Google place 7 -> 40, why??
-
Hi,
my new site http://www.ie-mac.com/ just dropped 33 places from place 7 to place 40 on goolge.com , for the two word combo: ie mac
Did I screw up? How?
Background Info:
1 Two weeks ago I moved my whole site from my old domain http://ie4mac.com/ to http://www.ie-mac.com/ with the goal of obtaining a good ranking for the keyword combo: ie mac. Apparantly tis worked- The site showed up on place 7.
2. I changed the design of the site and put the video on the front page. Good so far, still place 7, but: The text that google was showing was half the ALT-Tag of the Video first-slide image and the other half was our trademark disclaimer.
3. I changed the ALT tag and the disclaimer to give users a more inviting text on google. THis worked, google now shows the text as intended, but: For the desired combo: ie mac the site dropped to palce 40!!
My best guesses at this point:
1. I'm using wordpress as a CMS and the all-in-one-seo-pack plugin to set custom titles etc., and the google XML sitemap plugin to buid an XML sitemap and notify google. During the couple of days, I made a lot of chnages to the site. Could be that the plugin pinged google a lot of times. Could this be part of the problem?
2. The site is hosted at http://www.ixwebhosting.com/ , because they give users dedicated IPs and a good price. However, the loadlevel on the server I'm on is always very high (10 - 20). I'm using a CDN for images and a caching plugin so the site loads in less than 2 seconds according to http://tools.pingdom.com/ . Unless the cache is empty, then it's 9 seconds. This is not great, but it's also no new, so:
What could have caused the sudden drop from 7 to 40??
Thank you and kind regards
-
Hi Keri,
that's an interesting idea. I thought about it: Right now, I don't feel ready to write a post like that. I'll keep it in mind though: If I have to move a site again I will prepare it better, do more detailed monitoring and if that works, I'll have material to write a post that's worth reading
Thank you!
Timon
-
If you have some lessons learned that would make for an interesting blog post, feel free to write it up and submit it to YOUmoz!
Glad to be able to help, and sorry I didn't get in here sooner with the GWT link [my avatar doesn't readily show it, but I am an associate for SEOmoz and I try to help provide timely help].
-
Hi Keri,
now that was a helpful answer! No, the old site wasn't verified. The new one will be. During this move I learned a lot ... Next time I have to move a site I will follow the procedure outlined on the page you posted.
Thank you!
Timon
-
Or quickly in some aspects at least. I'm glad for your site it's working well. A thought -- have you done a change of address in Google Webmaster Tools (if the old domain was verified)? Wouldn't hurt. http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=83106
-
Hey Keri,
thank you for asking!
Yes, it did recover. For a couple of days it was on place 8, i.e. almost as good as before.
Then, after some minor changes on site, it dropped slightly (place 13 now). I'm sure it will recover from that, too. What I learned form this whole experiences is that google reacts quickly, either way. Therefore I'll be much more patient during future drops following onsite changes
Cheers,
Timon
-
Timon, how is your site doing now? Has it recovered, or are there still issues?
-
Hi Damien,
thank you! I hope what you wrote applies in this case, too. I do not yet have the experience to find this normal. If there is, in fact, no big screw up to be found and it just takes time to recover, I'll give it time.Knowing it's normal definetly makes me feel better.
Thank you!
Timon
-
Timon,
I would give it a bit more time - rankings usually drop with a site change like this. I even have it with pages that are ranking and then I change them when they're not moving domain.
DD
-
Hi Lewis,
I have the site crawled by seomoz and checked out the results. There a a few minor things to sort out (i.e. too long urls in old blog postings etc.), but non of them are new.
I would have expected a dip during the transition, as you wrote. But first the opposite happened (good placement, place 7, first page), followed by a huge dro (place 40, i.e. last spot on 4th page).
Is such a big drop normal? Should I just wait? Or am I still missing some big mistake here??
Thank you!
Timon
-
Hi Damien,
yes I did. In fact, I kept the URL structre and 301 redirected all pages. Checked that redirections work, too.
-
Assuming everything else being equal it is often the case that when a site is moved to a new URL and 301 redirected (which I see you have done) that there is a short term dip in rankings and traffic.
If you have access to the Campaign tools here I would set up a campaign for that site and the crawl diagnostics may point you in the right direction of any problems you may have introduced during the switch.
-
Hey,
Did you identify all of your most authoritative pages and 301 them to the new URLs? or have you simply 'switched one off and turned the other on'?
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Can you transcribe your youtube video to just google?
YouTube videos have been very effective for us on our site. The only problem is they have taken part of a fair amount of our content so to google our pages may seem to have minimal content. Transcribing each video and including that on the page would take away from the look of the page and clutter it. Is there a way to let google know the content without having to include it on the page? You can find an example page at https://www.waikoloavacationrentals.com/halii-kai-rentals/
On-Page Optimization | | RobDalton0 -
Google cuts meta title after 60 characters and meta description after 130 characters. Is this new?
Hey community, We noticed, that our meta's are cutted after much lesser characters then it used to. Mainly after 130-135. Did i miss something? Should we basically consider to write meta's constantly with lesser then 130 characters instead of the advised 160 characters? Cheers, Boris
On-Page Optimization | | posthumus0 -
Frustrated by Google Search Result
We have a page on our website for our review of the "Voltage" shisha flavor by "Social Smoke" (Social Smoke is the brand). Voltage is one of their hookah tobacco flavors. https://www.hookah.org/social-smoke-voltage-flavored-hookh-tobacco/. When I search for "Social Smoke Voltage Review", our page is at the bottom of the first page result. We have a video, decent content on the page, and a review function. We've implemented correct Schema code too: https://goo.gl/iwCP7E. When I use the page grade tool on Moz. Our page ranks B for that keyword but the results number 1 and 2 and 3 on Google all rank C or D. Our video and review schemas don't show up on Google search result either. We have a good community online. Our social media pages are popular. We share the blog posts on the social media accounts fairly regularly too. We have an old and established website. From what I understand we are following all of Google's standards and rules too. What does a website owner gotta do?
On-Page Optimization | | Heydarian0 -
Google Increases Titles and Meta Descriptions Length
So, we now know that Google are changing the Title and Meta Desc length limits to 70 and 200 respectively. Does this mean we all need to jump to immediate attention and modify all our current pages OR, do we wait?
On-Page Optimization | | dynamyt1000 -
How the hell do you get microformat to show up on google serp?
Preface: I implemented Microformat aggregate review (http://data-vocabulary.org/Review-aggregate) for our e-commerce website and included only on the homepage. The vote and count are actually coming from real reviews we are getting from our customers, and in the homepage some reviews are shown prominently and a link points to the full list of all the reviews. Microformat markup is correct, validated in GWT. Have been online for a while (probably a couple of years). Our website: http://www.gomme-auto.it The star rating never showed up. When checking competitors I could see their microformats where not showing up either. But now things changed, if I check one competitor (the market leader www.gommadiretto.it) searching for it with their brand name “gommadiretto” no star rating is showing, but if I search for tires of a specific manufactured like “pneumatici barum” I can see their result in serp is showing the star rating for that specific internal page (the brand page) where they simply put the website overall aggregate review microformat mark up, they actually put it on every page. And that make me scratch my head and start asking myself some questions: is google showing their microformats because they manually awarded them somehow? no other competitor seems to have got the star rating in serp is google showing their microformats because they have so much more reviews than I have? I have around 1700, they have around 11000. is google showing their microformats because their reviews are certified by TrustPilot? is google showing their microformats because they put it in the product page? well of course since I am not putting it there (in the brand page) it's a factor, but isn't it recommended to put the website aggregate reviews microformat only on one page? and shouldn't we show the brand reviews on the brand page? isn't it best practice/recommended to put the website aggregate review microformat only on one page? is google showing their microformats because of some other reasons I can't see? What the hell is google criteria for showing the star rating? Does anyone know?
On-Page Optimization | | max.favilli0 -
Google is indexing urls with parameters despite canonical
Hello Moz, Google is indexing lots of urls despite the canonical in my site. Those urls are linked all over the site with parameters like ?, and looks like Google is indexing them despite de canonical. Is Google deciding to index those urls because they are linked all over the site? The canonical tag is well implemented.
On-Page Optimization | | Red_educativa0 -
Google plus authorship is driving me truly mad!
Ok permision to vent first 😉 Aaaaahhhhhh!!!!! Fu@king Google authorship, for fuc@s sake why so fuc@ing useless....Ok vent over.... Mission: I wanted to add Google+ authorship images to appear in the serps so I followed this guide to the letter:
On-Page Optimization | | Nightwing
https://plus.google.com/authorship I then tested it my authorship link on page http://www.netconstruct.co.uk/services/digital-marketing/ work via the testing tool http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets And i get a thumbs down(arggg!!) no authorship data recognised but here's the mark up:
Author: [xxxxxxx](https://plus.google.com/u/0/114149997094688010790/?<br /> rel=author) onpafe http://www.netconstruct.co.uk/services/digital-marketing/ So please can someone give me any insight into why this is not working 😞 Grazie,
David !!IGNORE!! Spotted a gap in the authorship code afre the the question mark! Now it recognisies authorship mark up!0 -
Getting Google to provide a different URL in SERP
For one of my client’s sites, I have several keywords that are ranking in the top 5 positions. However, they have a high bounce rate. I believe this is because Google is delivering a different URL than the page we have optimized for the keyword. Any suggestions on ways I can get Google to present our preferred page?
On-Page Optimization | | TopFloor0