Google removes author information from search results

Google has eliminated authorship information from its search results, meaning, for example, that authors' head shots will no longer appear next to their articles on Google News. 

Google announced Thursday that it was eliminating its feature that displayed authors' information alongside their articles in search results.

Take a look at Google News and you'll notice something different. Absent from the clusters of articles populated with various stories on similar topics and themes are the names and information of the individuals who wrote the articles. Instead, there are only the names of publications – Bloomberg, Boston Globe, BBC News, to name a few. 

The search giant has decided to remove authorship information from its search results. This is because such information, including authors' photos and names, was unnecessary and distracting to people's search practices, John Mueller, Google's Webmaster Trends analyst, said in a Thursday post on his Google+ page announcing the decision.  

"This information isn't as useful to our users as we’d hoped, and can even distract from those results," he says. "With this in mind, we've made the difficult decision to stop showing authorship in search results." 

He adds that removing authorship information neither reduces traffic to sites nor does it increase the number of times people click on ads. Rather, "we make these kinds of changes to improve our users' experience," he says. 

Google first introduced "authorship markup" in 2011 as a means to "help people find content from great authors in our search results."

The feature has proved particularly important for writers and journalists who relied on this feature to direct online readers to their author page at their respective publication's website. Google even worked directly with publications – such as The New York Times, CNET, Entertainment Weekly, and others – to add the markup feature to their pages.

Mr. Mueller emphasized, however, that users will continue to see relevant Google+ posts from friends and pages. This change "doesn’t impact these social features," he says. 

It's an ironic twist of fate at a time when writers to the Web are often advised to create their own "personal brand." Which means writers' names can be just as important to their careers as the masthead for which they write.

Today's wordsmiths are encouraged by mentors, teachers, and bosses alike to "fashion a brand – to entrepreneurialize a persona that will distinguish them from all the other content providers out there trying to hurl themselves over a transom that no longer exists," James Wolcott wrote in Vanity Fair earlier this year.

Writers must blog, tweet, and tweet some more, constantly curating a steady stream of likes, clicks, and followers. 

"It's not like it isn't hard enough to get word out there of what you've written," says William McKeen, chair of Boston University's Department of Journalism.

And when consuming information in the digital age has been likened to "drinking from a firehose," more detail on the source of information would likely be beneficial to consumers, he says. 

"If there's any service that gives you a bit of information about the author's background you'd think that'd be helpful to readers," he says. "It makes me wonder why [Google] decided to do it." 

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Google removes author information from search results
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today