google plus for improving SEO

Its important enough that you have to do it

Not sure how mush work or time to put into it

All I've seen is this: searchmetrics.com/en/services/ranking-factors-2013/

I haven't yet had any experiences as I'm just now starting to use social signals, but am interesting of anyone else has seen any ranking changes due to +1s.

not bad.

Google doesn't improve anything from you dear!! this is entirely your JOB.
it is not wrong to get G+ on,although keep in mind it is social - it can/will help you for sure in certain way(s),depending on your niche and how much time you spend on it. In the end it is just another social stuff to deal with

the situation right now is: a lot people dropping with ranking in general (2 weeks already),- don't no why yet!!
to see the whole pic: 50/50

I don't believe Google +'s have the kind of impact that people at Moz and at other white hat SEO companies seem to think. They are very highly correlated, but whether theres any causation I'm very dubious.

Ok, thanks guys! Mainly it was for thinking in spend more or less time in google + profiles and something like that.

I just get google + because they end up showing as a backlink from google.com in webmaster tools.
I dont think that can be a bad thing

If it doesn't hurt you to get goolge +, then you can try it. Its not proven but Google sometimes tend to favor their own product.

I think google+ shares are pretty useful, let's face it, it's a do-follow link from google.com - how can that be bad?

I've never seen +1s help anyone's ranking personally

In my experience they do more harm than good.

Google Authorship now that's another story

Social media has always been vital though, You need to explore a bit.

Okay, so here's your answer.

Google is an octopus with many hands. One hand ranks websites using an algorithm that includes many factors. Google gets to decide what those factors are, and how much weight to put on each of them. G+'s may or may not be one of those factors.

Another hand of Google has created G+ in an effort to establish a product/service similar to Facebook. Google creates and either keeps or gets rid of lots of different products/services, so it's intent with G+ ranges on a scale anywhere from purely experimental and will be gone someday to something that will replace Facebook and run them out of business. Where it falls along that scale is a matter of supposition and guesswork. What we know for certain is that it exists, and that's about it.

So, your question has to do with what one hand of Google intends to do with a product/service that another hand has created. How much "weight" does (and will) Google give to it's own "G+'s". Right now, it's marginal. Minimal. Almost nothing.

One mistake a lot of people make is that they assume a static universe with constant variables. When reading the entrails of "what Google is doing", one should always keep in mind that Google experiments. It's marketing, after all. "A/B testing" and all of that. I've seen variations in the weight certain factors have based on the geographical region (in Local search results), and variations the weight of certain factors across different niches (also in Local search results). I assume organic results will also incorporate the same dynamics.

So the short answer here is "it depends". It depends on internal decisions Google is making (which can change), it depends on geography and it depends on niche, and it probably depends on other factors. My opinion is that, for all of the above, G+'s do not mean much in the general, overall composite, and I would be interested to read anecdotes and opinions that contradict this.

Finally, I'll mention that there are situations in search engine results where Google gives a boost at a particular threshold, and less or nothing after that. Meaning, "0" is nothing, "1" is good and "2" is no better than "1". Or it could be exponential.

0 = 0 units of Google juice
1 = 5 units of Google juice
2 to 10 = 6 units
11 to 100 = 7 units
101 to 1000 = 8 units
1001 to 10,000 = 9 units

etc....

Meaning that, 1 is good, 2 is better, but 3 is not. 11 is better but 50 is not.

All of this to make the point that I believe one should at least get a minimum number of G+'s, but this idea applies equally to any other signal that Google might utilize, such as reviews, facebook likes, backlinks, etc... I would do some research into the top ranked sites in order to get some sense of scale, and then do whatever needs to be done to make your site's profile similar to everyone else's.

One caution I would throw out is to avoid being the niche "leader" in G+'s, or any other factor. The nail that stands up will be hammered down. When Google goes hunting for blackhat practitioners attempting to game their system, they don't focus on the sites that are on page 5 or page 10, they are going to look at the top 3 for "unnatural" anything, to include G+'s (and anything and everything else they can define).

So if, for example, your niche's #1 website has 10 G+'s and the #2 website has 7 G+'s, stupid, reactionary "analysis" might conclude that 20 G+'s would be a good idea.

I say that would be an extraordinarily stupid idea, as the oddball website with 20 G+'s, against the backdrop of an entire field of similar websites that have dramatically less than that is going to underline the fact that someone is gaming the system, and invite Google's wrath. The algorithm is just a dumb computer program, but your competitors have the ability to trigger a manual review, and all contemplation of blackhat methods should always keep that grim reality in mind.

I am sorry Nigel.. but... I lost you at... Okay,
j/k btw
good post

Wow, Nigel. Those are some great insights. You also gave me some ideas on how to check out my competition for the next site I do.

To make your website more professional in search you can have a G+ profile with all details filled.But G+ count don't count imo.