• Ari Nahmani

    Great sum up, Greg! Hope to see you again soon.

  • Scott

    poorly written piece

  • Li Ma

    Given the current trend of mobile usage and mobile search, something big may happen by the end of 2013 for mobile organic search. his also seems to be indicated at many search marketing events by industry experts and speakers from Google. Who knows, maybe if you don’t have mobile friendly site, Google won’t
    even return your desktop results anymore for mobile searches… Besides mobile, natural language search/conversational search is the future direction that all major search engines are heading into.

  • http://techtage.com/ Rohit Palit

    No rich snippets for low-quality since. I’ve been noticing that since the beginning of this year. No one in G+ authorship experts group, or any other expert community didn’t give a damn to my theory.

  • Durant Imboden

    A comment on “rich snippets”: They’re flaky at best. I see rich snippets for bylined posts in our low-traffic ancillary blogs, but not for our main site (which has far more in-depth content). I *used* to have bylines and photos next to most of my articles in Google Search results, but they disappeared a number of months ago.

    Google also needs to rethink how it’s been handling location-based EMDs. For some of the travel-related queries that I watch, low-quality or even irrelevant EMD pages seem to have floated to the top by accident (not because of clever SEO efforts, which would be more understandable).

  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    Rohit, if you are referring to the Google Authorship and Author Rank Community on Google+, I own and run that community. I would like to see a link from you of a post where we “didn’t give a damn” about your theory. I must have missed that, because I would’ve chimed in. I too have said for a long time that Google was going to crack down on Authorship connected to crap. Google confirmed this two months ago when they released their Advanced FAQ on Authorship.

  • eDigitalFields

    This is an interesting update about all unique features in the search engine for now and the future to come. Throughout all the listed updates, what ‘s your favorite? or you think it’s necessary.

  • Rohan Ayyar

    Is the Chrome Autocomplete something like Google Instant for forms? I’m not sure I got it.. Auto-save in forms has been around since the days of Internet Explorer, hasn’t it? Is Auto-fill different from auto-save?

  • Rohan Ayyar

    Matt Cutts also said they have an internal, daily-updated-and-monitored version of PR. Why shouldn’t we pay attention to it, then? :D

  • Pierre Gardin

    “what is the capital of Texas, my Dear”

    I wouldn’t call Google “my dear”. I would call it “Dave”.

  • Jon Dunn

    Penguin still has a lot of work to do. Many examples of spam link profiles dominating the SERP’s…

  • http://www.latest-seo-news-updates.blogspot.com/ Sathiya Kumar

    Matt said “No companies have partnerships with Google”. Is it true? :-)

  • Sav Szymura

    Will there be a video released?

  • http://techtage.com/ Rohit Palit

    Uhm did my reply actually get deleted?

  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    Rohit do you mean here, or in the Authorship community?

  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    A small correction on the Authorship section: I listened to a video of the keynote, and Matt didn’t commit to any particular size of reduction in showing Authorship snippets. The 15% was in reference to tests they’ve run where reducing by “10-15% significantly improved quality.”

  • http://techtage.com/ Rohit Palit

    I posted a huge reply here yesterday which seems to be missing. :(

    It basically stated that I wasn’t referring to the G+ community. I was referring to Google product forums. G+ Authorship Community = poor choice of words.

    Anyway, I almost forgot about the community in Google+ itself. I posted there as well (https://plus.google.com/106669872405859111179/posts/7f8GtQEgVr7) and the replies weren’t too interesting (most of them didn’t care about the original question and kept on suggesting me random things instead).

  • http://techtage.com/ Rohit Palit
  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    Rohit, that G+ link isn’t working from here. Could you message it to me on G+. I’d like to take a look at the thread.

  • http://techtage.com/ Rohit Palit
  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    That worked. Thanks!

  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    OK read it. They were not posting “random things.” They were giving you the solution; you just refused to accept it. Bottom line: you have authorship set up wrong. Of course it doesn’t work. Try following the advice Terry and others there were giving you.

  • http://techtage.com/ Rohit Palit

    I have authorship perfectly set up. it’s not an author detection issue. it’s a snippet displaying issue. Is it too hard to guess that?

  • http://profiles.google.com/trappermark Mark Traphagen

    We should stop debating this here. Further replies will be on that community thread.

  • http://techtage.com/ Rohit Palit


  • newyorker_1

    that is the point with all these pandas, penguins etc. Google don’t want “clever SEO efforts” to work. The goal is to confuse anyone working with SEO on what works and what not. And they are successful I think. That’s why sites that don’t do anything about SEO sometimes end up on page 1 simply because few people linked to their site. I’ve seen sites with 50 backlinks outranking established sites with thousands of backlinks.

  • http://gesher.org/ Natan Gesher

    Poorly written comment.

  • http://www.andykuiper.com/ Andy Kuiper – SEO Analyst

    With regard to rich snippets, it would be nice to know what the factors are that determine “low quality sites” – is it really a quality issue, or a traffic issue?

  • Corey Barnett

    I would also like to know the answer Andy. I would think it would be the authority of the Google + profile, not the authority of the website, but I would like to know.