We just fixed a Meta refresh, unified our link profile and now our rankings are going crazy
-
Crazy in a bad way!I am hoping that perhaps some of you have experienced this scenario before and can shed some light on what might be happening.Here is what happened:We recently fixed a meta refresh that was on our site's homepage. It was completely fragmenting our link profile. All of our external links were being counted towards one URL, and our internal links were counting for the other URL. In addition to that, our most authoritative URL, because it was subject to a meta refresh, was not passing any of its authority to our other pages.Here is what happened to our link profile:Total External Links: Before - 2,757 After - **4,311 **Total Internal Links: Befpre - 125 After - 3,221
Total Links: Before - 2,882 After - 7,532Yeah....huge change. Great right? Well, I have been tracking a set of keywords that were ranking from spots 10-30 in Google. There are about 66 keywords in the set. I started tracking them because at MozCon last July Fabio Riccotta suggested that targeting keywords showing up on page 2 or 3 of the results might be easier to improve than terms that were on the bottom of page 1. So, take a look at this. The first column shows where a particular keyword ranked on 11/8 and the second column shows where it is ranking today and the third column shows the change. For obvious reasons I haven't included the keywords.11/8 11/14 Change****10 44 -34
10 26 -16
10 28 -18
10 34 -24
10 25 -15
15 29 -14
16 33 -17
16 32 -16
17 24 -7
17 53 -36
17 41 -24
18 27 -9
19 42 -23
19 35 -16
19 - Not in top 200
19 30 -11
19 25 -6
19 43 -24
20 33 -13
20 41 -21
20 34 -14
21 46 -25
21 - Not in top 200
21 33 -12
21 40 -19
21 61 -40
22 46 -24
22 35 -13
22 46 -24
23 51 -28
23 49 -26
24 43 -19
24 47 -23
24 45 -21
24 39 -15
25 45 -20
25 50 -25
26 39 -13
26 118 - 92
26 30 -4
26 139 -113
26 57 -31
27 48 -21
27 47 -20
27 47 -20
27 45 -18
27 48 -21
27 59 -32
27 55 -28
27 40 -13
27 48 -21
27 51 -24
27 43 -16
28 66 -38
28 49 -21
28 51 -23
28 58 -30
29 58 -29
29 43 -14
29 41 -12
29 49 -20
29 60 -31
30 42 -12
31 - Not in top 200
31 59 -28
31 68 -37
31 53 -22Needless to say, this is exactly the opposite of what I expected to see after fixing the meta refresh problem. I wouldn't think anything of normal fluctuation, but every single one of these keywords moved down, almost consistently 20-25 spots. The further down a keyword was to begin with, it seems the further it dropped.What do you make of this? Could Google be penalizing us because our link profile changed so dramatically in a short period of time? I should say that we have never taken part in spammy link-building schemes, nor have we ever been contacted by Google with any kind of suspicious link warnings. We've been online since 1996 and are an e-commerce site doing #RCS. Thanks all! -
Totally agree,
Have seen this a few times in the past.
Major SEO changes, big drop in rankings for 2/3 weeks. Then rankings gradually return.
@Dana: Keep us posted, im curious to see if in a few weeks time things have improved
-
Thanks Dr. Pete. I know this is pushing the boundaries of normal Q&A. I appreciate your answer. Yes, one thing at a time I think is a good way to go. I suggested that we try the mod_pagespeed rewrite on the dev site as a first step. I think it would probably be more efficient for us to hire a developer proficient in SEO to handle some of the more technical items. Thanks again!
-
Sorry, I'm not really clear on what the question is - these seem like general IT items unrelated to the SEO problem. The JS rewrites definitely can be tricky and depend completely on the code in question - I can't really provide a general resource.
Not sure how the alias domains tie in, but they definitely need to be part of any redirection scheme. I've used mod_rewrite for pretty large-scale stuff (as do many large sites), but it's possible to write bad/slow rules. It really depends on the scope. I'm not sure if you're talking about 100s or 1000s (10000s, etc.) of pages. Writing the rules for a big site is beyond the scope of any general Q&A. That's something your team is going to have to really dig deep into.
I feel like they might be over-thinking this one issue and trying to fix everything all at once, but I can't say that confidently without understanding the situation. I think it might be better to tackle these things one at a time.
-
Dr. Pete, Our IT manager responded to my request. Can you point me in the right direction to research these things (I am copying and poasting directly from his message): "A few items that I noticed just skimming the forums that we will
need to look at a little closer are:- Java script that is self referencing, as both tab control and the slide show are self referencing
- Alias domains which we have a number of
- HTTPS pages, which for us, is all pages depending on
when a person logs in."
I found info in the GW forum about the mod_pagespeed rewrite module and sent that to him.
He responded "We are currently using mod_rewrite to handle a number of things including 301 redirection. My experience with mod_rewrite does have me very cautious, because it is very easy to “blow up” the site. I would want to run this on the dev site for some time with a concerted testing effort to make sure we do not have issues."
Any references you can recommend would be great. Thank you so much!
-
It's just one of those things where you're always going to be wondering if the bloated code is causing problems, and it's going to drive you nuts. Fix it, and worst case, you'll rule out a cause. Some days, that's the best we can do.
-
Agreed. I worked at another company that had a 19-year-old kid split out the JS. I submitted the request. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks again!
-
I can't prove it would cause substantial improvement, but right now it's just in your way, and you'll never know. To me, that kind of clean-up is a no-brainer, because it's no risk. At worst, it cleans up the code, improves caching (and load times as you said), and makes updating easier. At best, you see measurable gains.
As a former developer and dev-team manager, I have to say, too, that it's not a tough fix to split out that JS. It would probably make the dev teams life easier down the road. If they're acting like it's a Herculean task, then either (1) they just don't want to do it, or (2) you need a better dev team.
-
Thanks Dr. Pete. The marketing team has been complaining about how far the meta tags, etc. are pushed down in our code for years. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough evidence that this is doing us any harm so it's never been a priority to fix. I believe moving those lines of JS to an external file would, if nothing else, improve our page speed wouldn't it? If our pages load faster it could impact our SEO in a positive way
Thanks again very much for your suggestions
-
Yeah, the canonical should be ok - I just wanted to make sure you had something in place. One minor thing - I'd get that up on the page - with all the JS, the canonical is down on line 436 of the source code. You'd really be better off getting all that script into external files. It shouldn't make a big ranking difference, but it won't hurt.
You do have have a dozen pages that share your home-page TITLE and META description. Some seem to be odd, near-duplicates, where others probably just have duplicate meta data. Either way, I'd clean that up. Run this query in Google to see them:
site:ccisolutions.com intitle:"Acoustics, Sound, Lighting"
...or check Webmaster Tools (or your SEOmoz campaigns). Again, it probably isn't the culprit, but it's not helping.
I'd really dig to see if anything else is going on. The timing could just be coincidence. I find it really hard to believe that the META refresh change alone harmed you, unless this is just a temporary bounce while Google sorts it out. I definitely would NOT put it back - you risk compounding the problem. People rush to reverse things, assuming that will take them back to where they were, and it rarely does. More than 70% of the time, it just makes a bigger mess.
-
Thanks Dr. Pete. Here's the scoop, and I'm happy to provide the actual URLs so you can have a real view of the source code, etc.
The meta refresh was on this URL:
it redirected to this URL:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher?iafAction=showMain
We removed the meta refresh, and put "<rel="canonical" href="<a class=" external"="" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.ccisolutions.com/" /> to the head of both URLs</rel="canonical">
Our IT Manager couldn't get a 301 redirect to work from http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher?iafAction=showMain to http://www.ccisolutions.com, but in another Q&A thread Streamline Metrics mentioned that this really shouldn't matter as long as the canonical tag is properly set up, which I think it is.
What do you think? (and thanks very much!)
-
I tend to agree that it could just be a short-term re-evaluation period, but I do understand that patience is hard to come by in these situations. I have one concern - I assume the META refresh was acting as some kind of redirect to a different URL? When you removed it, did you canonical the other URL somehow? Just removing the refresh wouldn't consolidate the link "juice" of the various URLs, so it could be that you went from one form of fragmentation to another, different form.
That's just speculation, since I don't fully understand the old/new setups. If you can provides some details with fictional URLs, we might be able to dig in deeper.
-
Yes Paul. I agree. I have seen wild fluctuations on other sites that went through big changes. I believe this is probably an example of a time when we have to hang in there and ride through "The Dip."
"Time, Patience and Intelligent Work" is my mantra....but I also have to convince my CEO that the $1,000 we just spent fixing the meta refresh was actually a good thing. Rankings sinking like this aren't helping me make my case.
If an when I hear anything from Google I'll let you and Bryan know.
I'm sure we aren't the only ones who've fixed something technical that fixed a fragmented link profile. It sure would make me feel better to hear someone say "Yes, similar thing happened to me and now we're ricking it!" LOL - well, you can't blame a girl for dreaming!
-
I'll just add, Dana, that this major a change to the site will often cause massive ranking fluctuations as the crawlers work through the site and consolidate what's going on.
Small comfort, but a week really isn't long enough for things to have settled out to the "new normal". It's a good idea to keep looking for issues, but I'd also hold my breath for another week or two (or three) to see what happens as the dust settles. I know it goes against the grain to wait & see, but in this case I really think it's warranted.
Good luck, and keep breathing
Paul
-
Thanks Bryan. Yes, I took your advice and filed a reconsideration request just now. I spelled out exactly what happened with the whole meta refresh fix. This site has so many technical SEO problems that I am just hoping that it's not a completely different problem being caused by something else. I'll let you know what/if I hear anything.
I'd sure love to hear from any other SEOs out there who've ever been in similar situations!
Thanks again.
-
Like I said it can be many factors.. Perhaps making the drastic changed looks like a spam attack...
Total External Links: Before - 2,757 After - **4,311 **
Total Internal Links: Befpre - 125 After - 3,221
Total Links: Before - 2,882 After - 7,532More then doubled the link count. If you send Google a reconsideration request they will look at your issue and probably help you solve it. -
Thanks Bryan. Yes, I checked the link profile last night. Everything looks totally normal. Interestingly, nearly all of the added links to the new link total were Internal, not External, so I don't think the quality of the links is the issue, maybe moreso the quantity.
I don't think a reconsideration request would be appropriate in this instance because we have not been de-indexed. We are just being hit hard by the algo I think.
If that is the case, I would hope that over the next few weeks, as Google sees our internal links not changing so dramatically, things will settle down.
Any additional thoughts?
-
Perhaps adding the links together ended up pointing too many or a bigger ratio of low quality or non relevant links to your site... Or maybe the anchor link profile is now over optimized, the loss can be due to many reasons... I would recommend checking the new link profile and also making sure everything looks natural. If all is well and are still not ranking, you can send Google the reconsideration request explaining what happened.
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
-
Malicious Link
Hello all, We're doing an adwords campaign, and Google has said that there is a malicious link on the website we're looking to advertise - so cannot launch the campaign. I've tried to go through Search Console (I am a novice BTW). And it says that "Domain properties are not supported at this time". Which I don't understand. Any advice please?!
Technical SEO | | PartisanMCR0 -
My site was hacked and spammy URLs were injected that pointed out. The issue was fixed, but GWT is still reporting more of these links.
Excuse me for posting this here, I wasn't having much luck going through GWT support. We recently moved our eCommerce site to a new server and in the process the site was hacked. Spammy URLs were injected in, all of which were pointing outwards to some spammy eCommerce retail stores. I removed ~4,000 of these links, but more continue to pile in. As you can see, there are now over 20,000 of these links. Note that our server support team does not see these links anywhere. I understand that Google doesn't generally view this as a problem. But is that true given my circumstance? I cannot imagine that 20,000 new, senseless 404's can be healthy for my website. If I can't get a good response here, would anyone know of a direct Google support email or number I can use for this issue?
Technical SEO | | jampaper0 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
Hot Linking
We recently noticed that our website www.efurniturehouse.com is being hot linked by axsoris.com a Dutch website with many malware issue. Any suggestions how to proceed? Thanks in advance Tony
Technical SEO | | OCFurniture1 -
How do I remove Links to my website???
Hi Guys, Please can anyone help!! Can anyone tell me how on earth I can remove links to my website? My website has been hit by the new penguin update and the company that was doing my SEO seems to have built a lot of spammy links!! How can I remove these links??? Please can anyone help Thanks Gareth
Technical SEO | | GAZ090 -
How do you take down a link
Salut from Sunny wetherby UK 🙂 Having just watched a whiteboard fri clip all about the "Penguin Update" i want to know how to take down a link. I feel a site ive been working on has been pecked by the penguin. I did build inbound links on a specific commercial term and shiver me timbers is dropped oof the SERPS from top 5 to ziltch, yiles!! So my questiuon is please:
Technical SEO | | Nightwing
if you find an inbound link using a target term how do you kill it? Thanks in advance :_)0 -
External Links from own domain
Hi all, I have a very weird question about external links to our site from our own domain. According to GWMT we have 603,404,378 links from our own domain to our domain (see screen 1) We noticed when we drilled down that this is from disabled sub-domains like m.jump.co.za. In the past we used to redirect all traffic from sub-domains to our primary www domain. But it seems that for some time in the past that google had access to crawl some of our sub-domains, but in december 2010 we fixed this so that all sub-domain traffic redirects (301) to our primary domain. Example http://m.jump.co.za/search/ipod/ redirected to http://www.jump.co.za/search/ipod/ The weird part is that the number of external links kept on growing and is now sitting on a massive number. On 8 April 2011 we took a different approach and we created a landing page for m.jump.co.za and all other requests generated 404 errors. We added all the directories to the robots.txt and we also manually removed all the directories from GWMT. Now 3 weeks later, and the number of external links just keeps on growing: Here is some stats: 11-Apr-11 - 543 747 534 12-Apr-11 - 554 066 716 13-Apr-11 - 554 066 716 14-Apr-11 - 554 066 716 15-Apr-11 - 521 528 014 16-Apr-11 - 515 098 895 17-Apr-11 - 515 098 895 18-Apr-11 - 515 098 895 19-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 20-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 21-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 26-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 27-Apr-11 - 520 404 181 28-Apr-11 - 603 404 378 I am now thinking of cleaning the robots.txt and re-including all the excluded directories from GWMT and to see if google will be able to get rid of all these links. What do you think is the best solution to get rid of all these invalid pages. moz1.PNG moz2.PNG moz3.PNG
Technical SEO | | JacoRoux0 -
Google rankings tanked....Now what?
We just experience a drop in Google rankings, some pretty harsh, across all of the keywords we have been ranking greater than 50. I’m a noob at SEO, but a technical noob so I started doing my home work. I’ve seen references to the “google dance” and “Honeymoon”, but this hit seems to have effected competitors too. Everyone seems re-ranked with several junk directories jumping up more than I think they should. Has anyone else seen this? Is this more Google algorithm adjustment or a natural settling based on our new SEO attempts? In either case, what should we do next? I know there is a holistic approach and everything is important however, we need bang for the buck at this point to before we start bleeding. One or two next steps? Our industry is residential cleaning and the site is www.bitabliss.com Here is a little history:
Technical SEO | | BitABliss
The site that’s been running for about 2 years. We initially put up a very basic “throw something up” site without much thought of SEO except for some basics and a long tail approach with a blog, FaceBook and Twitter. We launched an updated site on Feb 23. with new theme and this time some, “on page” work to better hit the basics. The site structure was kept the same and we added on some more localized content in hopes to take advantage of local searches. Also, enter SEOMoz to get us tracking things (Yay MOZ). Until yesterday, we had been doing pretty well in some of our target cites even with the more basic site. When we launched the new site focusing on page titles, descriptions and page content, and a few directory attempts. We started to see some incremental growth. It seemed to me that this kind of growth meant that we were doing the right things and doing a better job than some of the other sites. Any way, yesterday we got smacked down. This seems too harsh for a for the slow increases we have seen over the last month. Any thoughts you have would be great appreciated. Thanks! -Shawn1