Analyzing ZAPPOS.com - how do they get away with it?
-
Hi All,
The fun thing about our industry is that unlike poker - most cards are open.
While trying to learn what the big guys are doing I chose to focus on www.Zappos.com - one of the largest sports wear (especially shoes).
I looked how they categories, interlink and on their product pages.
I have a question about duplication in an age where it is SO important.
If you look in their running sneakers category you'd see that they show the same item (in different color) as two separate items - how are these pages no considered duplication?It gets even worse - If you look inside a shoe page (a product page) in the tab "About the Brand" you'd learn that all shoes from Nike (just an example) the about the brand is exactly the same. This is about 90% of the page for hundreds of Nike shoes pages - and goes the same for all other brands.
How come they are ranked so high and not penalized in the era of Panda?
Is it as always - big brands get away with anything and everything?Here are two example shoe pages:
Nike Dart 10 (a)
Nike Dart 10 (b)Thanks!
-
As I said, that is what I would recommend doing. Zappos is not, and it could easily be due to limitations with their eCommerce or fulfillment systems since each color is probably a different sku. It could just as easily be due to the ability of these pages to rank better for each color, in which case they have an advantage over most other competitors because they can get away with it, as you have noticed.
-
Thanks for the detailed answer.
If you are putting a canonical tag then why not simply have one page with a drop down for colors?
-
Hello BeytzNet,
It is not uncommon at all for ecommerce sites to have product variants like this, each with their own SKU. They are, after all, two different products. If someone ordered one color and got the other they would be upset. If someone searched Google Shopping for Gray Nike Shoes and ended up on a page for Pink Nike Shoes it would not be a good experience for them.
Yes, a better way to do this would be to have unique on-page content for each variant of this shoe, or even to have one page that allows the user to choose their color from a drop-down list (oh wait, Zappos does that too...) so the page isn't optimal, but it is unlikely that Google would see this as something worth applying a penalty for. They would more likely just decide to rank only one version. Rather than being sneaky, it is probably just a scalability problem.
With that said, I know lots of lesser-known brands and websites that have been hit hard by Panda for similar "scalability problems". The fact that big, well-known brands can get away with a lot more is something that has been going on for a long time and isn't about to change any time soon. So to answer your question "how do they get away with it" - They get away with it by being a huge, well-known brand. It sucks, but that apparently provides a better user experience for Google searchers. I don't think there is any malicious purpose to that (e.g. Adsense revenue, helping Google partner sites...), rather it has to do with the way we, as searchers, react to branding by clicking on the results we are already familiar with and buying from sites we already trust.
If I were to handle the same situation I'd probably choose a canonical version and redirect the other pages to it since writing unique copy for each color shoe wouldn't be scaleable for a site that size. Of course you would lose some ability to rank for color-specific searches, but you could minimize that by listing the colors out in title or on-page content while allowing the user to select the color from a drop-down.
-
Cody that is not accurate. Only one of the pages references ...10~2 as the canonical URL. The other ones uses <link rel="canonical" href="/nike-dart-10~1" />.
-
It's because they utilize canonicals to specify the url that should get all of the authority. Both of your examples have this:
<link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[/nike-dart-10~2](view-source:http://www.zappos.com/nike-dart-10%7E2)" /><script type="<a class="attribute-value">text/javascript</a>">
-
Hi, great question and find.
I recently read an article, I think that it was from distilled, on SEO Myths. One of the Myths was about duplicate content penalties.
"has the potential to dilute link equity," but apparently google weren't imposing serious penalties,
It was an interesting little piece, but i would suggest they are using a lot of no follow links.
As an e commerce developer, product variations are a hard one to index well.
I would be interested to get a few takes on how people are doing it well.
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
-
Setting Up Hreflang and not getting return tag errors
I've set up a dummy domain (Not SEO'd I know) in order to get some input on if I'm doing this correctly. Here's my option on the set up and https://technicalseo.com/seo-tools/hreflang/ is saying it's all good. I'm self-referencing, there's a canonical, and there is return tags. https://topskiphire.com - US & International English Speaking Version https://topskiphire.com/au/ - English language in Australia The Australian version is on a subdirectory. We want it this way so we get full value of our domain and so we can expand into other countries eventually e.g. UK. Q1. Should I be self-referencing or should I have only a canonical for US site? Q2. Should I be using x-default if we're only in the English language? Q3. We previously failed when we had errors come back saying 'return tags not found' on a separate site even though the tags were on both sites. Was this because our previous site was only new and Google didn't rank it as often as our main domain.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | cian_murphy0 -
What is 508 compliance and how do I ensure it gets done?
Greetings Mozzers, I'm completely new to 508 compliance and I hadn't really heard of it until yesterday. It came up in a conversation about W3C compliance (which I know Google doesn't necessarily validate for), but I hadn't ever heard of 508. So question is, what is 508 and what needs to be done on the back end to become compliant here or to check for compliance. I do know that 508 refers to government regulation to make your website accessible to all. Thanks for helping out on a rookie question 🙂 Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CSawatzky
Pedram0 -
Can't get auto-generated content de-indexed
Hello and thanks in advance for any help you can offer me! Customgia.com, a costume jewelry e-commerce site, has two types of product pages - public pages that are internally linked and private pages that are only accessible by accessing the URL directly. Every item on Customgia is created online using an online design tool. Users can register for a free account and save the designs they create, even if they don't purchase them. Prior to saving their design, the user is required to enter a product name and choose "public" or "private" for that design. The page title and product description are auto-generated. Since launching in October '11, the number of products grew and grew as more users designed jewelry items. Most users chose to show their designs publicly, so the number of products in the store swelled to nearly 3000. I realized many of these designs were similar to each and occasionally exact duplicates. So over the past 8 months, I've made 2300 of these design "private" - and no longer accessible unless the designer logs into their account (these pages can also be linked to directly). When I realized that Google had indexed nearly all 3000 products, I entered URL removal requests on Webmaster Tools for the designs that I had changed to "private". I did this starting about 4 months ago. At the time, I did not have NOINDEX meta tags on these product pages (obviously a mistake) so it appears that most of these product pages were never removed from the index. Or if they were removed, they were added back in after the 90 days were up. Of the 716 products currently showing (the ones I want Google to know about), 466 have unique, informative descriptions written by humans. The remaining 250 have auto-generated descriptions that read coherently but are somewhat similar to one another. I don't think these 250 descriptions are the big problem right now but these product pages can be hidden if necessary. I think the big problem is the 2000 product pages that are still in the Google index but shouldn't be. The following Google query tells me roughly how many product pages are in the index: site:Customgia.com inurl:shop-for Ideally, it should return just over 716 results but instead it's returning 2650 results. Most of these 1900 product pages have bad product names and highly similar, auto-generated descriptions and page titles. I wish Google never crawled them. Last week, NOINDEX tags were added to all 1900 "private" designs so currently the only product pages that should be indexed are the 716 showing on the site. Unfortunately, over the past ten days the number of product pages in the Google index hasn't changed. One solution I initially thought might work is to re-enter the removal requests because now, with the NOINDEX tags, these pages should be removed permanently. But I can't determine which product pages need to be removed because Google doesn't let me see that deep into the search results. If I look at the removal request history it says "Expired" or "Removed" but these labels don't seem to correspond in any way to whether or not that page is currently indexed. Additionally, Google is unlikely to crawl these "private" pages because they are orphaned and no longer linked to any public pages of the site (and no external links either). Currently, Customgia.com averages 25 organic visits per month (branded and non-branded) and close to zero sales. Does anyone think de-indexing the entire site would be appropriate here? Start with a clean slate and then let Google re-crawl and index only the public pages - would that be easier than battling with Webmaster tools for months on end? Back in August, I posted a similar problem that was solved using NOINDEX tags (de-indexing a different set of pages on Customgia): http://moz.com/community/q/does-this-site-have-a-duplicate-content-issue#reply_176813 Thanks for reading through all this!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rja2140 -
Why do I get India, Pakistan, Turkey traffic mostly?
Hi there, I've been wondering. Why do I get most of the traffic from these countries? My sites are english, I host in USA. I don't target a thing for those countries traffic, yet I get huge amounts of traffic from these countries. Any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | melbog0 -
How to get head office address appear on SERPS under brand serps?
Hi all, We have different offices in UK in different cities. Until last month our main office was appearing on Google results but lately i noticed that our other office is appearing on serps when i search with brand name. We have 3 addresses registered with Google Places. Any ideas how we can get head office to appear on serps under our brand name? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rubix0 -
I need help with a local tax lawyer website that just doesn't get traffic
We've been doing a little bit of linkbuilding and content development for this site on and off for the last year or so: http://www.olsonirstaxattorney.com/ We're trying to rank her for "Denver tax attorney," but in all honesty we just don't have the budget to hit the first page for that term, so it doesn't surprise me that we're invisible. However, my problem is that the site gets almost NO traffic. There are days when Google doesn't send more than 2-3 visitors (yikes). Every site in our portfolio gets at least a few hundred visits a month, so I'm thinking that I'm missing something really obvious on this site. I would expect that we'd get some type of traffic considering the amount of content the site has, (about 100 pages of unique content, give or take) and some of the basic linkbuilding work we've done (we just got an infographic published to a few decent quality sites, including a nice placement on the lawyer.com blog). However, we're still getting almost no organic traffic from Google or Bing. Any ideas as to why? GWMT doesn't show a penalty, doesn't identify any site health issues, etc. Other notes: Unbeknownst to me, the client had cut and pasted IRS newsletters as blog posts. I found out about all this duplicate content last November, and we added "noindex" tags to all of those duplicated pages. The site has never been carefully maintained by the client. She's very busy, so adding content has never been a priority, and we don't have a lot of budget to justify blogging on a regular basis AND doing some of the linkbuilding work we've done (guest posts and infographic).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JasonLancaster0 -
"Jump to" Links in Google, how do you get them?
I have just seen yoast.com results in Google and noticed that nearly all the indexed pages show a "Jump to" link So instead of showing the full URL under the title tag, it shows these type of links yoast.com › SEO
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JohnPeters
yoast.com › Social Media
yoast.com › Analytics With the SEO, Social Media and Analytics all being clickable. How has he achieved this? And is it something to try and incorporate in my sites?0 -
Have you ever seen this 404 error: 'www.mysite.com/Cached' in GWT?
Google webmaster tools just started showing some strange pages under "not found" crawl errors. www.mysite.com/Cached www.mysite.com/item-na... <--- with the three dots, INSTEAD of www.mysite.com/item-name/ I have just 301'd them for now, but is this a sign of a technical issue? The site is php/sql and I'm doing the URL rewrites/301s etc in .htaccess. Thanks! -Dan EDIT: Also, wanted to add, there is no 'linked to' page.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | evolvingSEO0