Sub-pages have no pa
-
I took over a website a few months ago which is not performing well at all for chosen keywords. When I first inspected it, I found a rel canonical tag pointing to the homepage on every page. This was quickly deleted and all the pages were fetched in webmaster tools.
3 months later and the website is still performing badly. When I use the mozbar, it shows that all of the sub-pages have a pa of 1. It is only a small site and all of the pages are linked to on the navbar in a simple way. The links are not made using javascript and all the pages are on the sitemap which is submitted to wmt. I have checked that all of the changes that have been made have been indexed as well.
Could it be possible that google still sees the canonical tag even though its not there? I can't think of any other reason why the pages have no pa or why it is so far behind the competitors despite having better content and links.
Also, the site is appropriate for adults, but I found (among the mess left for me) a meta ratings tag set to "general". This has now been deleted, could it negatively affect rankings?
-
Unfortunately, there's no quick fix for reversing canonicals. If Google is indexing the pages, it's probably fine - I'd double check them with a "site:" operator and see if they're showing up correct (titles, snippets, ranking for exact-match terms, etc.). In some cases, I recommend adding self-referencing rel-canonicals (to counteract the old ones) and it never hurts to have a good XML sitemap in place in GWT. Again, though, you said you're getting indexed, so it may be nothing.
If you want to Private Message me or contact support, we can try to sort out why we're still not crawling the other pages.
-
Thanks Tim, Google has been able to access the pages fine, as the all the pages are showing as indexed in WMT. I just think its odd as after 3 months, the site should have been crawled by moz (as with all other websites I've worked on). There is nothing wrong with the linking structure as all the pages are in the nav bar in simple html. As I said, when I took over the website, they messed up big time with the rel canonical tags all pointing to the homepage. After reading this article by moz (http://moz.com/blog/catastrophic-canonicalization), I'm a little bit worried. What is the correct procedure for fixing incorrect rel canonicals? I thought it was simply a case of removing them, but I might be wrong. Thanks again
-
Hi Mark,
A PA of 1 usually just means that Moz hasn't crawled the page yet. This usually happens when pages are brand new, the site has very few links or the site has a poor internal linking structure.
However, it doesn't mean that Google hasn't crawled the site. Moz crawls far fewer pages than Google does. I would recommend looking through your Webmaster Tools account to see if Google is having any issues indexing the page. Within WMT, you can fetch a page as Google Bot to see if Google is able to access the page.
Without more information, it's hard to say why your pages aren't ranking, but I think Webmaster Tools is a good place to start your investigation.
Tim
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 you do on-page optimization for a page with rel=canonical tag?
If you ad a rel=canonical tag to a page, should you still optimize that page? I'm talking meta description, page title, etc.
On-Page Optimization | | marynau0 -
More Singular KW Targeted Landing Pages vs. Less Multiple KW Targeted Landing Pages
So my question is... I have a adopted a site which currently ranks quite well for some industry competitive keywords with a number of poor quality landing pages which specifically target a singular keyword. I am wondering if its worth merging some of these pages together into one authoritative, better quality landing page targeting multiple keywords (as the intent for some of these keywords are largely the same). What i don't want to do is jeopardise the existing rankings in doing so. The alternative option would just be to improve the content on the existing landing pages without merging. What are peoples thoughts on this? Are there any positive case studies out there where merging has had a positive effect? Any help would be great. Regards,
On-Page Optimization | | NickG-1231 -
Which is better? One dynamically optimised page, or lots of optimised pages?
For the purpose of simplicity, we have 5 main categories in the site - let's call them A, B, C, D, E. Each of these categories have sub-category pages e.g. A1, A2, A3. The main area of the site consists of these category and sub-category pages. But as each product comes in different woods, it's useful for customers to see all the product that come in a particular wood, e.g. walnut. So many years ago we created 'woods' pages. These pages replicate the categories & sub-categories but only show what is available in that particular wood. And of course - they're optimised much better for that wood. All well and good, until recently, these specialist page seem to have dropped through the floor in Google. Could be temporary, I don't know, and it's only a fortnight - but I'm worried. Now, because the site is dynamic, we could do things differently. We could still have landing pages for each wood, but of spinning off to their own optimised specific wood sub-category page, they could instead link to the primary sub-category page with a ?search filter in the URL. This way, the customer is still getting to see what they want. Which is better? One page per sub-category? Dynamically filtered by search. Or lots of specific sub-category pages? I guess at the heart of this question is? Does having lots of specific sub-category pages lead to a large overlap of duplicate content, and is it better keeping that authority juice on a single page? Even if the URL changes (with a query in the URL) to enable whatever filtering we need to do.
On-Page Optimization | | pulcinella2uk0 -
Finacial pages markup
I was wondering if there is away to use Schema for stock market pages?
On-Page Optimization | | ciznerguy0 -
Changing a page url
I have a page that ranks well (#4) for a good keyword. However, the url has the keyword in it but is misspelled. I would like to change the url to have the correct spelling but do not want to lose the ranking that I have. What is the best and safest way to proceed?
On-Page Optimization | | bhsiao0 -
Local on-page SEO
If it feels like you are doing something wrong, then you 'probably' are... Local on-page SEO When optimising a page for local SEO, and trying tick all the usuals boxes, you find yourself adding words like 'golf clubs leeds' which sounds awful when part of a natural paragraph of text. Does Google recognise this poor use of grammar? We try to be as creative as possible, as not to offend the visitor, but it feels wrong... any advice? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | indicoll0 -
10 Mobile Pages. 5 Desktop Pages. Canonnical to where?
I have a mobile site with more pages than the desktop site. Normally I would just point the page equivalents to the desktop site using the rel canonnical tag. What about the 5 pages? Do I just leave them be? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Imajery0 -
Moving Top rank Page urls off my Home page and nesting them on one page? Good idea?
I am basically trying to cut down the amount of links on my home page to make it less eye boggling and move stuff around. So i have of my Urls on my home page that lead to pages that rank very well within google. My questions is can i remove those urls to a separate page to group them together and then showcase that one link to that page on my home page. Is that a good idea or i am going to loose my link juice and position in search? The physical urls on those pages wont change at all.
On-Page Optimization | | Dante130