevant) authors onto our client’s sites. Their innate ability to produce superior content (which will be appended to our client’s site) will help any sites which we manage to transcend the rankings legitimately, albeit indirectly.

    You could use AuthorRank to find great, high quality web authors even if (algorithmically) Google does not factor that into their rankings. Maybe it will become an author research signal or tool rather than a facility to directly manipulate rankings.

  • http://www.drugpossessionlaws.com/ David Matson

    I am surprised they haven’t don’t anything with author rank yet. Maybe they have tested it, and are not yet satisfied that it improves results, similar to what Matt Cutts recently said about social media signals.

    The technical challenges just shouldn’t be that hard. In the Huffington Post example cited, even though the authorship code is botched, it is perfectly clear that the post is written by Arianna Huffington herself. I’m sure the algorithm could easily figure this out. There is a prominent byline and author link. And google knows plenty about her already, she is in the knowledge graph.

    But yes, I”m sure it is more difficult to assign authorship on sites with less prominent byline information.

    I still suspect that something is coming with this, but you may be right that it will not be a very strong search signal.

  • http://www.buzzmaven.com/ Scott Clark

    I was always under the impression that the ranking impact of authorship markup was indirect, via clickthrough rate and re-query algorithmic effects, not directly as a result of the tie in, +1s or author’s reputation.

  • Mathieu Chartier

    Hi, excellent post about AuthorRank.
    I’m a French SEO and I find last Friday a patent which talks about AuthorRank. The term “AuthorRank” is clearly mentionned in this Google patent (https://www.google.com/patents/US8606792) from 12/10/2013.

    Several criteria for this “AuthorRank” are described in details in my French post on http://blog.internet-formation.fr/2014/02/lauthorrank-detaille-de-google-et-de-bing/ based on this Google patent.

  • http://www.onimodglobal.com Roland Smith

    We have ran a variety of tests on this exact subject leading all the way back to the rel=”publisher” tag… Long story short I would say that there is a positive relation to organic rankings.

  • Michael Sean Christensen

    Is Mark Traphagen having a heart attack after reading this since AuthorRank is his favorite thing in the world to talk about?

  • http://www.imarketsolutions.com/ Matt Dimock

    Hey Eric. Not sure if you’ll consider this “update worthy” for your blog post, but Matt Cutts did confirm at SMX West this year that the only current instance of AuthorRank actually being used is within InDepth articles. I know you reference that above as being more so PublisherRank, but those were the words from his mouth anyway…

  • http://marketingkeytech.com/ Swapan Chandra Sutradhar

    This is really a big interrogation whether we should pay our time behind of AuthorRank or not. This article rather deserves to find clarification from Matt Culls so that Google followers could stay with real efforts without puzzle or fallacy. Thank you so much Eric Enge for your real focus on the issue !