Does Google play fair? Is 'relevant content' and 'usability' enough?
-
It seems there are 2 opposing views, and as a newbie this is very confusing.
One view is that as long as your site pages have relevant content and are easy for the user, Google will rank you fairly.
The other view is that Google has 'rules' you must follow and even if the site is relevant and user-friendly if you don't play by the rules your site may never rank well.
Which is closer to the truth? No one wants to have a great website that won't rank because Google wasn't sophisticated enough to see that they weren't being unfair.
Here's an example to illustrate one related concern I have:
I've read that Google doesn't like duplicated content. But, here are 2 cases in which is it more 'relevant' and 'usable' to the user to have duplicate content:
Say a website helps you find restaurants in a city. Restaurants may be listed by city region, and by type of restaurant. The home page may have links to 30 city regions. It may also have links for 20 types of restaurants. The user has a choice. Say the user chooses a region. The resulting new page may still be relevant and usable by listing ALL 30 regions because the user may want to choose a different region. Altenatively say the user chooses a restaurant type for the whole city. The resulting page may still be relevant and usable by giving the user the ability to choose another type OR another city region. IOW there may be a 'mega-menu' at the top of the page which duplicates on every page in the site, but is very helpful. Instead of requiring the user to go back to the home page to click a new region or a new type the user can do it on any page. That's duplicate content in the form of a mega menu, but is very relevant and usable. YET, my sense is that Google MAY penalize the site even though arguably it is the most relevant and usable approach for someone that may or may not have a specific region or restaurant type in mind..
Thoughts?
-
Hi David,
Sorry for such a delayed response but I keep wondering about your point on the meganav. Its known that Google is able to figure out menus and wont count those toward duplicate content? I just would like to be sure since my menus are fairly substantial when dropdowns are included.
-
You are giving me SOME hope for a site I've been working on for about 5 years and am getting ready to launch. Thanks very much.
-
Your comment in #4 about time on page and bookmarking is something I think should be taken into account by Google for search page ranking, but I've never heard before that they do. [...] Are those significant factors used by Google?
In my opinion, google has every ability to measure visitor actions. They own the Chrome browser and could measure the engagement of visitors with a page, they have access to what gets bookmarked in Chrome, they know when a visitor clicks in the SERPs and when that same visitor reappears in the SERPs, they don't have to have links because they can read when people mention your site in a forum, they know if people navigate to your site by typeing the name of your site into search... I believe that all of these things are important for rankings but how important I can't say.
I have lots of really good content that when I published it the page ranked at #150 or deeper in the SERPs. Then, I built zero links and did zero promotion and slowly that page rises in the SERPs and is now in the top three - over a year later. I have hundreds of pages that have done that. You gotta have a LOT of patience to do things that way but you spend zero effort on promotion and 100% effort producing assets for your website. That is what I have done since about 2006. Virtually zero linkbuilding. My visitors are my linkbuilders.
-
EGOL, Thanks very much. I, being a one person biz, am very interested in the idea of ranking by popularity, as my goal is to have the best site out there but I have limited funds to promote it. Your comment in #4 about time on page and bookmarking is something I think should be taken into account by Google for search page ranking, but I've never heard before that they do. After all, usage and return usage is what it is all about! Are those significant factors used by Google? If so maybe there is hope..:)
-
Egol has this summed up perfectly!
-Andy
-
One view is that as long as your site pages have relevant content and are easy for the user, Google will rank you fairly.
The other view is that Google has 'rules' you must follow and even if the site is relevant and user-friendly if you don't play by the rules your site may never rank well.
Which is closer to the truth?
They are both a small piece of the truth. To rank on google your PAGE must be:
-
relevant to the search term and presented to google with proper title, crawability, and text visibility
-
have substantive content about the search term
-
be validated by other websites by being linked from them or mentioned by them (these are just a few validations)
-
be validated by visitors because they have queried it by name, stayed on it, bookmarked it, mentioned it by name in web readable content (these are just a few validations)
Any idiot can do #1. A good author can do #2. But, #3 and #4 are really difficult to accomplish by people who are not related to you or paid by you.
In low competion #1 and #2 can be enough to get your ranked. The higher the competition for a query the more you need #3 and #4 to rank. For some queries it can be almost impossible for a newcomer to rank on the first page of google without investing $xxx,xxx or more in website assets and promotion.... AND... having a plan in place to present the site in a way that google will be able to read it and interpret it in a way that will maximize the #3 and #4 assets.
-
-
A meganav is not considered duplicate content. Duplicate content means product description pages that are identical, having the same articles multiple places on your site, etc.
To the main parts of your question - Google does not want it to be easy for people in the SEO world. They give guidelines, but following them means nothing. What Google considers an ok tactic one years becomes an unacceptable tactic the next (see guest blogging). There are many ways to succeed in ranking. Some follow Google's rules and wait for rankings to come, others use tons of spammy tactics and rank instantly (though they always risk losing it overnight if Google catches on).
The idea that an easy to use site and relevant content will make Google rank you fairly is a joke. And though only 1 has said it publicly, there are many top minds in the SEO world who will tell you that in private.
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
-
Google for Jobs: how to deal with third-party sites that appear instead of your own?
We have shared our company's job postings on several third-party websites, including The Muse, as well as putting the job postings on our own website. Our site and The Muse have about the same schema markup except for these differences: The Muse...
Local Website Optimization | | Kevin_P
• Lists Experience Requirements
• Uses HTML in the description with tags and other markup (our website just has plain text)
• Has a Name in JobPosting
• URL is specific to the position (our website's URL just goes to the homepage)
• Has a logo URL for Organization When you type the exact job posting's title into Google, The Muse posting shows up in Google for Jobs--not our website's duplicate copy. The only way to see our website's job posting is to type in the exact job title plus "site:http://www.oursite.com". What is a good approach for getting our website's posting to be the priority in Google for Jobs? Do we need to remove postings from third-party sites? Structure them differently? Do organic factors affect which version of the job posting is shown, and if so, can I assume that our site will face challenges outranking a big third-party site?1 -
Duplicate Content - Local SEO - 250 Locations
Hey everyone, I'm currently working with a client that has 250 locations across the United States. Each location has its own website and each website has the same 10 service pages. All with identical content (the same 500-750 words) with the exception of unique meta-data and NAP which has each respective location's name, city, state, etc. I'm unsure how duplicate content works at the local level. I understand that there is no penalty for duplicate content, rather, any negative side-effects are because search engines don't know which page to serve, if there are duplicates. So here's my question: If someone searches for my client's services in Miami, and my client only as one location in that city, does duplicate content matter? Because that location isn't competing against any of my client's other locations locally, so search engines shouldn't be confused by which page to serve, correct? Of course, in other cities, like Phoenix, where they have 5 locations, then I'm sure the duplicate content is negatively affecting all 5 locations. I really appreciate any insight! Thank you,
Local Website Optimization | | SEOJedi510 -
How to Handle Franchise Duplicate Content
My agency handles digital marketing for about 80 Window World stores, each with separate sites. For the most part, the content across all of these sites is the exact same, though we have slowly but surely been working through getting new, unique content up on some of the top pages over the past year. These pages include resource pages and specific product pages. I'm trying to figure out the best temporary solution as we go through this process. Previously, we have tried to keep the pages we knew were duplicates from indexing, but some pages have still managed to slip through the cracks during redesigns. Would canonicals be the route to go? (do keep in mind that there isn't necessarily one "original version," so there isn't a clear answer as to which page/site all the duplicated pages should point to) Should we just continue to use robots.txt/noindex for all duplicate pages for now? Any other recommendations? Thanks in advance!
Local Website Optimization | | TriMarkDigital0 -
How can I migrate a website's content to a new WP theme, delete the old site, and avoid duplication and other issues?
Hey everyone. I recently took on a side project managing a family member's website (www.donaldtlevinemd.com). I don't want to get too into it, but my relative was roped into two shady digital marketing firms that did nothing but a mix of black-hat SEO (and nothing at all). His site currently runs off a custom wordpress theme which is incompatible with important plugins I want to use for local optimization. I'm also unable to implement responsive design for mobile. The silver lining is that these previous "content marketers" did no legitimate link building (I'm auditing the link profile now) so I feel comfortable starting fresh. I'm just not technical enough to understand how to go about migrating his domain to a new theme (or creating a new domain altogether). All advice is appreciated! Thanks for your help!
Local Website Optimization | | jampaper1 -
Local site went from dominating first page - bad plugin caused duplicate content issues - now to 2nd page for all!
I had a bad plugin create duplicate content issues on my Wordpress CMS - www.pmaaustin.com I got it fixed, but now every keyword has been stuck on page 2 for search terms for 4 months now, where I was 49 out of 52 keywords on page one. It's a small local niche with mostly easier to rank keywords. Am I missing something? p.s. Also has a notice on the Dashboard that says: "404 Redirected: There are 889 captured 404 URLs that need to be processed." Could that be a problem? Thanks, Steve
Local Website Optimization | | OhYeahSteve0 -
2 Relevant local websites but closing one and redirecting it to an older site
We have 2 websites, 1 domain is about 10 years old and another is about 4 years old, the 4 yr old domain we are thinking of shutting down since its the same type of service we run but it was a 'keyword domain' that used to rank on 1st page but now its 4th page back. If we put the blog posts and other content + setup re-directs from the 4yr old domain to the 10 yr old domain, would this help the 10 yr old domain with more link juice that it might need for the extra boost? There isnt really any point having both websites up since both are about the same content and targeting the same local market.
Local Website Optimization | | surfsup0 -
How can I rank my .co.uk using content on my .com?
Hi, We currently have a .com site ranking second for our brand term in the .co.uk SERP. This is mainly because we don't own the exact match brand term which comes from not having a clue what we were doing when we set up the company. Would it be possible to out rank this term considering we the weighing that google puts towards exact matches in the URL? N.B - There are a few updates we could do to the homepage to make the on-page optimisation better and we have not actively done any link building yet which will obviously help. competitor SERP rank 1 - MOZ PA38 DA26 Our Site SERP rank 2 - MOZ PA43 DA32 Thanks Ben
Local Website Optimization | | benjmoz0 -
What's the best way to add phrase keywords to the URL?
Hi, Our keywords are all our service + a list of towns (for example, "carpet cleaning St. Louis"). The issue I'm having is that one particular site could be targeting "carpet cleaning St. Louis", "carpet cleaning Manchester", "carpet cleaning Ballwin", "carpet cleaning Kirkwood", etc. etc. etc... up to maybe 15 different towns. Is there a way to effectively add these keywords into the URL without making it look spammy? I'm having the same issue with adding the exact keywords to the page title, img alt tag, etc. Thanks for any advice/input!
Local Website Optimization | | nataliefwc0