Transactional vs Informative Search
-
I have a page that id ranking quiet good (Page1) for the plural of a Keyword but it is just ranking on Page 3 for the Singular Keyword. For more then one Year I am working on Onpage and Offpage optimization to improve ranking for the singular term, without success.
Google is treating the two terms almost the same, when you search for term one also term 2 is marked in bold and the results are very similar.
The big difference between both terms is in my opinion that one is more for informational search the other one is more for transactional search.
Now i would be curious to know which factors could Google use to understand weather a search and a website is more transactional or informative?
Apart of mentioning: Buy now, Shop, Buy now, Shop, Special offer etc.
Any Ideas?
-
Hi,
Ya i am agree with you that there is big difference between both the search transactional and informational search. Can you share with me your both keyword which provides you similar result??
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
-
Best Practice Approaches to Canonicals vs. Indexing in Google Sitemap vs. No Follow Tags
Hi There, I am working on the following website: https://wave.com.au/ I have become aware that there are different pages that are competing for the same keywords. For example, I just started to update a core, category page - Anaesthetics (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/) to focus mainly around the keywords ‘Anaesthetist Jobs’. But I have recognized that there are ongoing landing pages that contain pretty similar content: https://wave.com.au/anaesthetists/ https://wave.com.au/asa/ We want to direct organic traffic to our core pages e.g. (https://wave.com.au/job-specialties/anaesthetics/). This then leads me to have to deal with the duplicate pages with either a canonical link (content manageable) or maybe alternatively adding a no-follow tag or updating the robots.txt. Our resident developer also suggested that it might be good to use Google Index in the sitemap to tell Google that these are of less value? What is the best approach? Should I add a canonical link to the landing pages pointing it to the category page? Or alternatively, should I use the Google Index? Or even another approach? Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Wavelength_International0 -
Search function rendering cached pages incorrectly
On a category page the products are listed via/in connection with the search function on the site. Page source and front-end match as they should. However when viewing a browser rendered version of a google cached page the URL for the product has changed from, as an example - https://www.example.com/products/some-product to https://www.example.com/search/products/some-product The source is a relative URL in the correct format, so therefore /search/ is added at browser rendering. The developer insists that this is ok as the query string in the Google cache page result URL is triggering the behaviour, confusing the search function - all locally. I can see this but just wanted feedback that internally Google will only ever see the true source or will it's internal rendering mechanism possibly trigger similar behaviour?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MickEdwards1 -
Product search URLs with parameters and pagination issues - how should I deal with them?
Hello Mozzers - I am looking at a site that deals with URLs that generate parameters (sadly unavoidable in the case of this website, with the resource they have available - none for redevelopment) - they deal with the URLs that include parameters with *robots.txt - e.g. Disallow: /red-wines/? ** Beyond that, they userel=canonical on every PAGINATED parameter page[such as https://wine****.com/red-wines/?region=rhone&minprice=10&pIndex=2] in search results.** I have never used this method on paginated "product results" pages - Surely this is the incorrect use of canonical because these parameter pages are not simply duplicates of the main /red-wines/ page? - perhaps they are using it in case the robots.txt directive isn't followed, as sometimes it isn't - to guard against the indexing of some of the parameter pages??? I note that Rand Fishkin has commented: "“a rel=canonical directive on paginated results pointing back to the top page in an attempt to flow link juice to that URL, because “you'll either misdirect the engines into thinking you have only a single page of results or convince them that your directives aren't worth following (as they find clearly unique content on those pages).” **- yet I see this time again on ecommerce sites, on paginated result - any idea why? ** Now the way I'd deal with this is: Meta robots tags on the parameter pages I don't want indexing (nofollow, noindex - this is not duplicate content so I would nofollow but perhaps I should follow?)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart
Use rel="next" and rel="prev" links on paginated pages - that should be enough. Look forward to feedback and thanks in advance, Luke0 -
Unnatural Links Warning Disappeared from Search Console Account
Hello all, In 2013 I had an Unnatural Links Warning message in my GWT account. I believe that it was a result of the work of an old SEO company. When I received the warning I was working with an SEO. He helped me clean up some links. He also uploaded a disavow file for me. He did not file a reconsideration request. He told me that it was not necessary at the time. The message disappeared from my account. A few months ago a similar message appeared in the manual accounts section of my account. I gathered inbound links from GWT, Majestic, etc. I went through them myself and tried to contact lots and lots of webmasters. I got many links cleaned up. I spent several months on this project. I just logged into my Search Console account this afternoon and clicked through everything and guess what... that manual penalty message is gone. So... what does that mean? I assume that I should still upload the disavow file for the sites that did not respond to me that are spammy. Should I still try to file a reconsideration request even though there doesn't seem to be a manual penalty? How should I proceed? Thanks. Melissa
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pajamalady0 -
How do yo get local SEO to show up on search results
I am looking at an example of search results that displays the image below. I wanted to have the local address to the right of my website. How do I have something like this? qGJ6EBc
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | herlamba0 -
Search instead of 404 - Vtex Brazil
Vtex in one of the best e-commerce in Brazil and I´ve just find out they transform any 404 page in a search page. Polishop ( http://www.polishop.com.br/ ) is one of their clientes and if you try to search any page it will never return a 404 error because convert any url in a search. Example: http://www.polishop.com.br/12345678 - 200: HTTP/1.1 200 OK ( it does not return a 404 code) I´m a little bit confused if this good or not... what do you think moz experts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SeoMartin10 -
Location appearing on search result. how can this be achieved?
I'm pretty sure this site is not doing any SEO but i think what made them no. 1 is the location. I already tried adding a google publisher tag to my site that points to my google page which contains my address but i still can't have the location appear.. here's a screenshot of the search result that i want to achieve: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tbdv3121rrs6zp5/Screen Shot 2013-04-15 at 9.39.30 AM.png Screen%20Shot%202013-04-15%20at%209.39.30%20AM.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | optimind0 -
Factors that affect Google.com vs .ca
Though my company is based in Canada, we have a .com URL, we're hosted on servers in the U.S., and most of our customers are in the U.S. Our marketing efforts are focused on the U.S. Heck, we even drop the "u" in "colour" and "favour"! 🙂 Nonetheless we rank very well in Google.ca, and rather poorly on Google.com. One hypothesis is that we have more backlinks from .ca domains than .com, but I don't believe that to be true. For sure, the highest quality links we have come from .coms like NYTimes.com. Any suggestions on how we can improve the .com rankings, other than keeping on with the link building?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RobM4161