Google Penguin - Target Landing Page
-
Hello,
One of our sites have been hit by the first penguin update back in April and ever since then we have been removing links and submitting reconsideration requests...
It only seems to have affected our home page as some of our internal landing pages are still ranking OK in the SERPS #1 / #2.
I'm just wondering if we created a landing page for this keyword and drove high quality / relevant links to this landing page could we get it to rank higher than our homepage even though our Homepage is on the 5th page.Hope the above make sense.
Has anybody had any joy with this?
-
I have nothing to add here as Ryan has pretty much nailed it but "algorithmically disadvantaged" made me chuckle!
-
You can achieve what you are asking, but I would not advise doing such.
SEO is about one factor, competition. Period.
If you decided to rank for a unique term such as "fluffy SEO eating bunnies" and no one else is attempting to rank for that term, you can easily rank #1 for it. On the other hand, if 10 other sites try to rank for the same term, then it is a pure competition and one site will win the battle.
It is hard enough to earn rankings. Trying to rank with a penalized site, or for the more sensitive readers "algorithmically disadvantaged", is not wise. You need to resolve the root issue.
To put it in financial terms, add up the sales you have lost over the past months due to lower rankings. Now examine the cost of removing the penalty. Even most small businesses will find it cheaper to have the penalty or Penguin issue dealt with properly then trying to rank with a penalized site.
Also consider Penguin is undergoing a major update. Matt Cutts shared the effects of the next Penguin update will be "jarring and jolting". There are only two ways I can interpret that statement. Either many sites which have not been impacted by Penguin in the past will be affected, sites which have been impacted will be hit a lot harder, or both. My bet is on both.
Having a penalty or Penguin issue on your site is like having your house on fire. You are standing there with a hose trying to put out the fire. It's time to call 911 and have the fire put out, then work on repairing the damage.
I applaud do-it-yourself SEO for small, highly involved business owners under normal circumstances. Manual penalties and algorithmic issues such as Penguin require expertise to deal with, otherwise you will submit 10 Reconsideration Requests and have all 10 declined. Clearly, you are not properly addressing the root issue.
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
-
Google Listing Brand Name as Page Title rather than actual set Title
Any search result including our website is displaying our search result title like this: "Brand Name: Partial Page Title" instead of what it should be "Page Title" (as an example). Where is the "Brand Name:" coming from? We've verified we don't have any code that could cause this, and we're blocking in robots.txt directory listings being used for our search result title/meta. This isn't happening for our competitors. Any ideas on why this is, and if it's something we can control?
Technical SEO | | Closetstogo0 -
Big page of clients - links to individual client pages with light content - not sure if canonical or no-follow - HELP
Not sure what best practice here is: http://www.5wpr.com/clients/ Is this is a situation where I'm best off adding canonical tags back to the main clients page, or to the practice area each client falls under? No-following all these links and adding canonical? No-follow/No-index all client pages? need some advice here...
Technical SEO | | simplycary0 -
Why would Google rank a highly irrelevant page in the top 15 especially for a seemingly important keyword?
While searching for "Blog writing service reviews", I found that a web page that's not even optimized for the query is ranking within top 15 search results. Upon checking the source code, I found that the webpage has been optimized for product reviews services. Plus, the website is only 11 months old, got 7 digit Alexa rank and has PR 1. Why would Google rank such a page in top 15?
Technical SEO | | suskanchan0 -
After I 301 redirect duplicate pages to my rel=canonical page, do I need to add any tags or code to the non canonical pages?
I have many duplicate pages. Some pages have 2-3 duplicates. Most of which have Uppercase and Lowercase paths (generated by Microsoft IIS). Does this implementation of 301 and rel=canonical suffice? Or is there more I could do to optimize the passing of duplicate page link juice to the canonical. THANK YOU!
Technical SEO | | PFTools0 -
Making one landing page rank higher than another
I have a website which uses an individual landing pages to greet traffic for each suburb in our service area. For a long time we had one landing page which covered a region of suburbs but we've since added individual pages for those suburbs as well. However, Google will always display results for the old regional page, even though the new pages are optimized for searches in that area. Is there anything I can do to get Google to display the pages I want?
Technical SEO | | mark.schad0 -
Has Google stopped rendering author snippets on SERP pages if the author's G+ page is not actively updated?
Working with a site that has multiple authors and author microformat enabled. The image is rendering for some authors on SERP page and not for others. Difference seems to be having an updated G+ page and not having a constantly updating G+ page. any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | irvingw0 -
Index page
To the SEO experts, this may well seem a silly question, so I apologies in advance as I try not to ask questions that I probably know the answer for already, but clarity is my goal I have numerous sites ,as standard practice, through the .htaccess I will always set up non www to www, and redirect the index page to www.mysite.com. All straight forward, have never questioned this practice, always been advised its the ebst practice to avoid duplicate content. Now, today, I was looking at a CMS service for a customer for their website, the website is already built and its a static website, so the CMS integration was going to mean a full rewrite of the website. Speaking to a friend on another forum, he told me about a service called simple CMS, had a look, looks perfect for the customer ... Went to set it up on the clients site and here is the problem. For the CMS software to work, it MUST access the index page, because my index page is redirected to www.mysite.com , it wont work as it cant find the index page (obviously) I questioned this with the software company, they inform me that it must access the index page, I have explained that it wont be able to and why (cause I have my index page redirected to avoid duplicate content) To my astonishment, the person there told me that duplicate content is a huge no no with Google (that's not the astonishing part) but its not relevant to the index and non index page of a website. This goes against everything I thought I knew ... The person also reassured me that they have worked within the SEO area for 10 years. As I am a subscriber to SEO MOZ and no one here has anything to gain but offering advice, is this true ? Will it not be an issue for duplicate content to show both a index page and non index page ?, will search engines not view this as duplicate content ? Or is this SEO expert talking bull, which I suspect, but cannot be sure. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, it would make my life a lot easier for the customer to use this CMS software, but I would do it at the risk of tarnishing the work they and I have done on their ranking status Many thanks in advance John
Technical SEO | | Johnny4B0 -
Our Development team is planning to make our website nearly 100% AJAX and JavaScript. My concern is crawlability or lack thereof. Their contention is that Google can read the pages using the new #! URL string. What do you recommend?
Discussion around AJAX implementations and if anybody has achieved high rankings with a full AJAX website or even a partial AJAX website.
Technical SEO | | DavidChase0