What EMD Meta Title should we use and what about getting links to the same C-Block IP?
-
Situation: Recently I encountered two problems with both internal and external SEO for my company websites.
This Dutch company has four websites on one server. Three closely related EMD(Exact Match Domain) websites and one overarching website. (Holiday homes rental websites)Vakantiehuizen-Verhuur.nl (overarching)
Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl (EMD)
Vakantiehuizen-Italie.nl (EMD)
Vakantiehuizen-Spanje.nl (EMD)Question 1:
What would be a preferable Meta Title for the EMD websites (homepage/subpages)? Keep in mind that the domains are EMD. The homepage will target the most important keywords and should not compete with subpages.Options for the homepage:
1. Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk | Alle vakantiehuizen in Frankrijk op een rij!
2. Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk | Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl onderdeel van Vakantiehuizen-Verhuur.nl
3. Suggestions?Options for the subpages:
1. Vakantiehuis Normandie | Vakantiehuizen Frankrijk
2. Vakantiehuis Normandie | Vakantiehuizen-Frankrijk.nl
3. Suggestions?And concerning the keywords in the beginning; is it wise to use both plural and singular terms in the meta title? For Example:
Hotel New York. Best hotels in New York | Company NameQuestion 2: Many SEOs state that getting (too many) links from the same C-Block IP is bad practice and should be avoided. Is this also applicable if one website links out to different websites with the same C-Block IP?
Thus, website A, B and C (on the same server) link to website D (different server) could be seen as spam but is this the same when website D links to website A, B and C?
-
Thanks Gianluca Fiorelli, for your thorough answer,
We will consider ending each Meta Title with "- Vakantiehuizen-Italie.nl". We will probably first test some individual pages.
I asked the question concerning the C Block links because we are interlinking between our different EMD's. Which could look suspicious.. Moreover, sometimes I encounter websites where I can submit all three EMD's in once. Which results in a (many) links to the three EMD's from the same C-Block. I am still not sure if I should worry though...
-
Also, the same analytics or adsense account is a tipoff. Check out spyonweb to see some of this type of information.
-
Hi,
first of all, even if the EMD Update never rolled out outside of Google.com and English, I would try to avoid just relying on the advantages of having an EMD in order to rank.
That means that you would need to try to make of your domain name your brand name. I know it may sound difficult, given the domain name, but that what with time a tourist portal as Booking.com did (can you imagine a better EMD than booking.com?).
So, usually that can be done making the brand name the same of the domain name, hence including the tld .nl in the brand name. That can be obtained putting the domain name at the end like this: blah blah blah | vakantiehuizen-italie.nl
In the beginning of the Title tag you can put a semantic variation of the domain name... something like: Enjoy the best holidays in Italy... (being holidays a synonym of vacation, which is the first meaning of vakantienhuizen).
Said that, making your EMD a brand is not just a question of things like these ones of On Site SEO. You should try to create content or occasions that start people actively searching for your brand name (your domain) in association with your keywords (i.e.: trip to Italy, hotel in Rome...)
Related to the Class C ip question... it's all matter of not offering evident footprints to Google.
If you are linked from site in the same Class C IP, that maybe may mean that you are receiving links from a web ring. The same if you link out only to site in the same Class C IP... it seems you are creating a web ring with other sites.
And if the register of the domains is always the same, that is an even easier way to detect something sneaky
-
Ok. Many thanks! I made two questions:
http://moz.com/community/q/what-emd-meta-title-should-we-use http://moz.com/community/q/is-linking-out-to-different-websites-with-the-same-c-block-ip-bad-for-seo
-
It is a bit of a difficult question, as there are several parts, and the sites are in a language many people in Q&A don't speak. You might want to ask question two as a separate question. Question one may be more appropriate for a paid consultation, though I'll see if anyone can contribute some advice on our end.
-
I guess these questions are quite difficult..
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
-
Question RE: Links in Headers, Footers, Content, and Navigation
This question is regarding this Whiteboard Friday from October 2017 (https://moz.com/blog/links-headers-footers-navigation-impact-seo). Sorry that I am a little late to the party, but I wanted to see if someone could help out. So, in theory, if header links matter less than in-content links, and links lower on the page have their anchor text value stripped from them, is there any point of linking to an asset in the content that is also in the header other than for user experience (which I understand should be paramount)? Just want to be clear.Also, if in-content links are better than header links, than hypothetically an industry would want to find ways to organically link to landing pages rather than including that landing page in the header, no? Again, this is just for a Google link equity perspective, not a user experience perspective, just trying to wrap my head around the lesson. links-headers-footers-navigation-impact-seo
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 3VE0 -
Using PURL.org/GoodRelations for Schema Markup
Hello awesome MOZ community! Our agency uses JSON-LD for our local business schema markup. We validate our markup using Google's Structured Data Testing Tool. All good! Recently, I discovered a competing agency using our similar JSON-LD markup (that's ok) and "http://purl.org/goodrelations" markup. The latter appears to be–potentially–black hat SEO. Why? According to MOZ, "there is no conclusive evidence that this markup improves rankings." BUT, the purl.org markup has provided an opportunity for "keyword stuffing". Using purl.org markup, the agency has stuffed/used 66 of the same keywords into the validated markup. I would love to get feedback from the MOZ community. Can schema markup–of any kind–be used to "keyword stuff"? If so, why aren't sites getting penalized for this? Is this practice flying under the elusive algorithm radars? Thanks! Your feedback, insight, and snarky remarks are welcome 🙂 Cheers!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SproutDigital0 -
Multiple similar links without the penguin?
Hi, I´m working with a site where clients proudly will publish a link to us as sort of a sign/partner symbol for using our services. Potentially we could have thousands or at least hundreds of links pointing to us and we could tailor/provide snippets for the links that clients can use on their site. I´m part of a team that just started working with this site and I realize this is a great opportunity that has not yet been exploited. I´m also a little paranoid that this tactic might be picked up by the penguin or that google sees it as black hat if not done wisely ? But links will only come from respectable business sites although ranging from different genres both really big and small.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Agguk
Today links are mostly leading to our frontpage from our clients but I would like to tailor links so that each client could link to a page that is targeted on the keyword/service they have been using (and awarded diploma for) I think this would serve both the client and our SEO better ? I would really appreciate suggestions and comments on how to approach this best! Here is my plan so far, trying to make good/right use of the opportunity without offending google:
-Most links will be through a logo/sign that shows the award/diploma earned through our service.
I think the "alt" -tag should include both our company brand name and the service/target keyword for the page it´s leading to. -We could also provide a short text describing the earned award and our brand name and this whole text would also lead to the same page on our site.
...I guess using only the targeted keyword as anchor -link within the text would be a bad idea? -Where possible I would also like to customize this short text a little for each client (although that will be hard and only possible to some degree). As we provide "link material" for the client to include on their site, would it be wise to have them use an image that is hosted on our site or send them the image so they can publish that instead? Grateful for any feedback on this! Thanks!0 -
Should I Disavow Links if there is No Manual Action
Hello, I just recently took on a client that had hired a very black hat seo and used their service for roughly two years. He outsourced link building and the link profile is full of spun articles and blog commenting on chinese websites etc… The anchor texts/pages used for all this spamming no longer rank, but there is no penalty in Webmaster tools manual actions. I was thinking about disavowing some of the obviously spammy backlinks that exist but would that be raising a red flag that could lead to a manual action and even more negative movement? Have you ever heard of anything like the situation i'm dealing with where its obvious the pages have been hit but there is no manual action? What do you all think/suggest? And Should I disavow some terrible links and potentially open a can of worms?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | Prime850 -
How to Handle Sketchy Inbound Links to Forum Profile Pages
Hey Everyone, we recently discovered that one of our craft-related websites has a bunch of spam profiles with very sketchy backlink profiles. I just discovered this by looking at the Top Pages report in OpenSiteExplorer.org for our site, and noticed that a good chunk of our top pages are viagra/levitra/etc. type forum profile pages with loads of backlinks from sketchy websites (porn sites, sketchy link farms, etc.). So, some spambot has been building profiles on our site and then building backlinks to those profiles. Now, my question is...we can delete all these profiles, but how should we handle all of these sketchy inbound links? If all of the spam forum profile pages produce true 404 Error pages (when we delete them), will that evaporate the link equity? Or, could we still get penalized by Google? Do we need to use the Link Disavow tool? Also note that these forum profile pages have all been set to "noindex,nofollow" months ago. Not sure how that affects things. This is going to be a time waster for me, but I want to ensure that we don't get penalized. Thanks for your advice!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | M_D_Golden_Peak0 -
Disavow - Broken links
I have a client who dealt with an SEO that created not great links for their site. http://www.golfamigos.co.uk/ When I drilled down in opensiteexplorer there are quite a few links where the sites do not exist anymore - so I thought I could test out Disavow out on them .. maybe just about 6 - then we are building good quality links to try and tackle this problem with a more positive approach. I just wondered what the consensus was?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | lauratagdigital0 -
People buying links to their profiles on my site
As we have a major Penguin update looming in the background, I am looking for expert advice on how to deal with professionals buying into link programs whether they are doing it deliberately or not. Our site provides detailed profile information on hundreds of 1000's of professionals and some professionals apparently believed that buying into link program will lift their profile in the SERPS. About 10 professionals have paid shady link building companies to buy links to their profiles on our site. The biggest offender bought over 1,500 links to his profile. Aside from adding the known toxic links to our disavow file, what else can we do to avoid any link penalties? I can think of three distinct options and would love to hear feedback especially based on actual experience. Option 1. 404 the existing profile - "http://www.anysite.com/jones_smith" and create a new URL "http://www.anysite.com/jones_smith_1". Option 2. Keep the existing URL and fully rely on the disavow file. Contact the professionals and kindly ask them to stop buying links and to contact their link building companies to remove the links. Any other ideas?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | irvingw0 -
Why are these sites so high with poor relevant links...
Hello, Keyword: TV Stands. I have been researching competitors for a client and we seem to be unable to understand why certains pages are ranking on page 1 of Google UK for keyword TV Stands. eg: http://www.furnitureinfashion.net/plasma-TV-stand.html (Google UK 8 - TV Stands) http://direct.tesco.com/q/N.1999542/Nr.99.aspx (Google UK 9 - TV Stands) The furniture in fashion has links from sites like: http://www.ummah.com/forum/ and http://www.muslimco.com/ which is totaly irrelevant to the site. Any ideas on other things as the tesco.com site does not have direct links to it. Cheers
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JohnW-UK0