Are online tools considered thin content?
-
My website has a number of simple converters.
For example, this one converts spaces to commas
https://convert.town/replace-spaces-with-commasNow, obviously there are loads of different variations I could create of this:
Replace spaces with semicolons
Replace semicolons with tabs
Replace fullstops with commasSimilarly with files:
JSON to XML
XML to PDF
JPG to PNG
JPG to TIF
JPG to PDF
(and thousands more)If somoene types one of those into Google, they will be happy because they can immediately use the tool they were hunting for.
It is obvious what these pages do so I do not want to clutter the page up with unnecessary content.
However, would these be considered doorway pages or thin content or would it be acceptable (from an SEO perspective) to generate 1000s of pages based on all the permutations?
-
Ah - sorry for my misunderstanding. So you are leaning towards combining the pages.
So unit-conversion.info has a combined page: http://www.unit-conversion.info/metric.html
When I search for "convert from micro to deci", they appear as number 8. If I click on their page, it defaults to base and mega, so I then have to change the dropdowns.
The number 1 result for that search is this page https://www.unitconverters.net/prefixes/micro-to-deci.htm - it has Micro and Deci preselected.
unit-conversion.info only has 460 but Unitconverters.net has 50,000 pages indexed by Google. Despite the "thin content", they still appear number 1 (admittedly, this may be due to other factors).
As far as user experience goes, I would prefer to land on unitconverters.net because I have less things to click.
I guess the art is in finding the sweet spot in being able to give a search result with context without spinning out too much thin content.
Thanks again for your detailed response!
-
Hi again,
sorry if I have not expressed myself very well.
In my opinion, you would have only 1 page for each of those tools (with all the conversion options), and along the text of that page (+ title & meta description), there would be optimized the generic keywords like "replace character tool", "replace characters online"... and the conversion specific ones like "replace space with columns", without abusing to avoid keyword stuffing / spam.
The same for the Convert Image Tool, just one page, like this people did: unit-conversion.info with the conversion text tool and all the others.
More pages than that would surely create thin content and would divide the authority between all that pages instead of having all that authory in 1 quality page that optimizes along text and metas the most searched of the conversion options of each tool.
In any case, if you create additional pages for the most commonly searched-for variants (just a few), that could be acceptable as you said.
Greetings!
-
Yes I was thinking along the same lines - if I create a page for commonly searched-for variants, then that will be an acceptable "thin page".
OK, so if I understand correctly, you would suggest having one generic "replace text" page. The phrase variants - "replace character tool", "replace characters online", "replace text tool", should appear throughout that same page (not on separate pages).
The following SEPARATE pages would have the find / replace textboxes of the generic converter prefilled (because they are commonly searched for):
- Replace spaces with columns
- Replace spaces with semicolons
- Replace semicolons with spaces
- Replace and with &
...and all other common but relevant search phrases
But you would NOT create a separate page for:
- Replace question mark with space
- Replace the letter t with the letter b
Does that sound right to you?
Then for the Convert Image tool, wouldn't it be best (in a similar fashion) to have one generic tool but then the common searches prefilled on separate pages:
- Convert image to image
- Convert Image to GIF
- Convert PNG to JPG
- Convert PNG to GIF
(and perhaps 100 others)
Each of these tools are different in functionality and will be more helpful to the user if they are prefilled with what they are looking for?
-
So I guess that is actually my argument - that each tool deserves its own page (if it is something commonly searched for). The user experience is not as good if they search for "convert spaces to semicolons", then land on a page where they have to also enter a space and a semicolon before they get what they want. If these are prefilled, surely the user would prefer that. Will Google realise that users prefer that though? That is the big question.
OK - if I don't fill the page with spam, then it won't be considered a gateway page.
Thank you for your response.
-
Hi
It's a difficult question.
By one side, it would be interesting for the searcher to have directly access to the tool with the exact function they are looking for.
By the other, many functions are very similar and they will surely have very similar content that doesn't provide new interesting information (thin content).
I think you should go for the point between this sides. I mean, you can create many different tools, but tools that group all similar functions.
For example:
Replace Character Tool (you can replace with this any character or text by any other). Here you have an example of this tool: http://www.unit-conversion.info/texttools/replace-text/. In this tool you can moderately optimize all the keywords related to the different functions, by mentioning them on the text, h1-h2-h3, or in the Title / Meta Description. Don't try to optimize all different variants because there are too much. Go for the most searched ones (use Google Keyword Planner or a similar tool to identify them). You should also optimize the variants of "replace character tool" like "replace characters online" or "replace text tool", (important to also use "free" if the tools are free)
The same for image conversion with Convert Image Tool ("online picture conversion" + "free convert img tool"... + most popular img format conversion like "png to jpg conversion tool"), all in the same page.
Hope that helps!
-
Hi there,
My personal recommendation here, if possible, would be to compile all of the tools into one easy to use page. So all of the file converting permutations would be under one page and all of the 'replace' tools will be under another page.
Not only would this be better user experience but also you wouldn't clog up your site with thin pages from the multiple permutations of the pages.
You could of course argue that each tool deserves its own page because technically they each do different things.
What would make any one of these pages into a gateway page is if you bulked them out with a large amount of content that was specifically designed for search engines.
I hope this helps to answer your question
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
-
Duplication content management across a subdir based multisite where subsites are projects of the main site and naturally adopt some ideas and goals from it
Hi, I have the following problem and would like which would be the best solution for it: I have a site codex21.gal that is actually part of a subdirectories based multisite (galike.net). It has a domain mapping setup, but it is hosted on a folder of galike.net multisite (galike.net/codex21). My main site (galike.net) works as a frame-brand for a series of projects aimed to promote the cultural & natural heritage of a region in NW Spain through creative projects focused on the entertainment, tourism and educational areas. The projects themselves will be a concretion (put into practice) of the general views of the brand, that acts more like a company brand. CodeX21 is one of those projects, it has its own logo, etc, and is actually like a child brand, yet more focused on a particular theme. I don't want to hide that it makes part of the GALIKE brand (in fact, I am planning to add the Galike logo to it, and a link to the main site on the menu). I will be making other projects, each of them with their own brand, hosted in subsites (subfolders) of galike.net multisites. Not all of them might have their own TLD mapped, some could simply be www.galike.net/projectname. The project codex21.gal subsite might become galike.net/codex21 if it would be better for SEO. Now, the problem is that my subsite codex21.gal re-states some principles, concepts and goals that have been defined (in other words) in the main site. Thus, there are some ideas (such as my particular vision on the possibilities of sustainable exploitation of that heritage, concepts I have developed myself as "narrative tourism" "geographical map as a non lineal story" and so on) that need to be present here and there on the subsite, since it is also philosophy of the project. BUT it seems that Google can penalise overlapping content in subdirectories based multisites, since they can seem a collection of doorways to access the same product (*) I have considered the possibility to substitute those overlapping ideas with links to the main page of the site, thought it seems unnatural from the user point of view to be brought off the page to read a piece of info that actually makes part of the project description (every other child project of Galike might have the same problem). I have considered also taking the subsite codex21 out of the network and host it as a single site in other server, but the problem of duplicated content might persist, and anyway, I should link it to my brand Galike somewhere, because that's kind of the "production house" of it. So which would be the best (white hat) strategy, from a SEO point of view, to arrange this brand-project philosophy overlapping? (*) “All the same IP address — that’s really not a problem for us. It’s really common for sites to be on the same IP address. That’s kind of the way the internet works. A lot of CDNs (content delivery networks) use the same IP address as well for different sites, and that’s also perfectly fine. I think the bigger issue that he might be running into is that all these sites are very similar. So, from our point of view, our algorithms might look at that and say “this is kind of a collection of doorway sites” — in that essentially they’re being funnelled toward the same product. The content on the sites is probably very similar. Then, from our point of view, what might happen is we will say we’ll pick one of these pages and index that and show that in the search results. That might be one variation that we could look at. In practice that wouldn’t be so problematic because one of these sites would be showing up in the search results. On the other hand, our algorithm might also be looking at this and saying this is clearly someone trying to overdo things with a collection of doorway sites and we’ll demote all of them. So what I recommend doing here is really trying to take a step back and focus on fewer sites and making those really strong, and really good and unique. So that they have unique content, unique products that they’re selling. So then you don’t have this collection of a lot of different sites that are essentially doing the same thing.” (John Mueller, Senior Webmaster Trend Analyst at Google. https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=kQIyk-2-wRg&feature=emb_logo)
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | PabloCulebras0 -
Is this considered duplicate content?
Hi Guys, We have a blog for our e-commerce store. We have a full-time in-house writer producing content. As part of our process, we do content briefs, and as part of the brief we analyze competing pieces of content existing on the web. Most of the time, the sources are large publications (i.e HGTV, elledecor, apartmenttherapy, Housebeautiful, NY Times, etc.). The analysis is basically a summary/breakdown of the article, and is sometimes 2-3 paragraphs long for longer pieces of content. The competing content analysis is used to create an outline of our article, and incorporates most important details/facts from competing pieces, but not all. Most of our articles run 1500-3000 words. Here are the questions: NOTE: the summaries are written by us, and not copied/pasted from other websites. Would it be considered duplicate content, or bad SEO practice, if we list sources/links we used at the bottom of our blog post, with the summary from our content brief? Could this be beneficial as far as SEO? If we do this, should be nofollow the links, or use regular dofollow links? For example: For your convenience, here are some articles we found helpful, along with brief summaries: <summary>I want to use as much of the content that we have spent time on. TIA</summary>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | kekepeche1 -
Third part http links on the page source: Social engineering content warning from Google
Hi, We have received "Social engineering content" warning from Google and one of our important page and it's internal pages have been flagged as "Deceptive site ahead". We wonder what's the reason behind this as Google didn't point exactly to the specific part of the page which made us look so to the Google. We don't employ any such content on the page and the content is same for many months. As our site is WP hosted, we used a WordPress plugin for this page's layout which injected 2 http (non-https) links in our page code. We suspect if this is the reason behind this? Any ideas? Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | vtmoz1 -
Somebody took an article from my site and posted it on there own site but gave it credit back to my site is this duplicate content?
Hey guys, This question may sound a bit drunk, but someone copied our article and re-posted it on their site the exact article, however the article was credited to our site and the original author of the article had approved the other site could do this. We created the article first though, Will this still be regarded as duplicate content? The owner of the other site has told us it wasn't because they credited it. Any advice would be awesome Thanks
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
How to re-rank an established website with new content
I can't help but feel this is a somewhat untapped resource with a distinct lack of information.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ChimplyWebGroup
There is a massive amount of information around on how to rank a new website, or techniques in order to increase SEO effectiveness, but to rank a whole new set of pages or indeed to 're-build' a site that may have suffered an algorithmic penalty is a harder nut to crack in terms of information and resources. To start I'll provide my situation; SuperTED is an entertainment directory SEO project.
It seems likely we may have suffered an algorithmic penalty at some point around Penguin 2.0 (May 22nd) as traffic dropped steadily since then, but wasn't too aggressive really. Then to coincide with the newest Panda 27 (According to Moz) in late September this year we decided it was time to re-assess tactics to keep in line with Google's guidelines over the two years. We've slowly built a natural link-profile over this time but it's likely thin content was also an issue. So beginning of September up to end of October we took these steps; Contacted webmasters (and unfortunately there was some 'paid' link-building before I arrived) to remove links 'Disavowed' the rest of the unnatural links that we couldn't have removed manually. Worked on pagespeed as per Google guidelines until we received high-scores in the majority of 'speed testing' tools (e.g WebPageTest) Redesigned the entire site with speed, simplicity and accessibility in mind. Htaccessed 'fancy' URLs to remove file extensions and simplify the link structure. Completely removed two or three pages that were quite clearly just trying to 'trick' Google. Think a large page of links that simply said 'Entertainers in London', 'Entertainers in Scotland', etc. 404'ed, asked for URL removal via WMT, thinking of 410'ing? Added new content and pages that seem to follow Google's guidelines as far as I can tell, e.g;
Main Category Page Sub-category Pages Started to build new links to our now 'content-driven' pages naturally by asking our members to link to us via their personal profiles. We offered a reward system internally for this so we've seen a fairly good turnout. Many other 'possible' ranking factors; such as adding Schema data, optimising for mobile devices as best we can, added a blog and began to blog original content, utilise and expand our social media reach, custom 404 pages, removed duplicate content, utilised Moz and much more. It's been a fairly exhaustive process but we were happy to do so to be within Google guidelines. Unfortunately, some of those link-wheel pages mentioned previously were the only pages driving organic traffic, so once we were rid of these traffic has dropped to not even 10% of what it was previously. Equally with the changes (htaccess) to the link structure and the creation of brand new pages, we've lost many of the pages that previously held Page Authority.
We've 301'ed those pages that have been 'replaced' with much better content and a different URL structure - http://www.superted.com/profiles.php/bands-musicians/wedding-bands to simply http://www.superted.com/profiles.php/wedding-bands, for example. Therefore, with the loss of the 'spammy' pages and the creation of brand new 'content-driven' pages, we've probably lost up to 75% of the old website, including those that were driving any traffic at all (even with potential thin-content algorithmic penalties). Because of the loss of entire pages, the changes of URLs and the rest discussed above, it's likely the site looks very new and probably very updated in a short period of time. What I need to work out is a campaign to drive traffic to the 'new' site.
We're naturally building links through our own customerbase, so they will likely be seen as quality, natural link-building.
Perhaps the sudden occurrence of a large amount of 404's and 'lost' pages are affecting us?
Perhaps we're yet to really be indexed properly, but it has been almost a month since most of the changes are made and we'd often be re-indexed 3 or 4 times a week previous to the changes.
Our events page is the only one without the new design left to update, could this be affecting us? It potentially may look like two sites in one.
Perhaps we need to wait until the next Google 'link' update to feel the benefits of our link audit.
Perhaps simply getting rid of many of the 'spammy' links has done us no favours - I should point out we've never been issued with a manual penalty. Was I perhaps too hasty in following the rules? Would appreciate some professional opinion or from anyone who may have experience with a similar process before. It does seem fairly odd that following guidelines and general white-hat SEO advice could cripple a domain, especially one with age (10 years+ the domain has been established) and relatively good domain authority within the industry. Many, many thanks in advance. Ryan.0 -
Image Optimization & Duplicate Content Issues
Hello Everyone, I have a new site that we're building which will incorporate some product thumbnail images cut and pasted from other sites and I would like some advice on how to properly manage those images on our site. Here's one sample scenario from the new website: We're building furniture and the client has the option of selecting 50 plastic laminate finish options from the Formica company. We'll cut and paste those 50 thumbnails of the various plastic laminate finishes and incorporate them into our site. Rather than sending our website visitors over to the Formica site, we want them to stay put on our site, and select the finishes from our pages. The borrowed thumbnail images will not represent the majority of the site's content and we have plenty of our own images and original content. As it does not make sense for us to order 50 samples from Formica & photograph them ourselves, what is the best way to handle to issue? Thanks in advance, Scott
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ccbamatx0 -
XML feeds in regards to Duplicate Content
Hi everyone I hope you can help. I run a property portal in Spain and am looking for an answer to an issue we are having. We are in the process of uploading an XML feed to our site which contains 10,000+ properties relating to our niche. Although this is great for our customers I am aware this content is going to be duplicated from other sites as our clients advertise over a range of portals. My question is, are there any measures I can take to safeguard our site from penalisation from Google? Manually writing up 10,000 + descriptions for properties is out of the question sadly. I really hope somebody can help Thanks Steve
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | buysellrentspain0 -
Advice on using the disavow tool to remove hacked website links
Hey Everyone, Back in December, our website suffered an attack which created links to other hacked webistes which anchor text such as "This is an excellent time to discuss symptoms, fa" "Open to members of the nursing/paramedical profes" "The organs in the female reproductive system incl" The links were only visible when looking at the Cache of the page. We got these links removed and removed all traces of the attack such as pages which were created in their own directory on our server 3 months later I'm finding websites linking to us with similar anchor text to the ones above, however they're linking to the pages that were created on our server when we were attacked and they've been removed. So one of my questions is does this effect our site? We've seen some of our best performing keywords drop over the last few months and I have a feeling it's due to these spammy links. Here's a website that links to us <colgroup><col width="751"></colgroup>
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | blagger
| http://www.fashion-game.com/extreme/blog/page-9 | If you do view source or look at the cached version then you'll find a link right at the bottom left corner. We have 268 of these links from 200 domains. Contacting these sites to have these links removed would be a very long process as most of them probably have no idea that those links even exist and I don't have the time to explain to each one how to remove the hacked files etc. I've been looking at using the Google Disavow tool to solve this problem but I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not. We haven't had any warnings from Google about our site being spam or having too many spam links, so do we need to use the tool? Any advice would be very much appreciated. Let me know if you require more details about our problem. <colgroup><col width="355"></colgroup>
| | | |0