Is it bad to have same templates for all of my EMDs
-
I have been working on EMDs and they are more than 40 EMDs. All 2 KW EMDs with DA around 35
Now they all have same templates. Can it be a problem in future ? (though they don't have similar content)
-
yeah fair enough .. Thanks Andy
-
Consider this, a huge chunk of the websites out there use off the shelf templates (think Wordpress). Even Matt cuts blog is an off the shelf (if edited) template.
-
hey Gerd, thanks thats helpful. I searched it and found some nice reads! Didn't know about manual reviews. But I guess manual review is somtime good as If you have good quality brand sites (EMDs) then you dont have to worry about machine algo picking your site by mistake.
-
That's a good example. Thanks for sharing.
Though, I guess if something like this happens it wont be template update alone, it might be a combination of low quality, bit of similar pattern seen in content and few other factors like all similar EMDs with similar templates interlinked and so on.
-
thanks for sharing your opinion .
-
This is already happening - do a search for "google manual review" and have a look at the manual review process. Google currently employs companies to perform manual website reviews based on search terms to classify web-sites.
So although you have the same template, different content and websites, the danger is that your sites from a link-building perspective interlink and a manual review might demote all of them.
Chances are slim as others said, but certainly possible.
-
no clue seriously! Google is in the teen age and doing all the smart things that a super awesome kid should do to prove himself the best among others (sometime it didn't went well...)
I must not say it is not possible but at the moment there is no such thing like this!
-
IMHO, no I don't believe so.
Consider an ecommerce platform like opencart. The default template is probably being used tens of thousands of time with unqiue content and to penalize all those sites because of it , probably will not improve the end user's experience.
The purpose of algo updates is to improve the user's experience--so the content is the key and not necessarily the template (unless it's extremely poor and affects usability).
-
yeah, thought so but do you think any future update might include anything like that ?
-
I am assuming that you are talking about design template of the EMDs (websites) so in that case from the SEO point of view there won’t be any problem but from the user point of view people might frustrates by going to different domains but finding the same kind of websites... but again every niche’s behavior towards website is kind of different.
from the technical website there is no problem in having the same template!
-
Hi,
So not to worry about the same template, if your site having unique content then same design doesn't harm your ranking.
-
yes, even my sites are ranking at top 5 for most of the keywords but I am afraid some future update might change things!
-
yeah I believe at the moment thers is no problem I am assuming that Google algorithm updates might introduce something like that in future where it might use same templates as one factor to know if the sites are all same, hosted on same servers and liked with each other and hence might be come under spam
-
You could face the risk if your sites are interlinked and a manual review flags the sites as similar and demotes some. I think this is a very rare case and it will be unlikely that it could happen. Just remember, Google has a better understanding of link-graphs then any tool available. I have seen some sites drop due to a manual review (the demotion was not because of same UI though).
I honestly would not worry too much about it as long as your copy, brand, keywords and onpage SEO differs.
-
I am not sure but as per my experience, it is not affect your SEO if you have same template but different content. If you have different content for all your site then Google does not consider your sites as duplicate site. My client have multilingual site having same template but still he ranked in top 10.
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
-
Disavow everything or manually remove bad links?
Our site is likely suffering an algorithmic penalty from a high concentration of non-branded anchor text that I am painstakingly cleaning up currently. Incremental clean-ups don't seem to be doing much. Google recommends I 'take a machete to them' and basically remove or disavow as much as possible, which I am now seriously considering as an option. What do you guys recommend, should torch the earth (disavow all links with that anchor text) or keep it on life support (slowly and manually identify each bad link)?
Technical SEO | | Syed_Raza0 -
Is a Rel="cacnonical" page bad for a google xml sitemap
Back in March 2011 this conversation happened. Rand: You don't want rel=canonicals. Duane: Only end state URL. That's the only thing I want in a sitemap.xml. We have a very tight threshold on how clean your sitemap needs to be. When people are learning about how to build sitemaps, it's really critical that they understand that this isn't something that you do once and forget about. This is an ongoing maintenance item, and it has a big impact on how Bing views your website. What we want is end state URLs and we want hyper-clean. We want only a couple of percentage points of error. Is this the same with Google?
Technical SEO | | DoRM0 -
Are 404 Errors a bad thing?
Good Morning... I am trying to clean up my e-commerce site and i created a lot of new categories for my parts... I've made the old category pages (which have had their content removed) "hidden" to anyone who visits the site and starts browsing. The only way you could get to those "hidden" pages is either by knowing the URLS that I used to use or if for some reason one of them is spidering in Google. Since I'm trying to clean up the site and get rid of any duplicate content issues, would i be better served by adding those "hidden" pages that don't have much or any content to the Robots.txt file or should i just De-activate them so now even if you type the old URL you will get a 404 page... In this case, are 404 pages bad? You're typically not going to find those pages in the SERPS so the only way you'd land on these 404 pages is to know the old url i was using that has been disabled. Please let me know if you guys think i should be 404'ing them or adding them to Robots.txt Thanks
Technical SEO | | Prime850 -
Is 301 redirecting all old URLS after a new site redesign to the root domain bad for SEO?
After a new site redesign ...would it hinder our rankings if we 301 redirected all old URLS that are returning 404 error codes to the root domain (home page) ? Would this be a good temporary solution until we are able to redirect the pages to the appropriate corresponding page? Thanks so much!
Technical SEO | | DCochrane0 -
Cn I use SEOMOZ to find "Bad Links"
We were hit by the Penguin update and I am told it make be because of "Bad Links", but no one can seem to tell me how to find them. We never buy links, and in fact the only links I know about are those from paid affiliates through shareasale - and these affiliates are paid based on performance, not links. 1. Does anyone know how to figure out what links are bad? 2. Once I know, how do I get them to stop linking to my site? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards0 -
Do 301 redirects now allow most of the bad value to pass through?
I heard after the 3.2 update that most of your bad history passes though the 301 redirect.. What do you guys think out there?
Technical SEO | | Merta19801 -
How do you find bad links to your site?
My website has around 900 incoming links and I have a Google 50 penalty that is sitewide. I have been doing research and from what I can see is that the 50 penalty is usually associated with scetchy links. The penalty started last year. I had about 40 related domains to my main site and each had a simple one page site with a link to the main site. (I know I screwed up) I cleaned up all of those links by removing them. The single page site still exist, but they have no links and several of them still rank very well. I also had an outside SEO person that bought a few links. I came clean with Google and told them everything. I gave them all of my sites and that the SEO person had bought links. I gave them full disclosure and removed everything. I have one site that I can't get the link removed from. I have contacted them numerous times to remove the link and I get no response. I am curious if anyone has had a simular experience and how they corrected the situation. Another issue is that my site is "thin" because its an ecommerce affiliate site and full of affiliate links. I work in the costume market. I'm also afraid that I have other bad links pointing to my site. Dooes anyone know of a tool to identify bad links that Google may be penalizing me for at this time. Here is Google's latest denial of my reconsideration request. Dear site owner or webmaster of XXXXXXXXX.com. We received a request from a site owner to reconsider XXXXXXXX.com for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines. In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from XXXXXXXXXX.com may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines. If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration?hl=en and resubmit your site for reconsideration. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality
Technical SEO | | tadden0 -
Converse.com - flash and html version of site... bad idea?
I have a questions regarding Converse.com. I realize this ecommerce site is needs a lot of seo help. There’s plenty of obvious low hanging seo fruit. On a high level, I see a very large SEO issue with the site architecture. The site is a full page flash experience that uses a # in the URL. The search engines pretty much see every flash page as the home page. To help with issue a HTML version of the site was created. Google crawls the Home Page - Converse.com http://www.converse.com Marimekko category page (flash version) http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko Marimekko category page (html version, need to have flash disabled) http://www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko Here is the example of the issue. This site has a great post featuring Helen Marimekko shoes http://www.coolmompicks.com/2011/03/finnish_foot_prints.php The post links to the flash Marimekko catagory page (http://www.converse.com/#/products/featured/marimekko) as I would expect (ninety something percent of visitors to converse.com have the required flash plug in). So the flash page is getting the link back juice. But the flash page is invisible to google. When I search for “converse marimekko” in google, the marimekko landing page is not in the top 500 results. So I then searched for “converse.com marimekko” and see the HTML version of the landing page listed as the 4<sup>th</sup> organic result. The result has the html version of the page. When I click the link I get redirected to the flash Marimekko category page but if I do not have flash I go to the html category page. ----- Marimekko - Converse All Star Marimekko Price: $85, Jack Purcell Helen Marimekko Price: $75 ... www.converse.com/products/featured/marimekko - Cached So my issues are… Is converse skating on thin SEO ice by having a HTML and flash version of their site/product pages? Do you think it’s a huge drag on seo rankings to have a large % of back links linking to flash pages when google is crawling the html pages? Any recommendations on to what to do about this? Thanks, SEOsurfer
Technical SEO | | seosurfer-2883190