PageRank flow through Google+ Posts

Thursday, April 4, 2013

Google Plus Posts and PR passing Links.

Well, here's the first installment from me about PageRank flow through Google+.

To start with, I thought we'd start with Posts.

Anyone that has me Circled may have noticed a collection of odd little Demonstration posts recently.  Well, that was me putting this lot together ... so without further ado, lets look at the posts, the links and the PR flow.

To make life a little simpler, I've included images that not only show the various Links in G+ Posts, but have colour-coded them (green for passing PR, red for not-passing PR).
For the sake of being thorough, I've numbered each Link and included a copy of the pertaining HTML Markup - again, colour-coded (and this time with a tick or cross) to indicate PR flow through that link code.

-- Update : 23rd April 2013 --

I'm not quite sure "when" it happened, but somewhere within the last 3 weeks, Google have altered the Image Link in shares/links.
Now the Link around an image is Nofollow.
I've appended an Update to the relevant sections below.

Link to an External URL

G+ post with a Link to external URL
The first example shows a G+ Post with a Reference Link (a link outside of the Google Plus domain - in this case, to +Dan Petrovic's post about G+ and Nofollow links :D ).

Note that the Link in the Post Body is nofollowed (may not pass PageRank), the link in the Post Link section is "normal" (should pass PR).

-- Update : 23rd April --
Nofollow has been applied to the Image Link - (5) in the image

Link to G+ Post

G+ post with a link to another G+ post
The second example is similar to the first, but this time the Link points to a G+ Post.

Again, note how the Link in the Post is nofollowed.

-- Update : 23rd April --
Nofollow has been applied to the Image Link - (4) in the image

Share of G+ content

G+ post sharing a G+ post
For the third test, I went for a Share of a post to see if there was any difference between Links and Shares in regards to nofollow/PR flow.

The only difference is that a Shared post includes the original posters Image and Name - both of which are links.
Note that the posters image (avatar/profile pic) is a normal link, whilst the Name is nofollowed.

I pointed this out to +Dan Petrovic when he looked at this before ( What is Google up to now? ).

I'm not convinced it's an oversight.  
Instead, I think it's an attempt to avoid Link Text manipulation. 

-- Update : 23rd April --
Nofollow has been applied to the Image Link - (8) in the image

Links in Comments

A G+ post with comments (from the actual post URL)A G+ post with comments (from /post url)
 The fourth and fifth I'll cover together, both cover Links in G+ Comments.
Please do compare the two images and note the difference - that being that the first only shows 1 comment (the last), prior comments are collapsed.
Now look at the code for those sections (in the images).

Notice the complete lack of comments 1 and 2 in the first?  It appears that these are not "hidden", these are "loaded" in when needed (when you click to view all comments).

Thus, only links in the last comment (or last two comments) may be visible to G from a Profile Post page.  On a Full Post page (the individual URL for each post), all comments are expanded/visible, and are thus discoverable.

Community post

A G+ post from a CommunityThe sixth test looks at Communities, and whether any differences exist.

The only difference I could find was in the addition of a "community" link at the top of the post (Link 3), pointing back to the relevant community.

The Community Link appears to be normal (may pass PR).

Hash Tags

HashTags in a G+ post
Next up is test seven and #hashtags.
I must admit, I was surprised ... but hashtags are normal links and thus PageRank may flow through them.

Hash Tags and Shared Post

HashTags in a Shared postThe eight and final test, a Shared G+ Post with HashTags - just to make sure there's no change.

Again, I'm a little surprised here, as these also appear to let PR pass through the links.
(Honestly, i would have thought that links from a shared post would have been neutralised, but in the case of hashes, that is not the case.)

So there you go, a fairly comprehensive look at the various types of links in a G+ post, and which ones pass PageRank.

What's that ... it's "nice", but a little hard to digest?
I suppose you want it in an easy to see, easy to use G+ Post Link Cheat Sheet?

For the sake of thoroughness, here's the posts so you can check for yourselves (which i do hope you are doing, rather than simply taking my word for it :D);


My One Call LLC said...

Really nice work, and thank you. I wonder how much external links factor into a persons/brands page authority. You see a lot published on the internal G+ SEO value, but very little on how a persons page is getting rankings value from external sources.

Peter Driessen said...

Should we still call it PageRank? Or should we call it 'Social Signals'... ?

I guess Google will see these follow links as a Social Signal. Just as follow links on other social networks.

Lyndon NA said...

@My One Call LLC
I've got a draft waiting a little editing and refinement covering that side of things.
The short of it is - there is little "new" here; it's the same old approach/information about PR being influential in rankings.
(That said, I'm halfway through writing up a "plan" on how to increase the Profile PR :D)

@Peter Driessen
Yes, we should still call it PR.
To my mind, these are still "links". There is a social element in them, but that could be extracted (consider each Share as a signal, separate from the Link/PR flow).
In the main, Social Signals can be viewed as the "non link" stuff (likes, +'s, shares, comments etc.).
If you think about it, there is a lot that G can "see" when you look at the Social Signals - the problem is qualifying them (are all comments positive, or could some detract/indicate the content is worth less etc.).

And thank you both for commenting :D

Baruch said...

Very Well Done :)

Mike said...

Hi Lyndon,

Thanks for the post, very interesting stuff.

I just wish I had the time to run tests like these!

Great to have found your blog,

Lyndon NA said...

This stuff wasn't too time consuming Mike, but it was tedious/boring :D

Michael Walter said...

Worthwhile though :)


Post a Comment