Whats happening with Google UK?
-
Within the last week we have had a handful of our rankings drop dramatically down the SERPS. About 15% but this an estimate and has not been fully investigated yet.
Whilst looking into possible scenarios that could be causing this i wanted to check what the SERPS looked like for the terms that we are still holding position on.
Typing "extending dining tables" into Google UK today i was amazed at what i found...
Ranking in position 1 and 2 is a massive UK furniture store.
But isnt that the same landing page being returned for both positions??It appears to be a navigation problem within the site category tags causing duplicate content. However they have been rewarded with the top two positons subsequently pushing our website onto page two.
I find it so frustrating that we listen to Googles best practices when it comes to pagination issues yet this is how our hard work is rewarded!
Anyone else have any thoughts about this?
-
Pleasure. Shout if I can help!
-
Fantastic. Thank you very much. Interestingly this website is hosted on a different platform to our others, so I wonder whether this has something to do with the config. We'll set up 301s for w. and ww. as a short term fix and look at the config going forward.
Many thanks again.
-
Hey, I think I have spotted something:
Google this:
portland clic-clac sofa bed
& Closely Check the result:
http://ww.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.html
ww not www
Also, we have another version of that page indexed:
v 1.
info:ww.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.htmlv 2.
info:www.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.htmlSo, you have something whack going on with your sub domains.
Digging a bit deeper:
site:franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.html
This shows that we have not only some ww. & www. results we also have pages being returned on
w.
ww.
www.
www.w.These are all the clic clac sofa bed pages so that most likely explains that one away and could well be at the root of your other problems.
I quickly checked the obvious and you do a 301 from franceshunt.co.uk to www.franceshunt.co.uk but if we do a general indexation query
site:franceshunt.co.uk
We see all kinds of weirdness and for the homepage alone (again, checking very quickly we have indexed and can resolve that page on
So.... not to hard to assume you may have lost a little bit of trust here through duplicate version of the page.
It obviously needs a bit more digging around but this should be easily fixed with a 301 for all these variations to www. and a double check across the board and on your internal linking to figure out just how this has happened and why it resolves on those wacky sub domains.
I didn't find a:
if-we-create-duplicate-versions-of-the-site-do-we-get-more-serp-share.franceshunt.co.uk but.... it resolves so it seems the site will resolve on any sub domain so we have two main issues
1. The virtual host is wrongly configured to allow it rank on anything.franceshunt.co.uk - a competitor could use this to harm you!
2. There are variations indexed that you need to take care of and a (*). rule for anything other than www. should 301 to the www. version of the page and that should, given a bit of time for reindexation etc, do the job (or at least help, who's to say we don't have multiple issues here).
Hope it helps and please let me know how it works out!
Marcus
-
First of all, thanks very much for taking the time to have a look for us and offer your opinions Marcus, much appreciated.
We are certainly going to be experimenting with the canonical tag in this way moving forward. We've never experienced problems with user interaction within the site since Google decided to start ranking the "show all" version of the pages instead so we've never really worried too much about it until now.
The worst hit was another non-competitive term "clic clac sofa bed" - we grew it steadily from 10th position back in feb and this was 3rd last week (!) and is no longer ranking at all! The page that was ranking is: http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/
When this campaign began back in the old days of yore we were still using free directorys for optimisation of deep pages. Ive read alot about these being slowly de-indexed by Google so was wondering if this was having an adverse impact on some of the "weaker" pages. As you can see though there has been no off-site optmisation towards this page its a pretty new term (only added to campaign in feb) so im discounting that theory - for now!
-
Hey
First up, you have rel = next & prev on the paginated pages so that's good but I would also use the rel=canonical to the view all page as described here:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html
The view all page in this category is not huge and loads nice and quickly so I cant see any reason not to 'help' google and give them the indication that this is where you want all rankings for those pages to be concentrated.
As always, experimentation is needed but I see things like this:
-
You have a view all page and that is the desired page to display and Google prefers it all by itself
-
You have a rel=next & rel=prev set up that is really for when you want to display individual component pages rather than the main page
-
The search query you are referencing has no intent that makes it more specific to one of the paginated pages so the ideal landing page is the view all page
So, remove the rel=next & rel=prev and canonical it to the view all page and see how you get on. Allow it to reindex, record the results and make an decision based on that information.
As a disclaimer, this may not make any difference with the ranking as it seems they are not indexing your paginated pages AND if we do an info query on the main category page it shows details for the show all page. That said, this is the correct way to do it unless you would rather show the individual pages so I would still make the change.
I think when it comes down to it, Harveys just have like 5 x as many linking domains as you and you both have fairly natural looking anchor text (at the most cursory of views) so they are just outranking you here. I have not digged into the other results between you and them and a drop from 3 to 11 is a bit more than the usual flutters - is there anything else that has had a similar drop?
-
-
Thanks Marcus!
Our site is http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/
We have asked a couple of questions before on Moz as to how best to solve the pagination issues within our site.
Google seems to prefer to rank the "show all" version of the targeted landing pages.
So whilst we are optimising http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/dine/extending-dining-tables/
Google prefers to rank http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/dine/extending-dining-tables/?p=all
Which hasn't caused us any problems before, yet now im wondering if this could be part of the issue too. Please let us know what you think!
-
We were ranking third before the update for this term.
Surely brand exposure and social signals are related to their number one positioning, but whats with the second result?
This is the same landing page yet through a different navigational path. This is what im questioning here?
-
Hmmm, yeah, that kind of sucks. That is the same page, and like you say it just seems to be either tagged as either living room or dining room. Looking at them closely, they are vaguely different, not a lot in it, both just a weak category page.
Whilst this is an obvious example of something amiss here, they should not have the top two spots, I would not waste too much time worrying about it. I imagine this will be a short lived deal for them.
Can you drop a link to your site? Maybe we can better advise you on what you can control so you can try to win back some footing here?
-
The update went in favour of companies with good brand exposure, so it is possible that Harvey's link profile is a mix of brand and keyword anchor text.
Your also notice they have 9,000+ facebook fans, in order to obtain that they must activity work on social media, so your also looking at social signals being built another thing Google is now focusing on.
But I don't really see that keyword being that competitive, you should be able to push through SERP's
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
-
Fetch as Google not showing Waypoints.js on scroll animation
So I noticed that my main content underneath 4 reasons to choose LED Habitats did not show up in Fetch as Google as well as a few other sections. The site being brand new, so I'm not sure how this will be indexed. What happens is, as the user scrolls the content is brought in using Waypoints and Animate.css which offers an engaging yet simple user experience. I'm just afraid that If the content doesn't show up in "Fetch as Google" in webmaster tools that this content will never be found / indexed by Google. There are thousands of sites that use this library, I'm just curious what I'm doing wrong.. or what I can do. Is there a way for me to keep the simple animations but keep Google Happy at the same time? I took a screen shot of "Fetch as Google" and you can see blatant missing sections which are the sections animated by the waypoints library. Thanks for listening! Robert ZqgLWHi
Web Design | | swarming0 -
When Site:Domain Search Run on Google, SSL Error Appears on One URL, Will this Harm Ranking
Greetings MOZ Community: When a site:domain search is run on Google, a very strange URL appears in the search results. The URL is http://www.nyc-officespace-leader.com:2082/ The page displays a "the site's security certificate is not trusted." This only appears for one URL out of 400. Could this indicate a wider problem with the server's configuration? Is this something that needs to be corrected, and if so how? Our ranking has dropped a lot in the last few months. Thanks,
Web Design | | Kingalan1
Alan0 -
Why is Google Webmaster suddenly started showing hundreds of HTML Improvements
Why is Google Webmaster suddenly started showing hundreds of HTML Improvements I mean to ask, my hundreds pages are been shown as duplicate - despite canonical marked correctly Below are sample url - which are been crawled in own way. I have rechecked canonical tag - which is correct as URL - 1, in all 3 url Do i need to worry about anything or shall i presume its a flaw from search engine to report this as an issue (This only pertain to Forum section) http://www.mycarhelpline.com/index.php?option=com_easydiscuss&view=post&id=1683&Itemid=78 http://www.mycarhelpline.com/?id=1683&Itemid=78&option=com_easydiscuss&view=post http://www.mycarhelpline.com/index.php?option=com_easydiscuss&view=post&id=1683 ps - i know these are dynamic url and not sef friendly url, but its been 3 yrs and , due to our ignorance and site builder took advantage of this. now - nothing can be done much to make them sef friendly as site has several thousand pages and touchwood - these dynamic url are not impacting much
Web Design | | Modi0 -
How to change the entire contents and design in my site without getting troubles with google?
Hello everyone This is my first post over here. In the next few weeks we going to change the entire content and design in our site. The site has 240 pages with poor contents and design. Except 301 redirects for all the old url’s I wanted to consult with you what is the right way to do it without harm my organic traffic that come from google? How google refers to this kind of changes? Which steps should I need to take to do it properly? Hope to get your help in the issue. Tahnks in advance.
Web Design | | JonsonSwartz0 -
Does Google count the domain name in its 115-character "ideal" URL length?
I've been following various threads having to do with URL length and Google's happiness therewith and have yet to find an answer to the question posed in the title. Some answers and discussions have come close, but none I've found have addressed this with any specificity. Here are four hypothetical URLs of varying lengths and configurations: EXAMPLE ONE:
Web Design | | RScime25
my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (115 characters) EXAMPLE TWO: sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (126 characters) EXAMPLE THREE: www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (130 characters) EXAMPLE FOUR: http://www.sample.com/my-big-widgets-are-the-best-widgets-in-the-world-and-come-in-many-vibrant-and-unique-colors-and-configurations.html (137 characters) Assuming the examples contain appropriate keywords and are linked to appropriate anchor text (etc.,) how would Google look upon each? All I've been able to garner thus far is that URLs should be as short as possible while still containing and contextualizing keywords. I have 500+ URLs to review for the company I work for and could use some guidance; yes, I know I should test, but testing is problematical to the extreme; I look to the collective/accumulated wisdom of the MOZVerse for help. Thanks.1 -
Any way of showing missed sales in Google Analytics?
Sit down, this might get a little complicated... I was approached by a design company to do some SEO work a client of theirs. Usually, this stuff is white label but I have direct contact with the client as the design agency felt it was easier for me to do this. The website is performing really well and looking at the sales funnel, I'm getting people wanting to buy. BUT, and here's the problem, everything falls apart because of the way the check out works. It's appalling. The customer has to register to buy a product, there's no guest check out or anything. The checkout button is right below the fold and you'd miss it completely if you didn't actually search for it. Basically, it's losing the client money. Last month alone there were 300~ people entering the conversion funnel and NONE of them complete it. I've been talking with the design company and they basically saying that it's too much work for them to change it, it's a signed off project blah blah. UI reports have been conducted and sent to them but still nothing. I have the client asking (a great client, obviously wondering why there is a lack of return on his investment) why he isn't making money. He's asking me because I'm the guy thats meant to be getting him the cash back. I keep saying to the design agency the problems and that it's never going to make money. The potential is massive. But thats my problem. Is there ANY way in GA to calculate the missed sales? I know that I can view the total amount made when the customer successfully checks out but I need figures to present that I'm leading the horse to water, but the check out system is preventing it from drinking. tl;dr I need to show client/design agency missed sales due to poorly built checkout system. Cheers!
Web Design | | jasonwdexter0 -
Any reaction to the announcement from Google that 'signed in' searches won't pass through search query info to analytics?
Seems like SEO is about to get that much harder: http://analytics.blogspot.com/2011/10/making-search-more-secure-accessing.html Any thoughts on this?
Web Design | | PaulM011 -
Can i do this? Will Google penalize me?
I have a page for a Criminal Defense Attorney and i set up a list of the type of criminal charges he is certified to deal with. I wanted to use title tags and put the Keyword "Miami Criminal Defense Attorney" & "Miami Traffic Defense Lawyer"... My question is will Google penalize me for plugging the same Key words over and over on the title tag for each ?? CHECK THE IMAGE to see what I'm talking about... thanks guys. x97dl
Web Design | | marig0