said 2 months, 1 week ago:
Not knowing the answer to this question, I would guess they favor or will favor profiles over pages, since they favor content by “verified” authors over anonymous content. Since content was obviously authored by a person, whether for themselves, someone else or a company, Google wants to know exactly WHO the person is who authored it.
So, to me, everything goes back to “individual” profiles as original sources, something Google is very interested in in verifying. And while a company or interest page may be verifiable to a degree, it’s not always an individual with a fixed address. Companies can be “verified” as far as fixed location goes, but they are NOT individual, verifiable sources. They stand behind a wall, behind which may be numerous verifiable people, but if they create a page… who is the source? The company or an individual?
A profile is easier to dig through to identify a source… either it’s an individual or business of some kind.
But Google wants to get at the “source” of all its content and that’s why they are pushing and favoring verified Google authorship. By “favoring” verified sources or authors, they push back and push down all the “anonymous” internet marketers, the pseudonym writers, and those spammers we don’t want to see on first page results. They want trusted sources. They want transparency. Favoring verified Google Authorship writers gives them that and gives us better first page results to read.
So back to the profiles versus pages question…
I’m thinking whatever can be cited as a “primary” verifiable source is the winner. I’m thinking that’s a profile. If someone tells me that the author or source of a “page” is more trustworthy, then that would be my choice, but I’m thinking the profile is still the winner.
Sorry if I didn’t explain this well… but if you follow my drift of determining which one gives Google more of what it wants — verifiable, trusted sources and source materials — then maybe you could reword this a bit better for me.
What do yall think?