Circle sharing, pros and cons?

Selected answers from the Dumb SEO Questions Facebook & G+ community.

• 
  Ted Isaksson: Q: Circle sharing, pro's and con's?
  You probably seen people sharing circles, and you probably heard that the more activity a post has the better ranked it is. So then comes the circle sharing communities, how do they effect upon all this?
  
  Im trying to figure out if i should join these "Circle sharing"-things to get a base follower count. This maybe sounds stupid that i only go after the followers and not the specific people, but for a 5-10 minute thing this should get my follower count through the roof.
  
  I do understand the fact that followers isnt the same as activity, but i bet there are also those that are slightly interested in my main topic (web development) but havent joined any communities of it. This way i would have a chance to get a bit more +1's and/or re-shares on my posts.
  Of course, this doesnt mean i stop in working hard to get the topic-interested people to follow me!
  
  So now my question is to you, what pro's and con's do you see in this Circle sharing?
  Would love to hear your thoughts in the comments!
• 
  Jim Munro: I don't think raw follower numbers are worth a piece of spit. Until there is engagement signified by + 1, reshare or comment I doubt that posts are seen by followers unless directly notified. Dan Petrovic wrote a great article on G+ engagement, I will look for a link for you.
• 
  Dave Elliott: i agree not worth spit for the general "engagement circles"
  
  Aj kohn also wrote a brilliant article on the subject of IT DOES NOTHING TO HELP SEO!!!!  ;http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/social-signals-and-seo
  
  However, i do think there is a place for the more niche circle shares. For example i have an SEO circle with lots of great people on it that will give you lots of lovely information to start reading or people to discuss things with. This is a good thing.
  
  I really wouldn't start chasing +1's, follower counts, or view counts though. No one (should) cares.
• 
  Ted Isaksson: As long as it doesnt help the SEO, i dont care about my follower count. Im (sadly) used to seeing people who spam / post totally irrelevant things get the most followers and therefor the most famous (in also bringing customers etc).
  
  Circle sharing is a nice tool that i like to use (with people interested in what i do, and me in what they do), but there are tons of communities just sharing totally random circles to get followers.. This reminds me a bit of Facebook, you add everyone you bump into the street thinking they are of some value to you.
  
  Thanks for the link +Dave Elliott ;, i will read it!
• 
  Jim Munro: You might find this article interesting too, +Ted Isaksson ;: ;http://dejanseo.com.au/google-plus-study/
• 
  Ted Isaksson: Thanks for the link ;+Jim Munro ;!
  
  I find this a bit hard to understand, because this is fighting against what ive been told before. Ive read a lot that all posts act as a webpage (which is true), and all the engagement on the post is good because it boosts the post.
  
  So as its a webpage, shouldnt all the engagement be good for it then?
• 
  Jim Munro: On the understanding that I am a non-expert addressing your question of "should I join these "Circle sharing" things to get a base follower count", +Ted Isaksson ;, I don't think it's worth the effort however small.
  
  I don't think anybody doubts the benefit of engagement in holding back the "decay" of a post before it drops from general stream view but nobody has yet proven that G+ links or posts have magical ranking powers in organic search, whether accompanied by engagement signals or not.
• 
  Dave Elliott: Also, do you think these circle snowballs actually mean you get more plus ones for posts? Being in someones irrelevant stream is unlikely to get you plus ones...unless you have a picture of a kitteh attached to the article of course. ;
• 
  Ted Isaksson: Sorry for the delayed answer.
  Of course being in an irrelevant circle doesnt grant the +1's and re-shares, but as i stated earlier, there is maybe someone who is interested in my main topic who hasnt seen my post before. This would then be a free +1 for me.
  
  So i did some more researching, and it really looks like +Dave Elliott's linked page is in fact the most up-to-date (march 2014).
  But just to make sure i understood the article, this means that our social performance only benefits if the content writers links to us?
  
  I found this "old" article at Blindfiveyearold written in January 2014, ;http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/google-plus-seo, that says the following:
  "Because Circle count is a primary factor in how these People and Pages are selected. It's not the only thing as I'll soon show you but it's a large part of the equation."
  
  Also in the "50 Cool things to do on Google+" by +Rick Eliason ;its said in tip #14:
  "► Do everything in your power to attract links and engagement (+1s, shares, etc) to your post as these positive signals will likely improve your post's authority (importance) and therefore, search ranking"
  (link to the post: ;http://goo.gl/PilIA0)
  
  +Rick Eliason ;, if you have the time, could you please share the latest details or article about +1's, re-shares and comments, how they effect the SEO. Also if you have time, what is your opinion to "add everyone you bump into"?
• 
  Jim Munro: AJ's article is dated ;JANUARY 20TH 2012 not Jan 2014.
  
  In that article, ;+AJ Kohn ;refers to Search+ or Search Plus Your World, SPYW. It's personalised search, it won't make a difference unless they are logged in but if they have circled you and are logged in they might see a reference to you as an element of an organic search result if you are relevant.
  
  I don't think you have taken note of the disclaimer in +Rick Eliason ;'s article viz. "There are several elements that help a standard webpage rank in the search results which, for good measure I recommend you apply to your G+ post - However, I am unaware of any research that supports/proves my following suggestions"
  
  Rick might or might not turn out to be right one day but until somebody demonstrates anything that makes a difference, I think you should consume it as interesting speculation.
  
  I am not an expert of anything but if I were interested in finding out the answer to this, I would spend equal time re-reading anything and all that AJ Kohn and Dan Petrovic have written to take on board some basic terms of reference and awaken the bullshit-spotter within you before venturing on to the myriads of other good articles available.
  
  I don't think you could have read Dan's article yet, there's more there than can be consumed in one night, for me at least.
  
  http://dejanseo.com.au/google-plus-study/
  http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/social-signals-and-seo
  
  In AJ's article, I think the answers you are looking for are spelled out in the link above with two paras.
  
  "This is one of the reasons why buying Tweets or Likes just for the sake of pumping up that number is a waste of money. Shares that fail to find an audience with the appropriate creator mix will do nothing for SEO ... or your marketing efforts in general." ;
  
  "Social has an indirect but powerful impact on search rankings. It's not the actual social activity that matters, but what happens as a result of that activity. Optimizing and maximizing creator impressions increases the chance of obtaining links from the group of people who power the link graph."
• 
  Ted Isaksson: Haha totally my bad.. Didnt notice the 2012!
  
  Thank you so much +Jim Munro ;& +Dave Elliott ; for helping me! Yes i agree that most topics should be read many times, but sadly blog-posts are hard for me to understand most of the times (im more of a list-guy, just type a list and i understand it much easier).
  
  I believe this answers all my questions at this point of time and will now start to take what i learned into action :)
  (Oh and yes, i will skip on the irrelevant circle-sharing..!)
• 
  Jim Munro: You are not alone, +Ted Isaksson ;, it's hard for all of us to keep up. All opinions are valid. :)
• 
  Dave Elliott: ..but mine are more valid than others. :D