Does a CMS inhibit a site's crawlability?
-
I smell baloney but I could use a little backup from the community!
My client was recently told by an SEO that search engines have a hard time getting to their site because using a CMS (like WordPress) doesn't allow "direct access to the html".
Here is what they emailed my client:
"Word Press (like your site is built with) and other similar “do it yourself” web builder programs and websites are not good for search engine optimization since they do not allow direct access to the HTML. Direct HTML access is needed to input important items to enhance your websites search engine visibility, performance and creditability in order to gain higher search engine rankings."
Bots are blind to CMSs and html is html, correct? What do you think about the information given by the other SEO?
-
Thank you, Keri! Everyone here is so helpful! This was my first Q&A and it certainly won't be my last.
-
I received an unsolicited email that told me things that were wrong on the SEO of my site, from a supposed SEO. They included:
7) Website is devoid of Meta keywords which are required for Page 1 rankings. We will add Meta keywords for your website.
Good for you to get a second opinion!
-
p.s. That video is gold! I sent it with my email response to the client for a third-party endorsement.
-
Thanks for you help! Funny enough, it turns out this SEO himself uses WordPress for his own blog, so it must not be that scary.
Anyway, I found this SEO's comments very misleading. To me, this was a reminder of the corny but true sentiment that with great power comes great responsibility. It is easy for SEOs to scare the bejeebus out of people who know very little about the web.
-
Thank you very much! I appreciate the support! This is a great answer and very balanced.
I think you are right that he sounds like a developer. If I give him a very generous read of what he is saying, perhaps he means that CMS get in the way of having full control over the code. As you point, out there are smart, easy ways around that.
Thank you very much! Very helpful!
-
WordPress is considered a solid platform for producing websites. Here is a link to a (long) video from Matt Cutts where he is a presenter at WordCamp. He praises WordPress for SEO and he uses the software himself on his site http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/. Just watch the first 4 minutes of the video and you will have an idea of his position on the software.
To offer a balanced viewpoint, your SEO sounds more like a web developer. There are some developers who don't use a CMS and prefer to code sites from the ground up. There are plenty of advantages to doing such. You have 100% control over every page of your site, you don't have any unnecessary code and you never are restricted from making changes.
The problem is time and cost. I have one client who spent $45k on a custom site which was poorly developed. We replaced the old website with a Joomla site (another popular CMS) for a cost of around $5k. The new site outperforms the old site in every category. The skill and experience of your developer is a huge factor.
-
Yes you are correct.
Tell your client to run far. That SEO has no clue, and is completely wrong. Maybe he's thinking that out of box Wordpress doesn't have Title or Meta Tag management ? That's solvable with Wordpress SEO. [highly recommended]
Wordpress outputs HTML.
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
-
404's being re-indexed
Hi All, We are experiencing issues with pages that have been 404'd being indexed. Originally, these were /wp-content/ index pages, that were included in Google's index. Once I realized this, I added in a directive into our htaccess to 404 all of these pages - as there were hundreds. I tried to let Google crawl and remove these pages naturally but after a few months I used the URL removal tool to remove them manually. However, Google seems to be continually re/indexing these pages, even after they have been manually requested for removal in search console. Do you have suggestions? They all respond to 404's. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Tom3_151 -
Can anyone tell me why some of the top referrers to my site are porn site?
We noticed today that 4 of the top referring sites are actually porn sites. Does anyone know what that is all about? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | thinkcreativegroup1 -
An article we wrote was published on the Daily Business Review, we'd like to post it on our site. What is the proper way?
Part 1
Technical SEO | | peteboyd
We wrote an article and submitted it to the Daily Business Review. They published the article on their website. We want to also post the article on our website for our users but we want to make sure we are doing this properly. We don't want to be penalized for duplicating content. Is this the correct way to handle this scenario written below? We added a rel="canonical" to the blog post (on our website). The rel="canonical" is set to the Daily Business Review URL where the article was originally published. At the end of the blog post we wrote. "This article was originally posted on The Daily Business Review." and we link to the original post on the Daily Business Review. Should we be setting the blog post (on our website) to be a "noindex" or rel="canonical" ? Part 2 Our company was mentioned in a number of articles. We DID NOT write those articles, we were only mentioned. We have also posted those same articles on our website (verbatim from the original article). We want to show our users that we have been mentioned in highly credited articles. All of these articles were posted on our website and are set to be a "noindex". Is that the correct thing to do? Should we be using a rel="canonical" instead and pointing to the original article URL? Thanks in advance MOZ community for your assistance! We tried to do the leg work of our own research for the answers but couldn't find the exact same scenario that we are encountering**.**0 -
New website's ranking dropped
Hi, Im working on brand new website i didn't even start my link building yet, just added to local directories i slowly started getting my ranking on 3rd page of Google then few weeks ago my ranking fell for all the keywords so now the website doesn't even rank on 10th page. Its been like this for a few weeks now. Here's the website Screenshot http://screencast.com/t/wDWk8sxLw Thanks for your help
Technical SEO | | mezozcorp0 -
Creating in-text links with ' 'target=_blank' - helping/hurting SEO!?!
Good Morning Mozzers, I have a question regarding a new linking strategy I'm trying to implement at my organization. We publish 'digital news magazines' that oftentimes have in-text links that point to external sites. More recently, the editorial department and me (SEO) conferred on some ways to reduce our bounce rate and increase time on page. One of the suggestions I offered is to add the 'target=_blank" attribute to all the links so that site visitors don't necessarily have to leave the site in order to view the link. It has, however, come to my attention that this can have some very negative effects on my SEO program, most notably, (fake or inaccurate) time(s) on-page. Is this an advisable way to create in-text links? Are there any other negative effects that I can expect from implementing such a strategy?
Technical SEO | | NiallSmith0 -
Site: search doesn't return homepage first
When searching for site:myclient.com their homepage doesn't appear first. I know some SEOs have reported this was a warning sign that there was a penalty. Here is what I've checked/found: Toolbar pagerank remains strong. Homepage is indexed. SEO traffic is falling, but its been gradually falling for a year now, mainly due to the client neglecting any type of marketing campaigns or link building, I believe. There was not a specific drop that could be tied to a penalty. Site remains well indexed. 62,742 of 63,021 URLs in the sitemap are indexed. Site is a large ecommerce site, so many pages are duplicate content (product descriptions). Homepage does rank #1 when searching for string of text present on the homepage. Nothing unusual in Google Webmaster Tools Search for myclient.com returns homepage with 6 expanded sitelinks under it. Google safe browsing check shows no malware. Anything else I should check?
Technical SEO | | AdamThompson0 -
What's the best free tool for checking for broken links?
I'm trying to find the best tool to check for broken links on our site. We have over 11k pages and I'm looking for something fast and thorough! I've tried Xenu and LinkChecker. Any other ideas?
Technical SEO | | CIEEwebTeam0