We just fixed a Meta refresh, unified our link profile and now our rankings are going crazy
-
Crazy in a bad way!I am hoping that perhaps some of you have experienced this scenario before and can shed some light on what might be happening.Here is what happened:We recently fixed a meta refresh that was on our site's homepage. It was completely fragmenting our link profile. All of our external links were being counted towards one URL, and our internal links were counting for the other URL. In addition to that, our most authoritative URL, because it was subject to a meta refresh, was not passing any of its authority to our other pages.Here is what happened to our link profile:Total External Links: Before - 2,757 After - **4,311 **Total Internal Links: Befpre - 125 After - 3,221
Total Links: Before - 2,882 After - 7,532Yeah....huge change. Great right? Well, I have been tracking a set of keywords that were ranking from spots 10-30 in Google. There are about 66 keywords in the set. I started tracking them because at MozCon last July Fabio Riccotta suggested that targeting keywords showing up on page 2 or 3 of the results might be easier to improve than terms that were on the bottom of page 1. So, take a look at this. The first column shows where a particular keyword ranked on 11/8 and the second column shows where it is ranking today and the third column shows the change. For obvious reasons I haven't included the keywords.11/8 11/14 Change****10 44 -34
10 26 -16
10 28 -18
10 34 -24
10 25 -15
15 29 -14
16 33 -17
16 32 -16
17 24 -7
17 53 -36
17 41 -24
18 27 -9
19 42 -23
19 35 -16
19 - Not in top 200
19 30 -11
19 25 -6
19 43 -24
20 33 -13
20 41 -21
20 34 -14
21 46 -25
21 - Not in top 200
21 33 -12
21 40 -19
21 61 -40
22 46 -24
22 35 -13
22 46 -24
23 51 -28
23 49 -26
24 43 -19
24 47 -23
24 45 -21
24 39 -15
25 45 -20
25 50 -25
26 39 -13
26 118 - 92
26 30 -4
26 139 -113
26 57 -31
27 48 -21
27 47 -20
27 47 -20
27 45 -18
27 48 -21
27 59 -32
27 55 -28
27 40 -13
27 48 -21
27 51 -24
27 43 -16
28 66 -38
28 49 -21
28 51 -23
28 58 -30
29 58 -29
29 43 -14
29 41 -12
29 49 -20
29 60 -31
30 42 -12
31 - Not in top 200
31 59 -28
31 68 -37
31 53 -22Needless to say, this is exactly the opposite of what I expected to see after fixing the meta refresh problem. I wouldn't think anything of normal fluctuation, but every single one of these keywords moved down, almost consistently 20-25 spots. The further down a keyword was to begin with, it seems the further it dropped.What do you make of this? Could Google be penalizing us because our link profile changed so dramatically in a short period of time? I should say that we have never taken part in spammy link-building schemes, nor have we ever been contacted by Google with any kind of suspicious link warnings. We've been online since 1996 and are an e-commerce site doing #RCS. Thanks all! -
Totally agree,
Have seen this a few times in the past.
Major SEO changes, big drop in rankings for 2/3 weeks. Then rankings gradually return.
@Dana: Keep us posted, im curious to see if in a few weeks time things have improved
-
Thanks Dr. Pete. I know this is pushing the boundaries of normal Q&A. I appreciate your answer. Yes, one thing at a time I think is a good way to go. I suggested that we try the mod_pagespeed rewrite on the dev site as a first step. I think it would probably be more efficient for us to hire a developer proficient in SEO to handle some of the more technical items. Thanks again!
-
Sorry, I'm not really clear on what the question is - these seem like general IT items unrelated to the SEO problem. The JS rewrites definitely can be tricky and depend completely on the code in question - I can't really provide a general resource.
Not sure how the alias domains tie in, but they definitely need to be part of any redirection scheme. I've used mod_rewrite for pretty large-scale stuff (as do many large sites), but it's possible to write bad/slow rules. It really depends on the scope. I'm not sure if you're talking about 100s or 1000s (10000s, etc.) of pages. Writing the rules for a big site is beyond the scope of any general Q&A. That's something your team is going to have to really dig deep into.
I feel like they might be over-thinking this one issue and trying to fix everything all at once, but I can't say that confidently without understanding the situation. I think it might be better to tackle these things one at a time.
-
Dr. Pete, Our IT manager responded to my request. Can you point me in the right direction to research these things (I am copying and poasting directly from his message): "A few items that I noticed just skimming the forums that we will
need to look at a little closer are:- Java script that is self referencing, as both tab control and the slide show are self referencing
- Alias domains which we have a number of
- HTTPS pages, which for us, is all pages depending on
when a person logs in."
I found info in the GW forum about the mod_pagespeed rewrite module and sent that to him.
He responded "We are currently using mod_rewrite to handle a number of things including 301 redirection. My experience with mod_rewrite does have me very cautious, because it is very easy to “blow up” the site. I would want to run this on the dev site for some time with a concerted testing effort to make sure we do not have issues."
Any references you can recommend would be great. Thank you so much!
-
It's just one of those things where you're always going to be wondering if the bloated code is causing problems, and it's going to drive you nuts. Fix it, and worst case, you'll rule out a cause. Some days, that's the best we can do.
-
Agreed. I worked at another company that had a 19-year-old kid split out the JS. I submitted the request. I'll let you know what happens. Thanks again!
-
I can't prove it would cause substantial improvement, but right now it's just in your way, and you'll never know. To me, that kind of clean-up is a no-brainer, because it's no risk. At worst, it cleans up the code, improves caching (and load times as you said), and makes updating easier. At best, you see measurable gains.
As a former developer and dev-team manager, I have to say, too, that it's not a tough fix to split out that JS. It would probably make the dev teams life easier down the road. If they're acting like it's a Herculean task, then either (1) they just don't want to do it, or (2) you need a better dev team.
-
Thanks Dr. Pete. The marketing team has been complaining about how far the meta tags, etc. are pushed down in our code for years. Unfortunately, there hasn't been enough evidence that this is doing us any harm so it's never been a priority to fix. I believe moving those lines of JS to an external file would, if nothing else, improve our page speed wouldn't it? If our pages load faster it could impact our SEO in a positive way
Thanks again very much for your suggestions
-
Yeah, the canonical should be ok - I just wanted to make sure you had something in place. One minor thing - I'd get that up on the page - with all the JS, the canonical is down on line 436 of the source code. You'd really be better off getting all that script into external files. It shouldn't make a big ranking difference, but it won't hurt.
You do have have a dozen pages that share your home-page TITLE and META description. Some seem to be odd, near-duplicates, where others probably just have duplicate meta data. Either way, I'd clean that up. Run this query in Google to see them:
site:ccisolutions.com intitle:"Acoustics, Sound, Lighting"
...or check Webmaster Tools (or your SEOmoz campaigns). Again, it probably isn't the culprit, but it's not helping.
I'd really dig to see if anything else is going on. The timing could just be coincidence. I find it really hard to believe that the META refresh change alone harmed you, unless this is just a temporary bounce while Google sorts it out. I definitely would NOT put it back - you risk compounding the problem. People rush to reverse things, assuming that will take them back to where they were, and it rarely does. More than 70% of the time, it just makes a bigger mess.
-
Thanks Dr. Pete. Here's the scoop, and I'm happy to provide the actual URLs so you can have a real view of the source code, etc.
The meta refresh was on this URL:
it redirected to this URL:
http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher?iafAction=showMain
We removed the meta refresh, and put "<rel="canonical" href="<a class=" external"="" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.ccisolutions.com/" /> to the head of both URLs</rel="canonical">
Our IT Manager couldn't get a 301 redirect to work from http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher?iafAction=showMain to http://www.ccisolutions.com, but in another Q&A thread Streamline Metrics mentioned that this really shouldn't matter as long as the canonical tag is properly set up, which I think it is.
What do you think? (and thanks very much!)
-
I tend to agree that it could just be a short-term re-evaluation period, but I do understand that patience is hard to come by in these situations. I have one concern - I assume the META refresh was acting as some kind of redirect to a different URL? When you removed it, did you canonical the other URL somehow? Just removing the refresh wouldn't consolidate the link "juice" of the various URLs, so it could be that you went from one form of fragmentation to another, different form.
That's just speculation, since I don't fully understand the old/new setups. If you can provides some details with fictional URLs, we might be able to dig in deeper.
-
Yes Paul. I agree. I have seen wild fluctuations on other sites that went through big changes. I believe this is probably an example of a time when we have to hang in there and ride through "The Dip."
"Time, Patience and Intelligent Work" is my mantra....but I also have to convince my CEO that the $1,000 we just spent fixing the meta refresh was actually a good thing. Rankings sinking like this aren't helping me make my case.
If an when I hear anything from Google I'll let you and Bryan know.
I'm sure we aren't the only ones who've fixed something technical that fixed a fragmented link profile. It sure would make me feel better to hear someone say "Yes, similar thing happened to me and now we're ricking it!" LOL - well, you can't blame a girl for dreaming!
-
I'll just add, Dana, that this major a change to the site will often cause massive ranking fluctuations as the crawlers work through the site and consolidate what's going on.
Small comfort, but a week really isn't long enough for things to have settled out to the "new normal". It's a good idea to keep looking for issues, but I'd also hold my breath for another week or two (or three) to see what happens as the dust settles. I know it goes against the grain to wait & see, but in this case I really think it's warranted.
Good luck, and keep breathing
Paul
-
Thanks Bryan. Yes, I took your advice and filed a reconsideration request just now. I spelled out exactly what happened with the whole meta refresh fix. This site has so many technical SEO problems that I am just hoping that it's not a completely different problem being caused by something else. I'll let you know what/if I hear anything.
I'd sure love to hear from any other SEOs out there who've ever been in similar situations!
Thanks again.
-
Like I said it can be many factors.. Perhaps making the drastic changed looks like a spam attack...
Total External Links: Before - 2,757 After - **4,311 **
Total Internal Links: Befpre - 125 After - 3,221
Total Links: Before - 2,882 After - 7,532More then doubled the link count. If you send Google a reconsideration request they will look at your issue and probably help you solve it. -
Thanks Bryan. Yes, I checked the link profile last night. Everything looks totally normal. Interestingly, nearly all of the added links to the new link total were Internal, not External, so I don't think the quality of the links is the issue, maybe moreso the quantity.
I don't think a reconsideration request would be appropriate in this instance because we have not been de-indexed. We are just being hit hard by the algo I think.
If that is the case, I would hope that over the next few weeks, as Google sees our internal links not changing so dramatically, things will settle down.
Any additional thoughts?
-
Perhaps adding the links together ended up pointing too many or a bigger ratio of low quality or non relevant links to your site... Or maybe the anchor link profile is now over optimized, the loss can be due to many reasons... I would recommend checking the new link profile and also making sure everything looks natural. If all is well and are still not ranking, you can send Google the reconsideration request explaining what happened.
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
-
Should we Nofollow Social Links?
I've been asked the question of whether if we should nofollow all of our social links, would this be a wise thing to do? I'm not exactly getting a clear answer from search results and thought you guys would be best to ask 🙂 Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | JH_OffLimits0 -
Bing rankings question
Hi, We just wrapped up a website redesign about a month ago. The content stayed primarily the same. Once we launched the new site all of our rankings in Google stayed the same but we lost rank for all competitive keywords on Bing. I looked in Bing Webmaster tools and it doesn't show any penalties but it does show that we have too many H1 tags. I don't think the H1 tag thing is the issue but maybe. Do you know what could be causing this?
Technical SEO | | BT20090 -
We have 302 redirect links on our forum that point to individual posts. Should we add a rel="nofollow" to these links?
Moz is showing us that we have a HUGE amount of 302 redirects. These are coming from our community forum. Forum URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/ Example thread URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/ Example URL that points to a specific reply: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewreply/1582/ The above link 302 redirects to this URL: https://www.foodbloggerpro.com/community/viewthread/322/#1582 My two questions would be: Do you think we should we add rel=nofollow to the specific reply URLs? If possible, should we make those redirects 301 vs. 302? Screencast attached. nofollow_302.mp4
Technical SEO | | Bjork1 -
Internal link structure, find out if there are any internal links to this page
When i use this url in open site explorer it says that there are no internal links:
Technical SEO | | wilcoXXL
http://goo.gl/d2s6tJ
Page Authority is also 1, it should be higher of there are any internal links to it right? But i am very sure there are links to this url on my website. For example on this URL:
http://goo.gl/ucixRH How certain can i be of this? Because if i can be very certain, than we have a internal linkstructure problem on our entire site i believe.0 -
Should I consider webmaster tools links and linked pages ratio to remove unnatural links?
I don't know this is a suitable place for post this question. Anyway I have done it. According to the Google webmaster tools, Links to your site page. My blog has considerable amount of links, from linked pages (from certain domain names). For an instance please refer following screenshot. When I am removing unnatural links, should I consider these, links from linked pages ratio? Almost all of these sites are social bookmarking sites. When I publish a new bookmark on those sites, they automatically add a homepage link. As a result of that, I got a huge number of home page links from linked pages. What is your recommendation? Thanks! webmaster.png web_master_tools.png
Technical SEO | | Godad0 -
Webmaster tools lists a large number (hundreds)of different domains linking to my website, but only a few are reported on SEOMoz. Please explain what's going on?
Google's webmaster tools lists hundreds of links to my site, but SEOMoz only reports a few of them. I don't understand why that would be. Can anybody explain it to me? Is there someplace to I can go to alert SEOMoz to this issue?
Technical SEO | | dnfealkoff0 -
Link Share Matrix
Our developers have requested our "Link Share Matrix" - does anyone know what a Link Share Matrix is? Google and the Wiki haven't provided any decent results so I still don't know exactly what it is. Thanks in advance 🙂
Technical SEO | | Seaward-Group0 -
Meta tags - better NOT to have?
OK ok . . . the SEOMox report card told me it's actually better NOT to have meta tag keywords on my page, because my competitors can then look at my page to see what words I am trying to target . . . That makes since, but is also painfully counter intuitive. I thought I would just double check and make sure . .. NO META TAGS KEYWORDS? and if so . . .. what (if anything) should I have in the meta tags?
Technical SEO | | damon12120