It seems like just yesterday that Google set fire to the SEO community with Google Search Plus Your World. In reality though, it has been about 2 months since one of the more significant shifts in the Google SERPs for many years. I think it is quite reasonable to argue that GSPYW is actually more impactful than Panda. Hmmm…Panda. We’ll get to that shortly.
Anyway, I remember reading Danny Sullivan’ssupremely awesome coverage of Google Search Plus Your World and shaking my head in bewilderment at some of the search results that were being inundated by Google + results. There was one particular example that really stood out to me, though. One result that suggested, to me, that the laws of SEO don’t necessarily apply to the SEO lawmakers. One set of search results that finally…unquestionably confirmed how SEOs can subdue the Panda:
Work for Google.
Danny’s example of how Mark Zuckerberg’s Google + profile is prominently displayed in the results for “Facebook” really makes you question the entire concept of Google Search Plus Your World. If you are logged into your Google account and search for Facebook, Zuck’s Google + profile is there on the right. Sure, he is the CEO, is he not? I mean, clearly Mark Zuckerberg is a relevant result if one is searching for the company he founded, right? I’ll give you that. But now, I’m dying to see what Zuck has to say on his G+ profile, aren’t you?
Image credit: Search Engine Land
Wait…Whaaaaaaaa? Not a single public post on Mark Zuckerberg’s Google+ profile. Zero point zero. Yet, his profile occupies significant real estate in the SERP for the term “Facebook”. This strikes me as a clear deviation from the teachings of the Panda. After all, wasn’t the Panda meant to jettison us all back to a time where “content is king”? Wasn’t the Panda meant galvanize inbound marketing and common-sense SEO strategy?
Perhaps I’m getting ahead of myself, here. I mean, how do we know if a result like this runs counter to the Panda update? Maybe I’m just a whiny little SEO with nothing better to do than cast stones at the Googleplex. Hardly. Otherwise, it wouldn’t have taken me a month to write this. Think about that 
Luckily, Google’s very own Amit Singhal famously provided us with 23 questions to demonstrate the rationale behind the Panda update. Side note: Dr. Pepper also has 23 flavors. Coincidence? Yeah. Probably.
Serious side note: I have never met Amit and this is absolutely not meant to pick on him. In fact, it is quite likely that he has forgotten more things about search than I’ll ever know. But, he did provide the list. Attribution is attribution, ya know?
Let’s see how Zuckerberg’s Google+ Profile stacks up against the Panda questionnaire:
- Would you trust the information presented in this article?
Well, let’s see. The only “information” available is a name (check), an image (check) and a location of Palo Alto (check). So..sure, I trust the very thin information presented in this article - Is this article written by an expert or enthusiast who knows the topic well, or is it more shallow in nature?
Okay, I see what you’re trying to do here. This article does appear to be written by an expert. It would be insane to suggest that Mark Zuckerberg is anything short of an expert on the subject of…Mark Zuckerberg (or Facebook, for that matteer). But “is it more shallow in nature?” You bet it is. - Does the site have duplicate, overlapping, or redundant articles on the same or similar topics with slightly different keyword variations?
To answer this question, I’ll consider the “site” to be Google+. In that regard, there are no other empty, devoid-of-content Mark Zuckerberg profiles on Google+ – that I’m aware of. - Would you be comfortable giving your credit card information to this site?
This question isn’t really applicable to our search result, or Zuck’s profile. Dude is about to have a whole pile of cash after Facebook’s IPO. He doesn’t need my credit card information. - Does this article have spelling, stylistic, or factual errors?
Not to my knowledge. The little bit of content that exists appears to be accurate. - Are the topics driven by genuine interests of readers of the site, or does the site generate content by attempting to guess what might rank well in search engines?
Now we’re getting into the meat of the conversation! The content is not auto generated. Nor do I believe Mark Zuckerberg created his profile for the express purpose of ranking for the term “Facebook”. However, it is difficult to imagine an empty profile ranking this prominently in the Google SERPs if it were on, say, Facebook. Tough call, but I have to say… - Does the article provide original content or information, original reporting, original research, or original analysis?
Not at all. The scant information contained on Zuckerberg’s Google profile can be found in many locations such as this Wikipedia article or his Biography.com profile - Does the page provide substantial value when compared to other pages in search results?
Hardly. Compared to…well…Facebook.com? Or maybe the Wikipedia entry for Facebook. The list goes on and on. The common thread is simple: A blank Google+ profile for the CEO of Facebook provides no substantial value in comparison. - How much quality control is done on content?
I think it would be really easy to make the case that this question is not applicable – seeing as how there is no real content here. However, I’ll play nice and point out that Zuckerberg’s profile is – at least – a Google+ verified account. That passes as quality control in my mind. - Does the article describe both sides of a story?
Not applicable here. Are there two sides to the Facebook story? - Is the site a recognized authority on its topic?
Even though Google+ is the new kid on the social block, I’ll concede that Google, by default, would be recognized by most folks as an authoritative site. But, is Google – more specifically Google+ – an authoritative site on the topic of Facebook? I”m not buying it. Especially considering the sparse content on this particular Google+ profile. - Is the content mass-produced by or outsourced to a large number of creators, or spread across a large network of sites, so that individual pages or sites don’t get as much attention or care?
Well, this is a loaded question, no? For starters, the content is technically mass-produced and outsourced to a large number of creators. That’s what a social network is all about. The nature of an open, social platform will yield a fair share of thin pages or profiles. So, should this be held against Google+? Probably not. We know Google is engaged in a fierce battle with Twitter and Facebook for the hearts and ad impressions of social networkers – but they probably aren’t discounting the authority of those sites based on the existence of similarly thin profiles. - Was the article edited well, or does it appear sloppy or hastily produced?
So…all that stuff I said about social networks getting a free pass? Not here. This question is focused on the "article". In this case, the article is Mark Zuckerberg’s Google+ profile. While I can’t find any glaring grammatical or factual errors (it passes the editorial standard), it does appear to have been hastily produced. As in, Google rolled out Google+ and Zuck, or someone at Facebook, thought it best to play defense and establish a verified presence for the Facebook CEO. - For a health related query, would you trust information from this site?
Not applicable here. Please don’t fully trust any health advice you find on Facebook. Unless it is from your mother. - Would you recognize this site as an authoritative source when mentioned by name?
Now we’re back to evaluating the site. Given that the site is Google+ (technically the site is Google since Google+ is a subdomain…but you get me) I feel ok giving a pass here. - Does this article provide a complete or comprehensive description of the topic?
Absolutely not. In fact, the article doesn’t provide much in the way of any description. - Does this article contain insightful analysis or interesting information that is beyond obvious?
Not. Even. close. Insightful? Not unless you weren’t sure how to spell Zuck’s name. Interesting information? Beyond the obvious? I don’t think a rather commonly-used mugshot and a few biographical items constitutes interesting. It is quite obvious, though. - Is this the sort of page you’d want to bookmark, share with a friend, or recommend?
- Does this article have an excessive amount of ads that distract from or interfere with the main content?
No. But then again, you could argue that this profile was position as an ad. I digress. No issues here. Let’s move along. - Would you expect to see this article in a printed magazine, encyclopedia or book?
I don’t even want to get side-tracked into a conversation about the quality (or lack thereof) in many printed works. Still, I can’t think of many print rags where I’d expect to see something with such little information. - Are the articles short, unsubstantial, or otherwise lacking in helpful specifics?
I think we already covered this. Yes. Yes. Yes. - Are the pages produced with great care and attention to detail vs. less attention to detail?
I don’t see any evidence that great care was used in the creation of this page. As we discussed earlier, this page reeks of defensive shelf-space grabbery. - Would users complain when they see pages from this site?
I just used over 1,600 words complaining that this page was included in the Google search rankings. That might make me crazy an obsessive. But alone I am not. 
Verdict: Happy Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Happy Panda
Verdict: Indifferent Panda
Verdict: Happy Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Happy Panda
Verdict: Indifferent Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Indifferent Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Indifferent Panda
Verdict: Happy Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Happy Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
Verdict: Sad Panda
So by my own subjective reasoning, I see this Google+ profile (show of hands: who here things Zuck’s profile is the only one of its kind? Yeah. Me either) passes the Panda test 6 of 23 times. That’s a grade of 26%. Even if you remove the 4 questions that were not really relevant to this scenario, that’s a score of 32%. Thankfully, I haven’t had to take a test in about 10 years. However, I’m guessing things haven’t changed that much. If I churned out 32′s on those tests back in my collegiate days, I’m pretty sure I would not have shown up in the search results (graduation). But of course, I didn’t go to school at a university where I was judge and juror. What a nice luxury for Google.
POSTSCRIPT: So, admittedly it took me way too long to finish up this post. In that time, I’ve performed the "Facebook" Google search a few times and I’ve started to see less Google+ disruption. Perhaps Google has heard the outcry and are making adjustments to the Search Plus Your World results. Of course, the folks at Google are always testing. Let’s just hope the fruits of those test continue to improve Google Search Plus Your World. Even though I’ve spent quite a bit of time blasting this particular example, I actually like the concept of Google SPYW. I’m interested in what my friends recommend, share and read. I just don’t want to be smacked in the face by self-serving content that adds absolutely no value. Is that so much to ask?
