AMP pages - should we be creating AMP versions of all site pages?
-
Hi all,
Just wondering what people's opinions are on AMP pages - having seen the Google demo of how AMP pages will be given visibility on page one of Google for news-based content, do you think it is worth considering creating AMP versions of all pages, ready for when Google expands its inclusion of these super-fast pages?
-
Hi,
This is a good question; for now my answer would be no, I wouldn't bother with rolling it out to non-news pages at the moment. Right now it's only for news/article pages, and if you do have any of that content on your site, it would certainly be worth rolling it out to those, but we don't know how it will play out.
Although it is likely that we could see it roll out further in the near future, for now I think you're best off simply improving other areas (including mobile-related things like mobile-friendliness of the UX and site speed) until we see what direction Google ends up taking this in.
-
Hi
It really depends, so far they are really focusing on bringing article and news kind of posts to AMP, and it's the same currently with Facebook Instant Articles. And all the development around both seems to be still focused on this for at least the next 3-6 months I'd say. I'm assuming at some point they'll switch to supporting more though.
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
-
Googles Search Intent – Plural & Singular KW’s
This is more of a ‘gripe’ than a question, but I would love to hear people’s views. Typically, when you search for a product using the singular and plural versions of the keyword Google delivers different SERPs. As an example, ‘leather handbag’ and ‘leather handbags’ return different results, but surely the search intent is exactly the same? You’d have thought Google was now clever enough to work this out. We tend to optimise our webpages for both the plural and singular variations of the KW’s, but see a mixed bag of results when analysing rankings. Is Google trying to force us to create a unique webpage for the singular version, and another unique webpage for the plural version? This would confuse the visitor, and make no sense.. the search intent is the same! How do you combat this problem? Many thanks in advance. Lee.
Algorithm Updates | | Webpresence0 -
Do pages with canonicals need meta data?
Page A has a canonical to Page B. Should Page A have meta data values such as description, keywords, dublin core values, etc.? If yes, should the meta data values be different on Page A and Page B?
Algorithm Updates | | Shirley.Fenlason1 -
Are links from inside duplicate content on a 3rd party site pointing back to you worthwhile.
In our niche there are lots of specialist 'profile / portfolio' sites were we can upload content (usually project case studies. These are often quite big and active networks and can drive decent traffic and provide links from high ranking pages. The issue im a bit stuck on is - because they are profile / portfolio based usually its the same content uploaded to each site. But im beginning to get the feeling that these links from within duplicate content although from high ranking sites are not having an effect. Im about to embark on a campaign to re rewrite each of our portfolio items (each one c. 400 words c. 10 times) for each different site, but before i do i wandered if any one has had any experience / a point of view on with wether Google is not valuing links from within duplicate content (bare in mind these arnt spam sites, and are very reputable, mainly because once you submit the content it gets reviewed prior to going live). And wether a unique rewrite of the content solves this issue.
Algorithm Updates | | Sam-P0 -
Penguin 3.0 Site Dropped after Update
Hi We was hit by the Penguin update a long time ago and we lost a lot of traffic/positions because of this. For a long time we worked really hard to identify all off our links that may have caused us to recieve this penalty. After Months of work we submitted the disavow file and reconsideration request and in June 2014 we recieved confirmation from google in webmaster tools that the manual spam action had been revoked. over time we then started to recieve more traffic and better positions in the serps, however since penguin 3.0 we have dropped again for a range of keywords. many going from page 1 to 2 or page 2 to 3/4 Any ideas what we should do here , any help will be really appriciated as I'm totally confused We havent done any link building at all since the penalty / recovery
Algorithm Updates | | AMG1000 -
Crosslinking & Managing Multiple Domains in Same Webmaster Tool's Account
I am wondering if there are any consequences if you manage multiple websites in the same Webmaster Tool's account and cross link between them? My guess is that this would be a very easy thing for Google to detect and build into their algorithms. Hence affect the link juice from those domains that are owned by the same person. I am looking for verification on this. Thanks, Joe
Algorithm Updates | | csamsojo0 -
Impact of recent On Page Optimisation changes had negative impact !
Hi I recently updated some page titles, H1 tags & on page content which overall has seen search results slip down following the first site crawl by google I assume. My question is, should I try to get back the rankings and test and change one thing at a time to see the impact right now or should i wait for a period of time for it to settle down once goggle has crawled the site a few times or will the subsequent crawls have no impact? Thanks Ash
Algorithm Updates | | AshShep10 -
How do you block incoming links to your site?
With the new update to google focusing on link spam and multiple anchor text ? If you have incoming links that you would like to block or make no follow?
Algorithm Updates | | HelpingHandNetwork1 -
Big site SEO: To maintain html sitemaps, or scrap them in the era of xml?
We have dynamically updated xml sitemaps which we feed to Google et al. Our xml sitemap is updated constantly, and takes minimal hands on management to maintain. However we still have an html version (which we link to from our homepage), a legacy from back in the pre-xml days. As this html version is static we're finding it contains a lot of broken links and is not of much use to anyone. So my question is this - does Google (or any other search engine) still need both, or are xml sitemaps enough?
Algorithm Updates | | linklater0