The Challenge Of Social Signals

If for any reason you need general information on WordPress, I’ve got you covered. However, don’t ask Father Google for a hand or an answer on where you may find this information within my site. You’re more apt to find a page one listing for two kids arguing over general information on WordPress than you are to find a good ongoing stream of instructional information sources to rely on.

These two kids argument is defined by the search engines as “Social Signals”. I’m assuming that Google desires the “Two Heads Are Better Than One” idea to provide you links to useful information these days.

Indeed there are times when I have viewed Social Signals as useful or at the very least interesting. You know how it goes …… once Google has your interest, they show you ads. So Social Signals are good for business …… Google’s business.

Most of this nonsense is relegated to the social platforms, Twitter, Facebook, Google+, etc, etc. However, I’ve noticed that as WordPress has grown in popularity, and I’m not pointing out that this is a recent development, Google has indexed more and more of the Social Signals confined to the comments section of the software.

The challenge here is that Google is … well …… sending mixed signals! I’m thinking that maybe a general index as well as a social index are in order here as opposed to mixing everything together.

When you are trying to dig yourself out of a hole dealing with a WordPress issue, you need answers fast, not ideal chatter or social foolishness.

Now I understand that for the most part Google can and does keep this chatter down to a dull roar. However, my concern is that if I desire to rank well within the index, I have to not only provide you the necessary information that you need, but I have to spend a ton of my time logging-in and logging-out of social networks to socialize it.

If I socialize it over say …… 3600 social media platforms, I wind-up on page one of Google. And that’s if I provide 678,252 words (as if anyone has the time to read it) of content. What’s up with that?