This page should be ranking but it's not even in top 50
-
Please help! Ive been trying to rank this page
https://www.visitmanchester.com/where-to-stay/hotels
It appeared on age 2 for a day and disappeared again. It's like it's being algorithmically kicked out. Can anyone see why?
-
Hi Thanks for your response.
When you mention products, do you mean the accommodation search?
Yes that's correct. The products are unique to the site but they also exist on trip advisor and pull through the reviews. Do you think all the external links make it look like trip advisors content?
What is the main term you are hoping to rank the page for?
Hotels in Manchetser
Are other pages like this on the website ranking well for their most important term?
Yes, Things to do in Manchester and whats on in Manchester are all fine. There is something wrong with this page. The mobile view isn't very user friendly - i'm having this changed to a list view to see if it helps - but it is not flagged as non mobile friendly so I'm just doing this as a test
When did you publish this page?
Over a year ago.
Thanks again. Any help would be most welcome
Andrew
-
Hi Andrew,
I'm looking at the page again trying to make sure what you mean by product descriptions. Looking at the page you've linked to, I see an accommodation search, followed by a brief area of text, followed by TripAdvisor content.
When you mention products, do you mean the accommodation search?
What is the main term you are hoping to rank the page for?
Are other pages like this on the website ranking well for their most important term?
When did you publish this page?
-
The content is a bit thin. There is no real substance and all google (and users) see is basically a list of places to stay and then a load of tripadvisor reviews. There's almost more outbound links than words on the page. You need to beef up the content if you want it to rank. Why do you say 'it should be ranking' have similar pages like it ranked before?
There has recently been a great deal of 'quality updates' all throughout the first part of 2018 that could potentially be affecting a page like this.
-
The reviews are powered by tripadvisor but the products are owned by visit manchester. Are you seeing trip advisors content in the product descriptions?
-
Good morning, Andrew!
Is any of the content of this page unique to the page and to your business? I'm seeing that quite a bit of the page is TripAdvisor's content. Is this an affiliate site?
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
-
We Are An SEO Company - Why Won't Google Believe Us?!?!
Hi All, We are an SEO company based in Brisbane Australia. We help lots of clients, most of which are now on page #1 for the majority of their keywords. Except for 1: US! Organically we float between page #2-3 for the term "seo brisbane" and page #1-2 for the term "search engine optimisation brisbane" However, when it comes to the local pack we are nowhere to be found. Not only are we not in the top 3, but when you click "more places" to see how far out of the local pack we are, we are not there at all!! For whatever reason, we can't get google to believe that we really are a SEO supplier. I'm embarrassed to have to ask, but we just can't seem to work out why. Would anyone have any ideas? We know that our current website is letting us down and are 90% of the way through the build of a new one and we are confident that will help with our organic rankings but when it comes to why we are not showing at all in local results, I am at a loss. Has anyone got any advice or troubleshooting they could help with ?
Local Listings | | timcbambrick0 -
Found a yelp review by unknowing client of webdesigner who made a one page site. bad seo
One page sites are fine and dandy, but if you are a local biz...Just no! Here's my story with a few questions. I did a search on google site:http://eatfullbellydeli.com/ and it resulted in four pages: Main; menu; hello world; category; uncategorized. I'm not a web designer...I do seo. 1.) How rude would it be for me to reach out to the designer to comment and give suggestions? 2.) or should I reach out to the owner. 3.) Or just close my eyes and say "i hate people that take advantage of others"
Local Listings | | Ohmichael0 -
Which Rank Trackers Include Local 3-pack Rankings?
Granted the Local 3-pack is heavily influenced by the distance between the user and the business, when you actually include the city name in the search, the local 3 pack result doesn't center the map at the city in the search and not the user's location so it is much more consistent despite the searcher's location. So my personal opinion is that it is worth tracking local 3-pack when you use a keyword such as "Home Inspection Seattle Wa" With that said, which rank tracking services includes the local 3-pack in their tracking results, other than of course Bright Local?
Local Listings | | JCCMoz0 -
Is there is any benefit to linking to the Google page from RFQ contact page?
I have a Request for Quote contact page is there any benefit to linking from the Google + page? or the other way?
Local Listings | | ScottImageWorks0 -
Placement of products in URL-structure for best category page rankings
Hi! I have some questions regarding the optimal URL-hierarchy placement of products in a marketplace setting where the end goal is to attract traffic to category pages. Let me start off with some background, thanks in advance for the help. TLDR Goal: Increase category page rankings. Alternative 1 - Products and category pages separated, flat product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/listing-1 Alternative 2 - Products and category pages separated, hierarchal product structure. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/product/category/subcat/listing Alternative 3 - Products placed directly under category page. Category page: oursite.com/category/subcategory Product / listing page: oursite.com/category/subcategory/listing I run a commercial real estate marketplace, which means that our potential search traffic is _extremely _geographic. For example, some common searches are (not originally in english): Office space for lease {City X} Office space for lease {Neighborhood Y} Retail space {Neighborhood Z} And so on... These terms are already quite competitive, where the top results are our competitors geographic and type category pages. For example: _competitor.com/type/city/neighborhood , _is a top result, where the user reaches a landing page that shows all the {type} spaces for lease in {neighborhood}. These users are out to find which spaces are available for lease in these geographical areas, and not individual spaces. I.e. users do not search in the same extent for an individual product, in this case a specific empty space. Our approach has been to place an extreme bias towards a heavy geographical hierarchy. This means that basically any search, resulting in a category page, on our site results in a well structured URL like the following: _oursite.com/type/state/city/district/street, _since we are using Google Maps API's, this is easy and relevant for the user. Our geographical categorization beats our competitors both on extensiveness and usability, especially in long-tail search phrases where our competitors don't care to categorize where we are seeing real search volumes. The hierarchy only extends as far down as the user has searched, for example a lot of our searched just end up being _oursite.com/type/state/city/district. _ Now we are wondering how we should place our products, the empty spaces, in this URL structure. Our original hypothesis was that we should include the products in the original hierarchy, resulting in: oursite.com/category/subcategory/product. Our thinking was that we would both be serving the user with an understandable and relevant URL, and also provide search bots with a logical structure for our site and most importantly content for our category pages. Our landing pages are very dynamic, providing information by relaying graphical information on a map instead of in an SEO-friendly manner. I would however go as far as to say that these dynamic pages provide a ton of value for the user, much more so than our competitors, by describing relevant information about the neighborhood kind of like Trulia, just not in a bot-readable manner. This results in trying to rank them on their own merits being a challenge, whereas we were hoping we could create relevancy by placing products / listings and maybe even blog posts on the topic within the same URL-hierarchy. As of right now our current structure is oursite.com/products/category/subcategory/product. In other words, they are categorized in the same geographical fashion but under a separate URL-path. Our results so far is that we basically only rank for the product pages, and rank extremely poorly for our category pages, which is our ultimate goal to enhance. This is why we developed the above hypothesis. However, what we learned when we did some initial research is that very few e-commerce stores place their products directly below their categories. Most of the major websites we studied, and we looked at quite a few, just go for **alternative 1 **from above. The crux is that most of them choose alternative 1 but simultaneously implement bread crumbs that emulate alternative 3, just without the actual URL's. So, what I'm asking is, what are the actual benefits or downsides of the three alternatives? I feel as if I have a pretty firm grasp on how this could be done, I just need to better understand why most seem to choose to flatline their products or listings in the alternative 1 fashion. Thanks, Viktor
Local Listings | | Viktorsodd0 -
SEO best practices for store locator and local pages - 301 or not?
I have been struggling to answer this on my own and now throwing up for the Moz community for a life line. Our company has several location across 6 states. We have local pages that we are working to improve with better content. We also have a store locator that will list the stores but the pages are not the same. See below example. I can't help but feel like I am splitting juice and traffic that should be combined to one page for each location. Any ideas or advice on how we can best combine/funnel the traffic to one optimized page? Here is an example: State local page - http://www.jakesfireworks.com/michigan/ Locator page for state - http://www.jakesfireworks.com/locator/?state=MI City local page - http://www.jakesfireworks.com/michigan/grand_rapids City Locator page - http://www.jakesfireworks.com/locator/?id=183&state=MI
Local Listings | | devonkrusich0 -
Ranking Go Down
Hello My website www.prismpharmamachinery.com Ranking Down last from 5 to 6 month, Before It was Up, goes down By 5 to 6 pages. Any Expert can help for this query, Then Please reply. Thanking you in advance,
Local Listings | | Sanjayth0 -
Do Local PPC Ads Get Ranked Higher Even Though the User Doesn't Specify Search Location
See the attached image.I searched for a drug called "Actos". The first Google Adwords result was a result specific to "Arkansas" which is odd because I didn't specify that I was in Arkansas. I understand that Google makes that recommendation because Google knows I'm in Arkansas. The resulting landing page has NOTHING to do with Arkansas and you can view it here: http://bladdercancerlawsuit.org/actos-bladder-cancer/My question is this: Does the fact that the AD has the name of the user's state (Arkansas) make the "click" less expensive or higher ranking or both? Is this known by Adword specialist community? I'm wondering because this is an expensive keyword and hard to guarantee top position for. If this is a technique we should incorporate, I'd love to do it. U1dfiiE
Local Listings | | iprov0