Anyone Knows a good plugin for WP that will deal with the mobile visitors?
-
I see traffic coming to my sites from mobile devices and I wanted to make sure they get the best experience on my sites but I don't want to create another version of the site on the same domain as this will cause a serious INNER duplicate content issue.
Anyone know a good WP plugin that solves this issue with out creating inner duplicate content?
-
i think the idea is to have one content and use css to reposition it.
I have made a simple tet site using css, using this in your style sheep once the screen goes below a certain width, the styles inside take over.
@media only screen and (max-width: 850px)
{
}
-
Yes, I see your point, Maybe I am too paranoid, I mean, A LOT of people downloaded the plugin and if they would see a ranking drop of any kind I guess we would hear that by now, I was just hoping to find someone that actually is SEO savvy and uses that plugin.
Cheers!
-
Thanks for the link but how can I be sure it won't create the duplication issue. I mean I can assume that Google will "know" that the second version is the mobile version and not duplication but I really wanted to know if anyone USES a plugin like these and how google reacts ?
-
I've seen several bloggers use this one, and it seems to work well for that: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wptouch/
Not sure if it works equally well for websites or not, but worth a look.
-
Hi Dan,
This Wordpress plugin is supposed to do a great job at exactly what you're looking to accomplish: http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/mobilepress/. Here's an article from Mashable where the plugin is featured: http://mashable.com/2010/12/16/create-mobile-site-tools/
-
I cant see a plugin doing a good job here, this is the new challenge for web sites. It presents a lot fo challenges for web development. it will make the job of CMS makers that much more complicated.
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
-
Nothing I Know About SEO can Explain these Rankings?
Hi all, I have a client who wants to rank more prominently for "plastic surgeon jupiter fl", a key term in his niche that attracts 11-50 searches per month (but these are potentially big ticket clients). If you look at the first page of results for that term, I can't make any sense of them. I've checked page speed, Google listing optimization, on-page SEO, link metrics etc. and there seems to be no correlation with good on-page SEO, quality links (or volume of links). Any thoughts?? I literally cannot explain why the #1 site shows 2 inbound links via Moz OSE and almost no on-page SEO to speak of while sites ranking page 2 have better on-page SEO, more links, higher quality links (from what I can tell) etc.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley0 -
E-Commerce Mobile Pagination Dillema
Hi Everybody, I'm managing the SEO for an E-commerce site with different desktop and mobile sites (meaning, not responsive). We're changing the way reviews on mobile product pages will be displayed from 'view all' to pagination (due to server load). Basically the above the fold part of the page will always display the product, and below the fold will have x numbers of reviews on each page. But here is where it gets tricky: 1 - A different number of review pages will exist on mobile vs desktop (due to different no. of reviews per page on each device) - so I'm wondering what's the solution regarding canonicals. Usually every mobile page points to its desktop parallel, but now we'll have non-matching pages. 2 - The users will be able to change the no. of reviews displayed on each page. So the number of paginated pages will change accordingly. I was thinking about a solution where all the reviews will be in the first page's html (and only X of them will be displayed on screen), and all the other paginated pages will be created dynamically (with # and won't be indexed, so basically no pagination in mobile). Does anyone think this can be seen as cloaking or has any other thoughts? Thanks, Sarah
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Don340 -
How to deal with URLs and tabbed content
Hi All, We're currently redesigning a website for a new home developer and we're trying to figure out the best way to deal with tabbed content in the URL structure. The design of the site at the moment will have a page for a development and within that you can select your house type, then when on the house type page there will be tabs displayed for the user to see things like the plot map, availability and pricing, specifications, etc. The way our development team are looking at handling this is for the URL to use a hashtag or a query string at the end of it so we can still land users on these specific tabs for PPC for example. My question is really, has anyone had any experience with this? Any recommendations on how to best display the urls for SEO? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | J_Sinclair0 -
Domain forward to landing page - good or bad for SEO?
Hi Mozzers, Just recently we acquired a domain (www.nhacaribbean.com) for marketing purposes. Our technical staff used a frame forward to redirect the domain to the landing page http://www.nha.nl/alles-over-nha/Caribbean.aspx, which is only linked in the sitemap (not in the navigational structure of the site). Now, I'd personally just redirect the domain with a 301. But our CEO really wanted to keep the domain www.nhacaribbean.com visible in the URL bar. My question is: could this (potentially) really hurt rankings for our web site one way or the other? I'd love to hear from you guys. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | NHA_DistanceLearning0 -
What impact will new folder structure have?
I'm evaluating a request to restructure our existing folder structure for Ties.com and I would like some input. I typically recommend proper folder structure for ecommerce sites either when doing a new build or when doing an information architecture overhaul because of duplicate content or canonicalization issues. Ties.com doesn't have duplicate content or canonicalization issues so I'm really trying to get feedback about the SEO impact of a folder structure change versus the amount of time required on our side to do the work. Please share your experiences. Current URL structure example: http://www.ties.com/v/a/the-american-necktie-co-navy-and-gold-stripe-navy-blue-skinny-tie Potential New Structure: http://www.ties.com**/skinny-ties**/the-american-necktie-co-navy-and-gold-stripe-navy-blue-skinny-tie OR http://www.ties.com/skinny-ties/brand/product-title I'm well aware that as a BEST PRACTICE we should be using the category/subcategory folder structure, but since we aren't really suffering from any technical SEO issues then I don't know if this will be worth our time to remap all of these URL's via 301 and canonicalize everything. I anticipate it will be a lot of work and if the Return on Effort is low I can't prioritize this project. I need 2nd and 3rd opinions from experienced ecommerce retail SEO's. Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ties.com0 -
How to deal with old, indexed hashbang URLs?
I inherited a site that used to be in Flash and used hashbang URLs (i.e. www.example.com/#!page-name-here). We're now off of Flash and have a "normal" URL structure that looks something like this: www.example.com/page-name-here Here's the problem: Google still has thousands of the old hashbang (#!) URLs in its index. These URLs still work because the web server doesn't actually read anything that comes after the hash. So, when the web server sees this URL www.example.com/#!page-name-here, it basically renders this page www.example.com/# while keeping the full URL structure intact (www.example.com/#!page-name-here). Hopefully, that makes sense. So, in Google you'll see this URL indexed (www.example.com/#!page-name-here), but if you click it you essentially are taken to our homepage content (even though the URL isn't exactly the canonical homepage URL...which s/b www.example.com/). My big fear here is a duplicate content penalty for our homepage. Essentially, I'm afraid that Google is seeing thousands of versions of our homepage. Even though the hashbang URLs are different, the content (ie. title, meta descrip, page content) is exactly the same for all of them. Obviously, this is a typical SEO no-no. And, I've recently seen the homepage drop like a rock for a search of our brand name which has ranked #1 for months. Now, admittedly we've made a bunch of changes during this whole site migration, but this #! URL problem just bothers me. I think it could be a major cause of our homepage tanking for brand queries. So, why not just 301 redirect all of the #! URLs? Well, the server won't accept traditional 301s for the #! URLs because the # seems to screw everything up (server doesn't acknowledge what comes after the #). I "think" our only option here is to try and add some 301 redirects via Javascript. Yeah, I know that spiders have a love/hate (well, mostly hate) relationship w/ Javascript, but I think that's our only resort.....unless, someone here has a better way? If you've dealt with hashbang URLs before, I'd LOVE to hear your advice on how to deal w/ this issue. Best, -G
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Celts180 -
Tips for Link Building for Mobile Sites
Hi, I wondered if anyone had any tips and advice for link building for mobile sites. Many thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkChambers0 -
Does anyone have any tips for optimizing your Google Product Feeds?
How often do you submit them? What have you seen work? Are there any tricks aside from filling out all of the data fields?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | eric_since1910.com1