<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
	<channel>
		<title>Google Social Search; seriously, WTF people?</title>
		<description>Discuss Google Social Search; seriously, WTF people?</description>
		<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html</link>
		<lastBuildDate>Sat, 25 May 2013 09:28:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
		<generator>JComments</generator>
		<atom:link href="http://searchnewscentral.com/feed/com_content/169/Page-1.html" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
		<item>
			<title>simon says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-599</link>
			<description><![CDATA[as for every interface change, social shares may be very influential... but not much more than a spy game for the moment :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>simon</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 14 Jun 2011 15:26:55 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-599</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Doc Sheldon says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-598</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Like Barry, I'm not yet ready to give much credence to Google's lame attempts at social media integration. While I do think they're finally taking seriously the need to consider SM, I think they've got miles to go before they sleep. As for why +1 got more attention, I'd agree that it's primarily because it involves a new shiny-toy. One which I suspect was introduced with nothing more in mind than providing an incentive for more folks to stay logged in.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Doc Sheldon</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 18:29:58 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-598</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Marjory says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-595</link>
			<description><![CDATA[I agree and disagree. First, I agree that the presence of "recommendations " from my social network in the SERPs catches my eye and makes me want to click. However, as Barry notes, you have to be logged in and I almost never am and I know lots of other (non-SEO) people who also do not log in. As a result, the +1 button doesn't seem like it will have much effect unless it's available to everyone. And, that's where I agree/disagree again. If I were Google and I wanted people to give me that data, I'd make that button visible all the time as a lure to get people to set up accounts and log in. When someone who is not logged in clicks on it, I'd have a little pop-up window that explains the extra features I could get if I just set up an account and logged in. Of course, you may have noticed that I am not the fabulously wealthy owner of a website so maybe that would be a crazy idea. Either way, I'm not ready to discount +1 yet. Marjory]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Marjory</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Wed, 08 Jun 2011 09:32:28 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-595</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Barry Adams says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-586</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Dave, it's not so much 'not paying attention' as 'not easily swayed by hype and hyperbole'. I'll take Google Social Search seriously whenever it warrants it. That time has not yet arrived. I'm not an SEO who always surfs the cutting edge, who's chasing the must-do thing of the moment. I base my practices on shit that works and leave the hype to the blogosphere. Once Social Search has proven its merits - or otherwise - I shall adapt, as always. Until then... meh. Same goes for +1 actually. I haven't put it up on any of my sites yet, nor shall I rush to do so.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Barry Adams</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:55:39 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-586</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>David Harry says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-585</link>
			<description><![CDATA[@Jahnelle & Barry - well, this isn't (for me) about Google's social forrays. This is about an element of the SERP which (unlike the +1) actually changes the rankings. COnsidering we're SEOs, this I'd imagine is big news... but NO, the +1 gets all the hype because we just looooove shiny new buttons. As for the 'logged in theory'... how many peeps already have accts via Gmail or elsewhere? Oh and hey, seems each new Android owner (200k per day) also gets a Google account. Google accounts are on the rise in a massive way and I believe this argument no longer holds water. Or at least shouldn't for SEOs that are paying attention. @AJ Google isn't using 'likes' in rankings and thank god for that. That is a TOTALLY spammable metric and they damn well shouldn't be. Google uses a REAL social graph unlike Bing whom are using one network, Facebook. Google looks at ALL your social connections and only shows/re-ranks on a personalized level. This of course shows us the future of social search. Many of us SEOs didn't really plan for the rise of universal SERPs and I see this happening again as the writing is most certainly on the proverbial wall. @Andy, actually methinks that's the beauty of it. As I started seeing less relevant recommendations  in the SERPs I questioned my following practices and am now much stricter as far as whom I will follow. Spammers can't do jack about it, plain and simple. U see spammy crap recommendations  and you simply go to the network (they're linked in the SERP) and unfollow the jackass. I have done it a few times. Thus I like this personalization because it helps on that end. Oh and Schema? Haven't really gotten to deep in there and don't have much of an opinion yet - sorry.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>David Harry</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 12:30:06 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-585</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>andymurd says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-583</link>
			<description><![CDATA[The key takeaway for me, is that the bigger your social circle, the more people will see your avatar in the SERPs. There's little to discourage automated mass-following on Google Reader, Twitter, etc to widen your circle. How many bots are we going to see with names like "Click here" and avatars that are just a green tick?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>andymurd</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Tue, 07 Jun 2011 00:27:04 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-583</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Jahnelle Pittman says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-579</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Gotta agree with Barry, Dave. After all the fails, "Google social" is equivalent to "government intelligence".. it just doesn't scan. On top of that, you asked, "Because nobody is actually looking at SERPs anymore?" Here, you really have to define what you mean by "nobody". The clients are still looking and still yelling for ranks, k? Some allow themselves to be educated; most don't and the SERPs are still the ultimate scoring board. For my part, social search hasn't slipped under the rug, but it's not a glaring beacon yet, either... more like "watchful waiting". Can't ignore it, but... Totally off topic... what's your take on schema.org? hmm?]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Jahnelle Pittman</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:09:48 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-579</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>AJ Kohn says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-578</link>
			<description><![CDATA[It's a good question. I think, first, it's because it'll be tough to measure on scale. You'd need to compare standard results versus a rather large corpus of social search results to come up with any real insight. Even then, mitigating factors muddy the water. Second, to my knowledge Google is still not using Facebook Likes in social search. And without that data, the universe of people really influenced by Twitter is relatively small. Maybe not in our industry but for the general population. Finally, I'm not sure the social search results are trackable. Actually I haven't checked, but I assume so since no one has released a Google Analytics hack to parse the 'social search' parameter from the referrer. Without that it's just ... a lot more work. Now, with Google +1 competing with Facebook Likes, maybe social will finally pick up some traction. But +1 adoption seems like a necessity.]]></description>
			<dc:creator>AJ Kohn</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 17:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-578</guid>
		</item>
		<item>
			<title>Barry Adams says:</title>
			<link>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-577</link>
			<description><![CDATA[Because it's fringe stuff (tied to logged in Google accounts) and because it's social. Google and social just don't mix well. Not yet, anyway. +1 has more potential. With social search all I can think of is 'meh.' But, as always, I may be completely off the mark. :)]]></description>
			<dc:creator>Barry Adams</dc:creator>
			<pubDate>Mon, 06 Jun 2011 15:01:40 +0000</pubDate>
			<guid>http://searchnewscentral.com/20110606169/Latest/google-social-search-seriously-wtf-people.html#comment-577</guid>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
