Two of the internet’s nagging questions of late have been, “Why are some authors more visible than others?” and “Why do some people get better results than others doing the same thing on the same platform?” Googles Agent Rank - The Plus in G+Those questions have been answered in a comprehensive study of Google patents and statements from Google conducted by Joshua Berg in a blog post released last week called “Agent Rank is here! The Google+ Verified Entities Authority Blueprint”. Google’s ‘Agent Rank’ Patent The report shows that each author or page in Google+ carries its own “Agent Rank”, and this ranking reflects the agent’s (the author, page, reviewer, etc.) reputation based on authenticity, content they are connected with and the context within which their authority is viewed.

1. Google ‘Agent Rank’ Patent Explains Recent Search Results
March 23, 2014 By Mike Taylor
Two of the net’s nagging questions of late have been, “Why are some authors
more visible than others?” and “Why do some people get better results than
others doing the same thing on the same platform?”
Those questions have been
answered in a comprehensive
study of Google patents and
statements from Google
conducted byJoshua Berg in a blog
post released last week called
“Agent Rank is here! The Google+
Verified Entities Authority
Blueprint”.
Google’s ‘Agent Rank’
Patent
The report shows that each author
or page in Google+ carries its own
“Agent Rank”, and this ranking reflects the agent’s (the author, page, reviewer,
etc.) reputation based on authenticity, content they are connected with and the
context within which their authority is viewed.
Joshua points to the following paragraph “buried deep inside the document”
which reveals the type of algorithm we’re talking about here (bolding added for
emphasis):
The ‘only the good parts‘ version:
… an agent’s reputation (is) based on the content bearing the agent’s signature.
You are being judged by the material you put out under your name (signature)

2. … an agent’s reputation can be determined from the extrinsic relationships
between agents as well as content…
Your rank, or the measure of your authority, is also related to the scores of people
you associate yourself with and who refer to your work.
an agent should have a higher reputational score … if the content signed by the
agent is frequently referenced by other agents or content.
The more popular your material is, the more often it is read, shared, bookmarked
or commented on, then the more authority your agent (persona) is given.
Not all references, … are of equal significance. (an) agent with a high
reputational score is of greater significance than … another agent with a low
reputational score.
High scores mean high influence. ‘Nuff said?
Thus, the reputation of a particular agent … should depend not just on the
number of references to the content signed by the particular agent, but on the
importance of the referring documents and other agents.
This implies the 30,000 fake views from Fiverr gigs probably are not given much
credence.
The reputation of a particular agent is a function of the reputation of the content
and agents which refer to it.
There it is – right out in the clear. Your authority, you ability to appear in search,
your ability to be notice on the internet is dependent on the content you produce
and connect yourslf with and on the reputations of those you associate with.
The original paragraph:
In one implementation, an agent’s reputation can be derived using a relative
ranking algorithm, e.g., Google’s PageRank as set forth in U.S. Pat. No. 6,285,999,
based on the content bearing the agent’s signature. Using such an algorithm, an
agent’s reputation can be determined from the extrinsic relationships between
agents as well as content. Intuitively, an agent should have a higher reputational

3. score, regardless of the content signed by the agent, if the content signed by the
agent is frequently referenced by other agents or content. Not all references,
however, are necessarily of equal significance. For example, a reference by
another agent with a high reputational score is of greater significance than a
reference by another agent with a low reputational score. Thus, the reputation of
a particular agent, and therefore the reputational score assigned to the particular
agent, should depend not just on the number of references to the content signed
by the particular agent, but on the importance of the referring documents and
other agents. This implies a recursive definition: the reputation of a particular
agent is a function of the reputation of the content and agents which refer to it.
‘Agent Rank’ agents include authors, publishers, editors and reviewers.
Although “Author Rank” is not used in the Google patents, it is the term used
commonly. ‘Author Rank’ is a misleading term as the ramifications go beyond just
authors.
For example, the fabled “Super Reviewers” do exist – and they are people with
the credibility needed to affect business reviews. The existence of ‘super
reviewers’ was proposed late last year by the shadowy “Comrade Ivan” during
closed-door Mastermind discussions. His testing indicated it was possible to
become a super-reviewer through constant and relentless reviewing.
Recent changes to Google Maps feature the ability to show only reviews by ‘Top
Reviewers’.
Now we know why this is, and also know that the agent rank goes far beyond just
personal search.
Joshua’s analysis also pointed out, “Google has a newer patent that offers
another look at what they value, one that covers the credibility of an author (or
agent) (Reputation scoring of an author – United States Patent: 8,645,396 ).
“…An authentication score is determined for a contributor of the multiple
contributors. The contributor’s name and a representation of the contributor’s
authentication score is published online for display on one or more second
computers in association with the online content received from the contributor.
This “authentication score” refers to how ‘real’ you appear.

4. “…determining by the computer server system, a reputation score for an author of
the online content item, wherein the reputation score is based at least in part on
reviews of the online content item that have been provided by one or more
authors other than the author;
“The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining, by the computer server
system, a credibility score for the author of the online content item by obtaining
personal information about the author that relates to education or employment
of the author and verifying that the received personal information about the
author is accurate; and adjusting the ranking of the author based on the
determined credibility score.”
Simply put, and straight from the source:
“The true cost of remaining anonymous, then, might be
irrelevance.”
– Google Chairman Eric Schmidt (Feb, 2013)
Agent Rank is the Plus in Google+
The ramifications are immense for online advertisers, SEOs, publicity agents and
about anyone who wants to be seen on the internet. The old gambit of a robot
army of fake accounts is going away. Good-bye Fiverr gigs. The authority of those
fake accounts will be judged and found wanting. Your reputation and authority
will be assigned accordingly.
Portions of this appeared previously in LinkedIn. Thanks to Joshua Berg of
RealSMO.com