I realise +Mike Arnesen`s article is 18 months old.
I read it way back then and stumbled across it again a few minutes ago while reading a post from Rick Eliason. (link below).
It is easy to take potshots at an old article, hindsight is 20/20 crystal-clear, but this is not a criticism. I think Mike Arnesen and Rick Eliason produced two good articles. They did not make false promises. They stuck to the facts but maybe there might have been a false premise.
Everybody, including me, assumed Google would use verified author data to influence normal rankings. What if this was never part of the plan for author data and it was just for "Indepth Articles"?
Google would have to rank relevant articles for the new section insert, but it is hard to spot a verified author in the results. Most publishers have schema to identify themselves, but few provide identification for authors.
That makes sense. In the real world, authors are rarely in charge of their publishing system. Authors, famous or not, are cogs in the wheel. The publisher decides when, where and how they appear.
This would not hinder Google. It would be easy to infer authorship and reputation from the author byline once they have ranked the publisher.
So, what is going to become more important?
"Author Rank" or "Publisher Rank"? :)
+Rick Eliason 28/50: https://plus.google.com/+RickEliason/posts/bEktmZK9R6q?
How to Prepare for Author Rank and Get the Jump on Google
