Friday, May 08, 2015

SEMANTIC VALUE of a Google Collection

The SEMANTIC VALUE of collections is currently very under estimated, and few actually realise that these Google Collections give Google (and other search engines if your collection is public)  a brand new set of #STFSEOVI or Semantic Trust Factor Search Engine Optimisation Value Indicators to use in their algorithms.


This blog post has been constructed  to augment this Google plus post discussing Google Collections


These Semantic Trust Factors are the core element in establishing validity, authenticity and truthfulness of the content in question. Search engines do this through a variety of methods which +Bill Slawski  describes in his many efforts to inform us of the tricks and tools that Google uses within their algorithms.

When  using Google collections these SEMANTIC TRUST FACTOR SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION VALUE INDICATORS are attached to the collector who maintains these collections, and then shared down the line with every identifiable digital entity in the posts that are added to the collection.

If you take care and have a very niche and well focused collection then this will reflect so much better on your personal value as an authority or knowledgeable person on the content and context of each collection that you as an individual mange within your Google plus profile, and Google will be able to extrapolate this further into your author value and the publisher value of any online resource where you actively contribute.

The fact that you as an individual digital entity are the sole curator of your Google Collections needs to be well understood and properly integrated into your other online marketing efforts.  Embedding a link to any specific Google Collection within other online content will add some very powerful STFSEOVI to this new resource, and as such you should not be very liberal where you personally share any links to your collections. when others share the link to your collection is of less concern to you, but should never be left out of the picture completely.  Google and other search engines understand who has shared this link to your collection, and add STFSEOVI accordingly.

If your collection get lots of shares, you had better hope that these shares are meaningful and are within reputable web sites that are topic or niche specific.  You should never encourage your intended target market audience to share links to your collections in a hap hazard manner, as shares to unrelated online resources will dilute the semantic power / value  that these collections will gain over time.

Your collections need to be well managed at all times, and you need to ensure that they are listed within your about me section of every social media profile where  you are active, as each of these listings will add value in the form of STFSEOVI.  these SEOVI will not be restricted to your G+ profile but will also rub off onto all the other social media profiles where you have taken the time to list your collections.  It is thus also very important that you list all your other social media profiles where you are active in your Google plus profile within the ABOUT ME SECTION.

The next issue is have you, or your SEO team,  ensured that the REL = AUTHOR and REL = PUBLISHER attributes within the HTML code of the content that you put out there for your audience, or the brand audience where you contribute to a blog or web site, is in place and functional, especially on the content that you wish to add to any specific collection.

These two HTML attributes are a vital part of search engines attributing the STFSEOVI (Semantic Trust Factor Search Engine Optimisation Value Indicators) to you as an individual as well as distributing any STFSEOVI that you as an author may have,  further down the line,  to your online content where ever it may be recognized and attributed to you as an author.

You do need to understand the difference between the author tag and the publisher tag and ensure that these are properly inserted, and only on the pages where they should be.  Using the rel = author tag on pages that they should not be may cause some issues, and a serious dilution of the power that your STF's (Semantic Trust Factors) actually carry through to other areas.

If your collections are in place to promote specific sections within your blog and web pages such as product, services and topic specific information  at the granular level, then this use of the REL = AUTHOR tag is of great SEMANTIC value and should be investigated to ensure that it is correctly formatted, and in some cases as appropriate to the context of the content not present.   The author tags should be reserved for content that can be authored, and not placed on product info pages, forms that an end user may fill out and similar non author related content,  where only publisher tags should be used.

Without proper cross discipline co - operation between the different marketing departments and the SEO team, these very powerful STFSEOVI . (Semantic Trust Factor Search Engine Optimisation Value Indicators)  that are attached to your Google Collections will be lost and valueless.  It thus follows that marketing needs to be clearly understood, and your target market well defined, before you run off and just add stuff to a Google collections.

To get the most SEO value from the SEMANTIC VALUE of your GOOGLE COLLECTION you will need to do quite a bit of in-house work-shopping around the issues of SEMANTIC MARKETING and the fact that there are three separate areas that SEO should be functionally implemented.

Each of these three separate areas of functional implementation of your SEO need to be properly co-ordinated and managed by your marketing team, in conjunction with the sales and various  SEO teams. Your SEO needs to be the lead marketing component at the meetings where these issues are discussed, but it must at all times be remembered  that


Once again the purpose of marketing is to generate sales... Now the purpose of SEO is to ensure that your online marketing is found by your intended target market when searching online, and we do need to remind you (the reader here) that there are many different definitions of SEO, so we will need to point out the fact that  this is a #FUFISM based marketing issue, so we need to use a +fufism based marketing definition of SEO

SEO or Search engine Optimisation is all he work done by your entire marketing team to ensure that your online content is found by your intended target market when they search online.

 With this in mind lets describe the three separate areas of Search engine Optimisation that you need to ensure are implemented and functional

1) IPSEO or In Page search Engine Optimisation
2) OPSEO or Off page Search Engine Optimisation
3) OLSEO or Off Line Search engine Optimisation

We all know about In page Search Engine Optimisation which is all the In Page stuff that is included in the HTML code and includes but is not limited to
  • the meta tags in the head section
  • the meta data embeded in image files, audio files, video files and other attachments
  • out bound links, internal links as well as title, description and  related REL = XXX tags
  • the text and copy writing
  • any specif mark up coding that is added to the HTML structure
  • navigation structure and related user experience
The OPSEO is also not a surprise as this is all the supplemental marketing, with a primary focus on link building done within social media, blogs and other web sites that informs search engines in more detail about the context and intentions of the online content in question.

Then there is the big surprise of OFF LINE SEARCH ENGINE OPTIMISATION  which is where true marketing skills are married to your SEO giving you the tools and opportunity to PSYCHOLOGICALLY ATTACK your intended target market audience through the print media, radio or any other offline marketing avenue at your disposal, so as  to plant the SEMANTIC SEEDS that will grow and bear the fruits of great GOLDEN SEARCH QUERIES from your intended target market audience.

Your online Google collections need to fit into this scheme of things very clearly, and the naming of these collections is thus not a haphazard affair, but requires intense target market research that is shared with all your marketing team, followed up by some well managed think tank consulting to determine the best names for your Google collections that will have the highest semantic values, as well as what type of posts to curate in which Google collection, along with which digital entity will own each collection, and why that individual digital entity  should be tasked with managing and curating that specific Google Collection.

Your Google collections need to fit into,  and be part of your OLSEO or Off line search engine optimisation in ways that would encourage your intended target market to use the selected topics and related keyword  as well as topic infrastructure that was   chosen to be the selected  criteria for which G+ Posts were added to your individual Google plus collection

It thus follows that you need to do some considerable research around specific topics and select these very carefully to include in a policy document for each of your envisioned Google collections to get the best Semantic value out of any Google Collection.

Without a well planned and properly managed policy for each individual Google Collection  you will be wasting your efforts, and not be as successful as desired,  as far as SEMANTIC MARKETING is concerned.


The semantic value of Google Collections is an awful lot bigger than most realise, and you should take care to do this in a well managed manner and ensure that your Google collections is integrated into your total marketing plan through properly instituted Search engine optimization policies that include #IPSEO, #OPSEO, OLSEO and related marketing policies. 


having policies that are not implemented is a very big issue, so you do need to appoint a person to oversee these issues and pass feed back at top level marketing meetings on the impacts of your individual marketing efforts and how they are working together as a team

List of G+ posts and other online pages referenced

list of G+ users who have been involved in conversations around the SEMANTIC VALUE OF GOOGLE COLLECTIONS  in no particular order

 +Padraig Ó Raghaill
+Jason Darrell
+Zara Altair
+David Amerland
+Mark Traphagen
+Bill Slawski
+Frank Gainsford  (yours truly)
+Denver Prophit Jr.
+Peter Hatherley  

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanx for taking the time and effort to leave a comment on our blog. please be considerate and do not use foul language...