Devaluing certain content to push better content forward
-
Hi all, I'm new to Moz, but hoping to learn a lot from it in hopes of growing my business. I have a pretty specific question and hope to get some feedback on how to proceed with some changes to my website. First off, I'm a landscape and travel photographer. My website is at http://www.mickeyshannon.com - you can see that the navigation quickly spreads out to different photo galleries based on location. So if a user was looking for photos from California, they would find galleries for Lake Tahoe, Big Sur, the Redwoods and San Francisco. At this point, there are probably 600-800 photos on my website. At last half of these are either older or just not quite up to par with the quality I'm starting to feel like I should produce. I've been contemplating dumbing down the galleries, and not having it break down so far. So instead of four sub-galleries of California, there would just be one California gallery. In some cases, where there are lots of good images in a location, I would probably keep the sub-galleries, but only if there were dozens of images to work with. In the description of each photo, the exact location is already mentioned, so I'm not sure there's a huge need for these sub-galleries except where there's still tons of good photos to work with.
I've been contemplating building a sort of search archive. Where the best of my photos would live in the main galleries, and if a user didn't find what they were looking for, they could go and search the archives for older photos. That way they're still around for licensing purposes, etc. while the best of the best are pushed to the front for those buying fine art prints, etc. These pages for these search archives would probably need to be de-valued somehow, so that the main galleries would be more important SEO-wise. So for the California galleries, four sub-galleries of perhaps 10 images each would become one main California gallery with perhaps 15 images. The other 25 images would be thrown in the search archive and could be searched by keyword.
The question I have - does this sound like a good plan, or will I really be killing my site when it comes to SEO by making such a large change? My end goal would be to push my better content to the front, while scaling back a lot of the excess. Hopefully I explained this question well. If not, I can try to elaborate further!
Thanks,
Mickey
-
Thanks Rob! That helps a lot. I've been considering beefing up copy content on some of the pages (especially the gallery pages). This kind of gives me a direction to move towards. Devaluing was probably a bad word to use. I mainly just wanted the better content pushed forward without having to actually delete anything. Thanks for the help and also the kind comments on the photography!
Mickey
-
Hi Mickey,
I took a look at your site - first let me say you have some pretty great shots there!
But on to SEO. I think I understand what you're saying you want to do with the site. Really, this comes down to site architecture and the issue you are going to have is that a lot of your pages will be very photo-heavy, meaning you will have very little content to work with while simultaneously struggling against duplicate content penalties because you will have to rely on alt-tags to label your content.
For me, your best bet would be to institute several category pages to lead off your main page and have them showcase some text-based content. For example, writing a small bio (300-500 words) on the location and targeting geo-specific keywords (i.e. California photography). Create these pages for what you want to rank for. If you don't want too many words showing up on a page, you can institute an accordion design so users have to click certain blocks for the content to appear. This still allows search engines to crawl the content, however.
For other pages you don't want ranking, you can place a link leading from your category pages to follow-up pages which feature the images you are less fond of. You can do the same with your search archive. The end result would be something like:
Home Page
-> Category Page -> Search Archive/Secondary Photos
-> Category Page -> Search Archive/Secondary Photos
-> Category Page -> Search Archive/Secondary PhotosThis will place your premium content directly in front of your visitors and will help with ranking after you place textual content on the pages. It also does not involve any "de-valuing" of content on your site - just moves in the positive direction.
Hope this helps with your question and let me know if you need any further clarification.
Best of luck!
Rob
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
-
Duplicate content, although page has "noindex"
Hello, I had an issue with some pages being listed as duplicate content in my weekly Moz report. I've since discussed it with my web dev team and we decided to stop the pages from being crawled. The web dev team added this coding to the pages <meta name='robots' content='max-image-preview:large, noindex dofollow' />, but the Moz report is still reporting the pages as duplicate content. Note from the developer "So as far as I can see we've added robots to prevent the issue but maybe there is some subtle change that's needed here. You could check in Google Search Console to see how its seeing this content or you could ask Moz why they are still reporting this and see if we've missed something?" Any help much appreciated!
Technical SEO | | rj_dale0 -
Home page duplicate content...
Hello all! I've just downloaded my first Moz crawl CSV and I noticed that the home page appears twice - one with an appending forward slash at the end: http://www.example.com
Technical SEO | | LiamMcArthur
http://www.example.com/ For any of my product and category pages that encounter this problem - it's automatically resolved with a canonical tag. Should I create the same canonical tag for my home page? rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com" />0 -
Duplicate content problem
Hi there, I have a couple of related questions about the crawl report finding duplicate content: We have a number of pages that feature mostly media - just a picture or just a slideshow - with very little text. These pages are rarely viewed and they are identified as duplicate content even though the pages are indeed unique to the user. Does anyone have an opinion about whether or not we'd be better off to just remove them since we do not have the time to add enough text at this point to make them unique to the bots? The other question is we have a redirect for any 404 on our site that follows the pattern immigroup.com/news/* - the redirect merely sends the user back to immigroup.com/news. However, Moz's crawl seems to be reading this as duplicate content as well. I'm not sure why that is, but is there anything we can do about this? These pages do not exist, they just come from someone typing in the wrong url or from someone clicking on a bad link. But we want the traffic - after all the users are landing on a page that has a lot of content. Any help would be great! Thanks very much! George
Technical SEO | | canadageorge0 -
Duplicate Content Question
I have a client that operates a local service-based business. They are thinking of expanding that business to another geographic area (a drive several hours away in an affluent summer vacation area). The name of the existing business contains the name of the city, so it would not be well-suited to market 'City X' business in 'City Y'. My initial thought was to (for the most part) 'duplicate' the existing site onto a new site (brand new root domain). Much of the content would be the exact same. We could re-word some things so there aren't entire lengthy paragraphs of identical info, but it seems pointless to completely reinvent the wheel. We'll get as creative as possible, but certain things just wouldn't change. This seems like the most pragmatic thing to do given their goals, but I'm worried about duplicate content. It doesn't feel as though this is spammy though, so I'm not sure if there's cause for concern.
Technical SEO | | stevefidelity0 -
Help regarding updated content
Hi, Some time back we created tutorials on a test tool Quality Center (http://www.guru99.com/quality-center-tutorials.html) which now needs upgrading.
Technical SEO | | Riya8520
Currently the tool has been renamed to HP ALM.
Our dilemma is whether we should create new pages for the new tutorials or update the existing tutorials itself ? To add to our pain, most of the end users still refer the new ALM with its old name Quality Center. Also we here hit by penguin 2.1 and since then have been very precautions from SEO standpoint.
Please help
Regards
Krishna Rungta0 -
Does our new home page design look better and better for seo
Hi, i would like to know if our new design for our home www.in2town.co.uk page looks better than it did. We are trying to target the keyword for lifestyle magazine and lifestyle news. We are wondering if we should add more colour or graphics to the home page. we are going through each section of the site to make it a more enjoyable experience for our readers. If anyone can give us advice on keeping people on the page and using different social media techniques then that would be great. Through some excellent advice on here we are going to be starting a facebook page
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Cross-domain duplicate content issue
Hey all, Just double-checking something. Here's the issue, briefly. One of my clients is a large law firm. The firm has a main site, and an additional site for an office in Atlanta. On the main site, there is a list of all attorneys and links to their profiles (that they wrote themselves). The Atlanta site has this as well, but lists only the attorneys located in that office. I would like to have the profiles for the Atlanta lawyers on both sites. Would rel=canonical work to avoid a dupe-content smackdown? The profiles should rank for Atlanta over the main site. This just means that G will drop the main site's profiles (for those attorneys) from their index, correct? No other weird side effects? I hope I worded all that clearly!
Technical SEO | | LCNetwork0 -
Unique Title Tags OR Unique Content?
The content management system for my e-commerce site will not allow me to add both: unique content and unique title tags to each of my product category pages. Since I am forced to choose one or the other...which one is more important for rankings? And please dont answer "get a new CM system"...thats not an option. Thanks
Technical SEO | | rcarll0