Leave the authorship markup in place; it does no harm, and nothing needs undoing. Put the effort into the page itself: a real name on every article, a line on what the writer knows, and the date.

A plain result where the face used to be

A consultant who linked her articles to her Google+ profile two years ago searches for one of them, and the result is plain: title, address, description. Her photograph left the results in late June.

Yesterday Google said the rest is going too. Author names will no longer appear beside results, and Google has stopped using the markup that connected articles to their writers.

Owners who set this up, sometimes at real effort, are asking what to undo. The short answer is nothing. The longer answer is about what the byline was doing all along.

What authorship did

Authorship joined two things: a link from each article to the writer's Google+ profile, and a link back from the profile to the site. With both in place, Google could show the writer beside the result.

For about three years that meant a small photograph and a name. On a page of plain text, a result with a face in it stood out.

The two links had to point at each other before anything appeared, and getting that right took some care, especially on sites with several writers.

Many sites set it up for that reason. It was widely recommended as a way to be noticed in search, and it became a routine step in launching a blog.

What changes now

The practical effects are small, and most need no action:

The last point is the one worth an hour. The rest is a change in how Google's results look, made for every site at once.

Why Google says it stopped

Google's explanation was brief: the author information had not proved as useful to searchers as it had hoped. The photographs went first, and the names have now followed.

Whatever the reasons, the change is the same for everyone. Nobody's articles have lost a feature that a competitor's articles still have.

Other kinds of markup, such as the kind that lets a result show review stars or an event's date, are not part of this change. It is about authorship alone.

Nothing to remove in a hurry

The authorship links do no damage. Taking them out means editing templates or every article by hand, and that time is better spent on the bylines readers actually see.

Keep the Google+ profile as well. It remains a public profile, and anyone who follows a link to it from an article still finds the writer there.

Readers still ask who wrote it

The question authorship answered in the results is still asked on the page. A strata council member reading about window replacement wants to know whether the advice comes from someone who inspects buildings for a living.

Search results never answered that well anyway. A thumbnail photograph shows what someone looks like, not what they know. The page can show both.

That is why the byline matters as much today as it did before the announcement. It was always working for readers, and readers have not changed.

A worked example

A building envelope consultant in Vancouver, a firm of five, assesses walls, windows and roofs for strata councils and property managers. Its site carries articles on condensation, rainscreen walls and window replacement.

Two years ago each article was linked to the principal's Google+ profile, and her photograph appeared beside them in search results. On the pages themselves, every article was signed by the word admin.

When the photographs disappeared in June, the results kept only a small name, and the pages still said admin. Nobody had noticed that the results were doing a job the page itself should have done.

Each article now names its writer at the top, with one line on their training and years of practice, and a link to a short page about them. The date of writing sits beside the name.

The markup stayed where it was. The byline now does on the page what the photograph did in the results: a property manager weighing advice about a leaking window can see who gave it.

The date beside the name

Readers weigh advice by its age as well as its source. Products, methods and prices all change, and an undated article leaves the reader guessing how much still applies.

Show when each article was written, and when it was last reviewed if that is different. A reviewed date tells the reader someone has checked it since.

A header that prints today's date on every page is not the same thing. It tells the reader nothing about the article and can make an old one look new.

Bylines on a small business site

Many small business sites publish under the company name or the word admin, because that is what the publishing system shows by default. WordPress and similar systems take the byline from the account that published the post.

Giving each writer their own account, with their real name set as the name to display, fixes most bylines at once. Older articles can then be reassigned to the people who wrote them.

Check the byline wherever else it appears: the list of recent articles, the archive pages, and the feed that some readers follow in a reader program.

The counter-case

For some posts a named writer matters little. A notice about holiday hours, new stock or a closure needs no byline, and the company name is honest there.

A site that never set up authorship has lost nothing this week, and need not start now.

But wherever an article gives advice that someone will act on, with money or safety at stake, the reader deserves to know who stands behind it. That was true before authorship and it is true without it.

What to check on your articles

  1. Search for three of your articles and look at the results.
  2. Open each article and read its byline.
  3. Replace admin and blank bylines with real names.
  4. Add one line on what each writer knows.
  5. Show the date written, and the date reviewed.
  6. Give regular writers a short page of their own.
  7. Leave the authorship markup where it is.

Step three is the change readers notice. An article signed admin suggests that nobody wanted to put a name to it, which is rarely the truth and never helps.

An archive that loads more articles only as the reader scrolls can hide the older ones from search engines entirely; an article archive that scrolls forever walks through the fix.

Frequently asked questions

What did Google announce yesterday?

That it has stopped showing author information in its search results and no longer uses the authorship markup that linked articles to Google+ profiles.

Should we remove the authorship markup?

There is no need. Google now ignores it, and it does no harm where it is. The time is better spent on the bylines readers see.

Were author photos removed earlier?

Yes. Google stopped showing author photographs in late June and kept the names for a while. This announcement ends the rest of authorship as well.

Does this affect only some sites?

No. The change applies to every site at once, so nobody has lost a feature that a competing site still has in its results.

What should an article page show about its writer?

A real name, one line on what the writer knows and how, a link to a short page about them, and the date the article was written.

Is a company name enough as a byline?

For short notices about hours or stock, yes. For advice that readers will act on, a named person with a stated background serves them better.

West Coast Media Solutions Inc. provides web design, web development, hosting, digital marketing, and business consulting to organisations across Canada, drawing on more than twenty-five years in the field.

Articles still signed by admin?

Send us your blog's address, and we will suggest how each article could name its writer and say what they know.

Start a Conversation