If the practice of SEO was to only include link building..it would be LBO ( Link Building Optimization )
I don't really get this, who said SEO was only about link building?
Ntyshade, I am not picking on you directly... its just the statements in general.
because it is nofollow vs follow, does not make anything a factor in SEO or not.
[video=youtube;g37bwBlifnk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g37bwBlifnk[/video]
Ooops, just in 20 seconds a google employee, someone who worked in search department just told you:
Nofollow links were dropped out of google's link graph so they are irrelevant (wow this is an important word in this sentence) from a search engine point of view.
You can even join John Muller live on the webmaster hangouts and ask him yourself instead of arguing something that was debunked long time ago.
I know you won't even believe the video I shared with you above because I was in the same position as you but join John Muller live, ask him yourself in front of the whole world. He's the one who's dealing with the search spam department since Matt left.
Post an article on your own site.. share that page on G+ and see how fast the Google bot comes to that page... it is literally minutes. There is a point where indexing alone is a part of SEO, and G+ is hands down by far the best and fastest method in doing this.
I said the exact same thing, G+ makes content indexing fast.
Most importantly, that is why I also said:
Google can't rank something they can't find, so G+ is a good way to let google know about your content or business and if it's good enough to rank it will.
Just because after you post your content on G+ and it get indexed then ranks that doesn't necessary mean G+ has some SEO benefit because you could have just submitted your sitemap and get the same results. Google can't rank something they can't find and when they find it they rank it, if it's worth ranking.
If you still don't get it then I don't know.
I have found that G+ is very different than most other social platforms ( with the exception of image platforms - flickr, Pintrest ) it is not the profile page that is listed in the SERP's it will be a specific post. if you can use a property to increase the number of locations you have in the SERP's.. that again is SEO.
Again, I did say that G+ posts rank in search results. Even if you build links for your posts/page/profile if I don't follow or don't have you in my circles I won't see your posts in my search results, period. I've never came across content from people who're not in my circles on G+ showing in search engine results.
Even worse, when I'm not logged-in your content won't even show in SERPs.
with that,,I would disagree completely that G+ has not SEO value..i find it to be the exact opposite... with the aspects of SEO it does perform, it performs well.
No, that's what you think. You think G+ is adding value to your SEO and it's not, simply because it offers nofollow (irrelevant) links. If google chooses to ignore nofollow links, why would you say they have value in SEO?
What you're not telling people is that your content will get some traffic then drop after a couple of days. Why is it that when you post content on G+ it ranks then after a few days it drops? Have you asked yourself that? Or you just created 2 or 3 tests and thought you got it?
Next time just submit a sitemap and you'll see it's no different than posting on G+, the only possible difference will be speed, G+ will always get content indexed faster.
One more thing, indexing is simply letting search engines know about your site, but that doesn't make it's a ranking factor. Yes it's part of SEO but it's just letting google know about your content.
Indexing doesn't guarantee results!
