Google for Jobs: how to deal with third-party sites that appear instead of your own?
-
We have shared our company's job postings on several third-party websites, including The Muse, as well as putting the job postings on our own website. Our site and The Muse have about the same schema markup except for these differences:
The Muse...
• Lists Experience Requirements
• Uses HTML in the description withtags and other markup (our website just has plain text)
• Has a Name in JobPosting
• URL is specific to the position (our website's URL just goes to the homepage)
• Has a logo URL for OrganizationWhen you type the exact job posting's title into Google, The Muse posting shows up in Google for Jobs--not our website's duplicate copy. The only way to see our website's job posting is to type in the exact job title plus "site:http://www.oursite.com".
What is a good approach for getting our website's posting to be the priority in Google for Jobs? Do we need to remove postings from third-party sites? Structure them differently? Do organic factors affect which version of the job posting is shown, and if so, can I assume that our site will face challenges outranking a big third-party site?
-
We have found the following:
1 Using the API is better than waiting for Google to crawl the jobs.
2 They have you must have data fields, but they have would like to have and be tickled pink if you have fields. Filling in all three changes rankings in the testing we have done.
3 The quality of the title you give vs the title they understand.
4 The overall authority of your site. No exact on this yet but a gut feel factor.
5 SERPs result are also jumping around like crazy just now, we see the Google for jobs panel with no links about it and then four hours later it has 4 organic links about it for the same search, then a day later 2, then a day later none, then back to four then an hour later none...Testing google for jobs when it landed in the UK three weeks ago its results are inconsistent with its own rules, we have found jobs with the wrong suggested title format, the wrong address format, landing pages not actual jobs have found their way onto the service!!! jobs with red warning have made it onto the service and so the list goes on.
-
Yeah, I'm sorry I'm not seeing a really good resource for you, Kevin. It's early days. The person who takes on the task of writing that resource will have valuable information to share. I would say your best hope is in experimentation with this, but I don't see that anyone has figured out a solution to the important questions you've asked.
-
Thanks, Miriam. This article offers a good summary of information that Google put out there, but it doesn't discuss factors that may affect which version of a duplicate posting appears. Ideally, there's be a way to canonical third-party duplicates, but I'm not sure if this would be possible with these huge third-party job posting sites or even if this would affect which version of the posting appeared in Google for Jobs.
-
Hi Kevin! It's nice to speak with you, too. Another article that might help:
http://www.clearedgemarketing.com/2017/06/optimize-google-jobs/
I'd love to see someone do a deep dive on the exact questions you've raised.
-
Wow, a reply by the Miriam Ellis! I've found your past posts on local search very useful.
Seriously, though, this was a very good thread on which I could begin to pull. I took a look at the article and found this helpful line: "For jobs that appeared on multiple sites, Google will link you to the one with the most complete job posting." I'd be interested in knowing more about what constitutes "complete." I'm assuming it's the post that has the most schema items included and in particular the "critical" items according to Google's rich cards report. If this is the case, then it would seem that organic signals may not affect the visibility of the job posts as much as I originally suspected.
Then again, there's got to be some keyword relevance going on here.
Our website's job posting is being included in Google for Jobs. However, this posting only appears with a very specific search (typing in the exact job title plus "site:http://www.oursite.com".)
So, maybe it's a combination: multiple versions of the same job can be part of Google for Jobs, but Google for Jobs will show the posting that is both most keyword relevant and most complete. This is just a theory without significant research (everyone's favorite kind of theory, right?), but I'm going to send an email to the author of the TechCrunch article to see if there's any more detail he can share. Thanks again!
-
Hey Kevin,
I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with Google for Jobs, but here's something that caught my eye in a TechCrunch article:
To create this comprehensive list, Google first has to remove all of the duplicate listings that employers post to all of these job sites. Then, its machine learning-trained algorithms sift through and categorize them.
This sounds like it might be applicable to what you're describing. Maybe read the rest of the article? And I'm hoping you'll get further community input from folks who have actually been experimenting with this new Google function.
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
-
How to Get 1st Page Google Rankings for a Local Company?
Hi guys, I'm owning a London removal company - Mega Removals and wants to achieve 1st page rankings on Google UK for keywords like: "removals London", "removal company London", "house removals London" but have no success so far. I need professional advice on how to do it. Should I hire an SEO or should focus on content? I will be very grateful for your help.
Local Website Optimization | | nanton1 -
SEO Company wants to rebuild site
Hello Community, I am a designer and web developer and I mostly work with squarespace. Squarespace has SEO best practices built into the platform, as well as developer modes for inserting custom code when necessary. I recently built a beautiful website for a Hail Repair Company and referred them to several companies to help them with SEO and paid search. Several of these companies have told this client that in order to do any kind of SEO, they'll need to completely rebuild the site. I've seen some of the sites these companies have built, and they are tacky, over crowded and hard to use. My client is now thinking they need to have their site rebuilt. Is there any merit to this idea? Or are these companies just using the knowledge gap to swindle people into buying more services? The current site is : https://www.denverautohailspecialists.com/ Any advice would be appreciated.
Local Website Optimization | | arzawacki2 -
I've submitted my site to google search console, and only 6 images of 89 images have been indexed in 2 weeks. Should I be worried?
I've submitted my site to google search console, and only 6 images of 89 images have been indexed in 2 weeks. Should I be worried? My site is http://bayareahomebirth.org Images are a pretty big part of this site's content and SEO value. Thanks for your help!
Local Website Optimization | | mattchew0 -
Google still indexing home page even after with 301 - Ecommerce Website
Hi all,
Local Website Optimization | | David1986
We have a 301 redirect problem. Google seems to continue indexing a 301 redirect to our old home page. Even after months. We have a multiple language domain, with subfolders: www.example.com (ex page, now with a redirect to the right locale in the right country) www.example.com/it/home (canonical) www.example.com/en/home (canonical) www.example.com/es/home (canonical) www.example.com/fr/home (canonical) www.example.com/de/home (canonical) We still see the old page (www.example.com) in Google results, with old metadata in English and, just in some countries (i.e.: France), we see the correct result, the "new" homepage, www.example.com/fr/home in first position.
The real problem is that Google is still indexing and showing www.example.com as the "real" and "trusted" URL, even if we set: a 301 redirect the right language for every locale in Google Search Console a canonical tag to the locale url an hreflang tag inside the code a specific sitemap with hreflang tag specified for the new homepages Now our redirect process is the following (Italy example).
www.example.com -->301
www.example.com/en/home --> default version --->301
www.example.com/it/home --> 200 Every online tool, from Moz to Bot simulators see that there is a 301. So Correct. Google Search Console says that: on www.example.com there is a 301 (correct) in the internal link section of Google Search Console the www.example.com is still in first position with 34k links. Many of these links are cominig from property subdomains. Should we change those links inside those third level domain? From www.example.com to www.example.com/LOCALE/home? the www.example.com/LOCALE/home are the real home page, they give 200 code Do you know if there's a way to delete the old home page from Google results since this is 301? Do you think that, even after a 301 redirect, if Google sees too many internal links decides to ignore the 301? Thanks for your help! Davide0 -
Google can't discern the identity of my site
I have a website, http://NewYorkJazzEvents.com, that promotes jazz bands that are available for brides looking to hire a jazz band to perform at their wedding, or event planners looking to hire a jazz band to perform for a corporate event, etc. This identity, that my site is an Entertainment Agency, is made clear by all of the content on my site, as well as all of the content on its associated sites (such as its linked Facebook, YouTube, and Google Business pages, and many local citations). Yet, contrary to all of this data, the mere presence of the word "events" in my URL and business name has led Google to believe that my site is a Live Jazz Guide, i.e., a site that lists public performances of jazz groups in New York City. The problem, then, is that Google displays the site when people search for local events listings, and not when they search for jazz bands to contract for private events. For example, do a search for "jazz bands new york" and up pops the listings for sites catering to searchers looking to hire bands for private events, like Gigmasters, Gigsalad, right at the top of the list, followed by lots of individual bands. My site is buried (in my results, anyway), on the middle of page 2. (My paid Adwords ad, on the other hand, shows up at the top of paid ads.): https://www.dropbox.com/s/sv4we4gvnb6wkyb/Screenshot%202016-04-11%2019.22.40.png?dl=0 Now do a search for "new york jazz events." Boom! I'm #1 in the natural results, and, unlike in the search for "new york jazz band," my Google plus page and map (or is it the "knowledge graph"?) display right at the top of the right column: https://www.dropbox.com/s/nob24x1b8u1g4or/Screenshot%202016-04-11%2019.18.49.png?dl=0. (Pretty useless to people searching for live jazz listings in New York, though.) (This, by the way, is an additional related frustration: why does Google display all of its local information (its map, links to my Google reviews, etc.) next to my site listing when people are searching for events, but but hides this valuable information next to my site listing when people are search for jazz bands (when my site comes up on page 2)?) For a further confirmation of Google's confusion, see this data from Google that indicates the top search queries that it is using to display my site are centered around searches for local live jazz listings: Google Search Console > Search Traffic > Search Analytics > Queries: https://www.dropbox.com/s/t8blxv6a077iuw6/Screenshot%202016-03-07%2012.28.38.png?dl=0 See also see this data from Google that indicates that it see "events" (which it understands as local live jazz listings) rather than "new york jazz bands" as the essential keyword describing the identity of the site: Google Search Console > Google Index > Content Keywords: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6nk6skfgx9zjzgc/Screenshot%202016-03-07%2012.46.04.png?dl=0 It's been this way for several years. I thought Google was supposed to be smart, but it's pretty dumb in this case (all the other search engines, including Bing, are quite a bit more intelligent). All this trouble, essentially from a word within a URL? Does anyone have an idea of the cause of this issue, and any potential cures? What can I do to clear up Google's confusion?
Local Website Optimization | | ChuckBraman0 -
Notify Google of correction?
We discovered duplicate content issues because of errors in domain forwarding. The forwards were masked so Google crawl thought all duplicate content. Fixed now and any suggestion on how to notify Google? just wait it out?
Local Website Optimization | | FredRoven0 -
Is it possible to target a keyword which is english but targeted to google.com.tr user
Hey I want to know, is it possible to target a keyword which is english, but target market .com.tr For that purpose must we take backlink from site written english but target to turkish ?
Local Website Optimization | | atakala
Or site written english but target to anywhere? I know this question is a bit confusing but my boss want me to that.0 -
Bing ranking a weak local branch office site of our 200-unit franchise higher than the brand page - throughout the USA!?
We have a brand with a major website at ourbrand.com. I'm using stand-ins for the actual brandname. The brand is a unique term, has 200 local offices with sites at ourbrand.com/locations/locationname, and is structured with best practices, and has a well built sitemap.xml. The link profile is diverse and solid. There are very few crawl errors and no warnings in Google Webmaster central. Each location has schema.org markup that has been checked with markup validation tools. No matter what tool you use, and how you look at it t's obvious this is the brand site. DA 51/100, PA 59/100. A rouge franchisee has broken their agreement and made their own site in a city on a different domain name, ourbrandseattle.com. The site is clearly optimized for that city, and has a weak inbound link profile. DA 18/100, PA 21/100. The link profile has low diversity and generally weak. They have no social media activity. They have not linked to ourbrand.com <- my leading theory. **The problem is that this rogue site is OUT RANKING the brand site all over the USA on Bing. **Even where it makes no sense at all. We are using whitespark.ca to check our ranking remotely in other cities and try to remove the effects of local personalization. What should we do? What have I missed?
Local Website Optimization | | scottclark0