Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Wistia vs. YouTube
-
Hello, Mozzers! Sorry if I've missed a thread on this, but I didn't find anything after searching for a while...
I've used Wistia for years - LOVE the service and the company! Had great luck getting Rich Snippets, ranked well... until the recent Google change. Now all of my Wistia thumbnails have disappeared (though my rankings have stayed strong, thank goodness!) M question is, does it make sense to now embed YouTube videos on our site, and to create a video sitemap with those pages, with the hope that Google will rank the page better than it otherwise would have, knowing that there is valuable (video) content on the page? This is new videos, I'm not thinking of replacing my Wistia videos at this time.
I'll probably need to clarify as I see your responses, since this is a tricky set of interrelated decisions. Thanks for any thoughts that anyone may have!
~ Scott
-
Seems like Google is leaning toward favoring YouTube content with the removal of Rich Snippets. If you can get the same SEO benefit using a video site map and embedding YouTube videos instead, why not have your website visitors increase your YouTube video view counts and possibly add subscribers while you're at it.
-
Makes total sense! I hoped that having a page that ranks well already due to solid content, might get a slight lift by having a relevant video on it as well. Thanks again for your help!
-
Having rich media types (i.e. images, video, interactive elements) does appear to correlate slightly with higher rankings, but at best it's going to be a minor ranking signal at best. I don't think having video on a page is necessarily a good signal that a page has value, since there isn't a barrier to entry to embed YouTube videos and there are a lot of very low quality sites out there that just exist to scrape and embed YouTube videos.
In short, no I wouldn't suggest moving to YouTube on the basis of SEO generally - though obviously it's hard for me to offer any more specific advice without further context.
Start by working out A) if your content will be valuable to an audience who find it through YouTube search/recommended videos B) What your main goals are for each of your videos.
Cheers,
Phil.
-
Phil - wow, I'm honored to have a direct response from you! I've been impressed by what I've heard / read from you over the years!
Yeah, I didn't mean to imply that simply sticking a YouTube video on a page would cause it to rank higher (as Google owns YouTube), but that having video content on a page can be a signal that the page has more value, than a page without video content at all. That would be true, right? (This assumes, of course, that the video content aligns with the text of the page, and is perceived to add value to the user experience - always comes first, I realize!!)
The main question in my mind is this: in the past, I used Wistia videos in order to get Rich Snippets, which seemed to get better click-throughs from the SERP than non-rich-snippet entries. I couldn't use YouTube to get Rich Snippets, since they weren't self-hosted. Now that I'm not getting Rich Snippets at all, I'm trying to decide whether to start using YouTube instead.
Thanks so much for your help - I look forward to reading your blog post tomorrow! ~ Scott
-
Hey Scott,
So I'm actually going to go one better here to try to respond to this question adequately and am going to write a blog post which will be published on the Moz blog tomorrow at this URL - http://moz.com/blog/video-seo-post-rich-snippets
Hopefully this post will shed some light on the choices you're facing and the decisions you should make. However, I did want to just quickly cover off one misunderstanding with this issue.
Embedding YouTube videos won't make your own pages rank higher compared with ranking videos from other providers. Just because Google owns YouTube doesn't mean ranking benefit is given to sites which embed YouTube videos (do you know how many terrible scraper sites are out there?!) in just the same way sites are not given preference for using Google AdSense on their site as opposed to other advertising platforms (in fact - Panda was designed to penalise those sites which are there just to generate ad revenue without provide value).
The decision about whether to move from Wistia should not be based on whether you will rank higher or not, since neither option will fundamentally make a difference. It may end up being wise, in your instance, to start using YouTube - but only if you can see benefit to having an audience watch the videos on YouTube.com and subsequently not visit your site.
Determine what the best user experience will be - and you'll probably end up with the right strategic answer.
Cheers,
Phil.
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
-
Fresh backlinks vs old backlinks: A solid ranking factor?
Hi Moz community, Backlinks being a major ranking factor, do they must be very recent or fresh to make a ranking difference compared to the backlinks which are years old? We know usually fresh content ranks well, but I wonder how much the fresh/recent backlinks impact in rankings. Do the years old backlinks from related and reputed website have same impact on rankings? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Flat Structure URL vs Structured Sub-directory URL
We are finally taking our classifieds site forward and moving into a much improved URL structure, however, there is some disagreement over whether to go with a Flat URL structure or a structured sub-directory. I've browsed all of the posts and Q&A's for this going back to 2011, and still don't feel like I have a real answer. Has anyone tested this yet, or is there any consensus over ranking? I am in a disagreement with another SEO manager about this for our proposed URL structure redesign who is for it because it is what our competitors are doing. Our classifieds are geographically based, and we group by state, county, and city. Most of our traffic comes from state and county based searches. We also would like to integrate categories into the URL for some of the major search terms we see. The disagreement arises around how to structure the site. I prefer the logical sub-directory style: [sitename]/[category]/[state]/[county]/
Algorithm Updates | | newspore
mysite.com/for-sale/california/kern-county/
or
[sitename]/[category]/[county]-county-[stateabb]/
mysite.com/for-sale/kern-county-ca/ I don't mind the second, except for when you look at it in the context of the whole site: Geo Landing Pages:
mysite.com/california/
mysite.com/los-angeles-ca-90210/ Actual Search Pages:
mysite.com/for-sale/orange-ca/[filters] Detail Pages:
mysite.com/widget-type/cool-product-name/productid I want to make sure this flat structure performs better before sacrificing my analytics sanity (and ordered logic). Any case studies, tests or real data around this would be most helpful, someone at Moz must've tackled this by now!0 -
Numbers vs #'s For Blog Titles
For your blog post titles, is it "better" to use numbers or write them out? For example, 3 Things I love About People Answering My Constant Questions or Three Things I Love About People Answering My Constant Questions? I could see this being like the attorney/lawyer, ecommerce/e-commerce and therefore not a big deal. But, I also thought you should avoid using #'s in your url's. Any thoughts, Ruben
Algorithm Updates | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Homepage Index vs Home vs Default?
Should your home page be www.yoursite.com/index.htm or home.htm or default.htm on an apache server? Someone asked me this, and I have no idea. On our wordpress site, I have never even seen this come up, but according to my friend, every homepage HAS to be one of those three. So my question is which one is best for an apache server site AND does it actually have to be one of those three? Thanks, Ruben
Algorithm Updates | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
KML File vs. KMZ File
When should you use a KMZ file? What are the benefits to using a KMZ file as opposed to just a standalone KML file?
Algorithm Updates | | RezStream80 -
Plural vs non-plural domain name
I'm sure this question has been answered and asked a 1,000 different ways but what would be the best domain name to use in the long term (2 years +)? The plural versions (examples.com) which has a decent domain authority and is ranking 1st in Google search results yet has less search volume or the singular version (example.com) that has no current SEO value for the search term that we'd like to target however the singular version of the keyword has a much higher search volume? so basically will it be better to have the exact match that has more volume or the plural form that has better rankings after 2 years of doing SEO for each domain? My guess is that using (examples.com) with the better domain authority and tightening the grip on its dominance in Google will still be more effective than having the exact match domain with more search volume for that keyword while performing the same amount of SEO even after two years. Any suggestions?
Algorithm Updates | | ydop0 -
Is a slash just as good as buying a country specific domain? .com/de vs .de
I guess this question comes in a few parts: 1. Would Google read a 2-letter country code that is after the domain name (after the slash) and recognize it as a location (targeting that country)? Or does is just read it as it would a word. eg. www.marketing.com/de for a microsite for the Germans www.marketing.com/fr for a microsite for the French Or would it read the de and fr as words (not locations) in the url. In which case, would it have worse SEO (as people would tend to search "marketing france" not "marketing fr")? 2. Which is better for SEO and rankings? Separate country specific domains: www.marketing.de and www.marketing.fr OR the use of subfolders in the url: www.marketing.com/de and www.marketing.com/fr
Algorithm Updates | | richardstrange0 -
Singular vs plural SEO
Hi everyone, OK I've been looking at the Google adwords keyword tool and it's thrown some of my On-page SEO into question (everything said here are examples, I haven't used any real life terms or figures). Lets say my page is about "Green Apples", let's say the keyword tool shows that the singular version "Green Apple" gets more searches (as an example). Should I optimize for the singular or the plural? Also lets say my title tag for that page is "Green Apples | Apples Galore UK" would Google/SEOmoz count that as an optimisation for the singular "Green Apple" or do the search engines take the title literally and don't differenciate between singular and plurals? Thanks in advance everyone! Regards, Ash
Algorithm Updates | | AshSEO20112