Your advice regarding thin content would be really appreciated
-
Hi guys,
I have embarked on a new site creation. The site is being created from scratch and very custom.
Basically the site allows people to review certain products and services.
If each review completed by users is seen as a seperate page by google ... is this considered deceptive or a likelihood of being slapped with a thin content penalty?
Basically 1 product may have hundreds of reviews naturally over time. Some may be really short and some may be longer.
the reason why i would like the user reviews to be seen as seperate pages is because I want google to understand that people are regularly interacting with the main content page.
Any advice in this area would be really appreciated.
-
"You are better off putting up a separate review page for every review that page gets but still, I would choose putting it on the same page to take full advantage of it."
Yep this is exactly what I want to do. Sounds like Laura's idea is amazing and I need to do some more research on how to design a page to act in this way.
Thanks heaps guys!
-
Actually the way amazon allows users to review products is very similar to the way i want mine set up.
So there is a main product page (like amazon) and reviews below it... what is this 'overflow' you speak of? can you kindly provide any direction?
-
So if I understood this correctly:
- You want to assign a new page per review
- You fear that it's thin content
If so, then it is thin. Very thin.
Google will know if you update your page, much like how pages get new comments.
You are better off putting up a separate review page for every review that page gets but still, I would choose putting it on the same page to take full advantage of it.
Laura's suggestion of doing overflows like amazon is also a good one. Pretty brilliant actually. I would've forgotten about that.
-
Hi Irdeto -
I'm not sure I understand how putting each review on a separate page would make Google think that there is more interaction on the product page (am I getting that right?)
Having each review as a separate page is potentially indeed very thin. It also sounds like a horrible user experience. Review text will add more rich text to the product page, which is great. Can you limit the reviews on a page to x reviews and then come up with a system for the overflow (potentially a product reviews page (vs the main product page) like Amazon?
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
-
Content suggestions
Hi, In moz pro you get content suggestions. I was wondering if you can still rank if the topics you cover for a specific keyword on your page are not listed there ? I guess the key is that all the topics covered are related to each other, correct ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Possible duplicate content issue
Hi, Here is a rather detailed overview of our problem, any feedback / suggestions is most welcome. We currently have 6 sites targeting the various markets (countries) we operate in all websites are on one wordpress install but are separate sites in a multisite network, content and structure is pretty much the same barring a few regional differences. The UK site has held a pretty strong position in search engines the past few years. Here is where we have the problem. Our strongest page (from an organic point of view) has dropped off the search results completely for Google.co.uk, we've picked this up through a drop in search visibility in SEMRush, and confirmed this by looking at our organic landing page traffic in Google Analytics and Search Analytics in Search Console. Here are a few of the assumptions we've made and things we've checked: Checked for any Crawl or technical issues, nothing serious found Bad backlinks, no new spammy backlinks Geotarggetting, this was fine for the UK site, however the US site a .com (not a cctld) was not set to the US (we suspect this to be the issue, but more below) On-site issues, nothing wrong here - the page was edited recently which coincided with the drop in traffic (more below), but these changes did not impact things such as title, h1, url or body content - we replaced some call to action blocks from a custom one to one that was built into the framework (Div) Manual or algorithmic penalties: Nothing reported by search console HTTPs change: We did transition over to http at the start of june. The sites are not too big (around 6K pages) and all redirects were put in place. Here is what we suspect has happened, the https change triggered google to re-crawl and reindex the whole site (we anticipated this), during this process, an edit was made to the key page, and through some technical fault the page title was changed to match the US version of the page, and because geotargetting was not turned on for the US site, Google filtered out the duplicate content page on the UK site, there by dropping it off the index. What further contributes to this theory is that a search of Google.co.uk returns the US version of the page. With country targeting on (ie only return pages from the UK) that UK version of the page is not returned. Also a site: query from google.co.uk DOES return the Uk version of that page, but with the old US title. All these factors leads me to believe that its a duplicate content filter issue due to incorrect geo-targetting - what does surprise me is that the co.uk site has much more search equity than the US site, so it was odd that it choose to filter out the UK version of the page. What we have done to counter this is as follows: Turned on Geo targeting for US site Ensured that the title of the UK page says UK and not US Edited both pages to trigger a last modified date and so the 2 pages share less similarities Recreated a site map and resubmitted to Google Re-crawled and requested a re-index of the whole site Fixed a few of the smaller issues If our theory is right and our actions do help, I believe its now a waiting game for Google to re-crawl and reindex. Unfortunately, Search Console is still only showing data from a few days ago, so its hard to tell if there has been any changes in the index. I am happy to wait it out, but you can appreciate that some of snr management are very nervous given the impact of loosing this page and are keen to get a second opinion on the matter. Does the Moz Community have any further ideas or insights on how we can speed up the indexing of the site? Kind regards, Jason
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Clickmetrics0 -
Publishing pages with thin content, update later?
So I have about 285 pages I created with very, very thin content on each. Each is unique, and each serves its own purpose. My question is, do you guys think it is wise to publish all of these at once to just get them out there and update each as we go along? Each page is very laser targeted and I anticipate that a large handful will actually rank soon after publishing. Thanks! Tom
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TomBinga11250 -
Rotating content = Google Penalty?
Hi all. We have an ecommerce site which features various product sections. In each section you might have 60 products each displayed neatly in pages of 10. We recently added functionality, so that if a product is out of stock, it will automatically drop that product to the back of the list and bring another in stock one forward. We're just worried that Google will view the same information, repeatedly rotating on the first page of 10 products (the page that ranks) and think we're in some way trying to trick Google into thinking the content is fresh? Does anyone have a throw on this? Is it likely to penalise us? Thank you!!! Ben
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bnknowles10 -
An Unfair Content related penalty :(
Hi Guys, Google.com.au
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jarrodb
website: http://partysuppliesnow.com.au/ We had a massive drop in search queries in WMT around the 11th of september this year, I investigated and it seemed as though there were no updates around this time. Our site is only receiving branded search now - and after investigating i am led to believe that Google has mistakingly affected our website in the panda algorithm. There are no manual penalties applies on this site as confirmed by WMT. Our product descriptions are pretty much all unique but i have noticed that when typing a portion of text from these pages into google search using quotation marks, shopping affiliate sites which we use are being displayed first and our page no where to be seen or last in the results. This leads me to believe that Google thinks we have scraped the content from these sites when in actual fact they have from us. We also have G+ authorship setup. Typing a products full name into Google (tried a handful) our site is not in the top 100 or 200 at times, i think this further clarifies that we are penalised. We would really appreciate some opinions on this. Any course of actions would be great. We don't particularly want to invest in writing content again. From our point of view it looks like Google is stopping our site from ranking because it's getting mixed up with who the originator for our content is. Thanks and really appreciate it.0 -
Front end content optimisation query
One of my sites is installing Strange Loop, a front end content optimisation platform. Does anyone have any advice when dealing with this type of implementation or pitfalls that I need to look out for. Even just a headsup on some reading material would be good. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BenFox0 -
Image and Content Management
My boss has decided that on our new website we are building, that he wants all content and images managed by not allowing copying content and/or saving images. Some of the information and images is proprietary, yet most is available for public viewing, but never the less, he wants it prohibited from copy and/or saving. We would still want to keep the content indexable and use appropriate alt tags etc... I wanted to find out if there is any SEO reason and facts to why this would not be a good idea?Would implementing code to prohibit (or at least make it difficult) to save images and copy content, penalize us?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KJ-Rodgers0 -
Subdomains - duplicate content - robots.txt
Our corporate site provides MLS data to users, with the end goal of generating leads. Each registered lead is assigned to an agent, essentially in a round robin fashion. However we also give each agent a domain of their choosing that points to our corporate website. The domain can be whatever they want, but upon loading it is immediately directed to a subdomain. For example, www.agentsmith.com would be redirected to agentsmith.corporatedomain.com. Finally, any leads generated from agentsmith.easystreetrealty-indy.com are always assigned to Agent Smith instead of the agent pool (by parsing the current host name). In order to avoid being penalized for duplicate content, any page that is viewed on one of the agent subdomains always has a canonical link pointing to the corporate host name (www.corporatedomain.com). The only content difference between our corporate site and an agent subdomain is the phone number and contact email address where applicable. Two questions: Can/should we use robots.txt or robot meta tags to tell crawlers to ignore these subdomains, but obviously not the corporate domain? If question 1 is yes, would it be better for SEO to do that, or leave it how it is?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EasyStreet0