Brand sections performing badly in SERP's but all SEO tools think we are great
-
I have had this problem for some time now and I've asked many many experts.
Search for Falke in Google.co.uk and this is what you get:
http://www.sockshop.co.uk/by_brand/falke/ 3rd Our competitor
http://www.mytights.com/gb/brand/falke.html 4th Our competitorhttp://www.uktights.com/section/73/falke 104th this is us ????? 9th for Falke tights with same section not our falke tights section?
All sites seem to link to their brand sections in the same way with links in the header and breadcrumbs, Opensite exporler only shows 2 or 3 internal links for our compertitors, 1600+ from us?
Many of our brand sections rank badly Pretty Polly and Charnos brands rank page 2 or 3 with a brand subsection with no links to them, main section dosn't rank?Great example is Kunert, a German brand no UK competition our section has been live for 8 years, the best we can do is 71st Google UK, 1st on Bing (as we should be).
I'm working on adding some quality links, but our comtetitors have a few low quality or no external links, only slightly better domain authority but rank 100+ positions better than us on some brands.
This to me would suggest there is something onpage / internal linking I'm doing wrong, but all tools say "well done, grade A" take a holiday.
Keyword denisty is similar to our competiors and I've tried reducing the number of products on the page. All pages really ranked well pre Penguin, and Bing still likes them.
This is driving me nuts and costing us money
Cheers
Jonathan
www.uktights.com -
Jonathan
First off, I would ignore the competitors to some degree. It's going to lead you in circles. It's not so simple that links relate directly to rankings. There are a ton of factors as to why competitors can be ranking better. I'd focus purely on cleaning up your site as best as possible.
You also do seem to have an issue with anchor text in your link profile - a lot the top anchors are commercial keywords ""hoisery online uk" "tights" etc. These need to be changed or cleaned up. This is going to give you a flag as being over-optimized.
I don't think number of internal linking pages would create a penalty.
How's your non-google traffic as a percentage? If it's anything less than 30% of overall traffic (and organic Google is 70% or more) I'd work on getting traffic from other sources - this will all feed back into your SEO.
-
Hi There
Bill Sebald offers a fantastic method for link cleanup, and then submitting a disavow here: http://www.greenlaneseo.com/blog/2014/01/step-by-step-disavow-process/ - if you have never submitted a disavow, I would do that. It's in Bill's post, but generally the links in Webmaster Tools are a good place to start, and use Cognitive SEO to process them and review.
-Dan
-
Thanks Andy, great advice! Just to clarify for the asker, Penguin is purely algorithmic, not a manual penalty in any way.
-Dan
-
The main consensus and I agree, is that we have penalties from Google, but looking at our competitors link profiles we are only slightly worse, and getting better by the day.
Maybe Google has algorithmic penalties on some of our brand pages, but why, as they have few or no external links?
Is it possible the number of internal linking pages is creating some sort of penalty and if so how do I sort it out as we are a big ecommerce site?
Why does open site explorer show us having 1600+ internal links but our competitors show only 2 and 12 internal links when they link to their brands sections in the same way with a massive amount of links?
I still don't know how to fix this, do the brand pages need more content?
I have new quality links going to 2 of the brand pages from a UK university that is also trying to help.
Cheers
Jonathan
-
I like SEMrush thanks
Yes I know I have try and get the profile squeaky clean. Its hard to stop these links, due what we sell,
I see our main competitor is on http://www.freeadultwebsitesdirectory.com/stockings.html and http://www.sexualallsorts.co.uk/xxxSextoyShop/Stockings-and-Hosiery-Tights/default.aspx too who rank well for everything, so maybe a few more good links and remove some more bad links
What's the best way for tracking down bad links, I'll try and clean a few more.
I still think the internal links may be causing a problem but may be they are passing bad juice.
-
According to SEMrush, your website went from 600+ KW in top 20 for US in august 2012 to 150+ nowadays.
In my mind, links like http://www.freeadultwebsitesdirectory.com/stockings.html
http://kupilandia.ru/individual-order/
http://www.sexualallsorts.co.uk/xxxSextoyShop/Stockings-and-Hosiery-Tights/default.aspx
are not helping to stay out of algo penalty.
-
Hi Andy
Its not quite as clean as my competitors, using a natural linking tool we have 21% unnatural links they have around 17%. We have a few too many directory links so constantly trying to remove them as we build in more quality, we have many links from Google as we are an AdWords success story, plus they filmed us for their YouTube channel, many links from Wikipedia, plus a nice link from the BBC news site.
I'm wondering if we have too many instances of the brand keyword on the page, as if you lengthen the keyword to include tights, i.e "falke tights" the page ranks fine.
Also according to MOZ we have 1600+ links to the brand page with falke as the anchor text, This may explain why our sub sections rank for some keywords Charnos or pretty polly as these only have 2 or 3 links to them. They are not linked to from the header or breadcrumbs.
I'm really stuck on this, as I don't know how to hide the links from the header / breadcrumbs, if Google thinks 1600+ internal falke links looks spammy. Plus how do my competitors get away with it?
Jonathan
-
Hi Jonathan,
Sorry, I misread that bit.
What does your actual backlink profile look like?
-Andy
-
Hi Andy thanks for your help
But all our links and 99% of our competitors links are all internal, our home page ranks 8th for our main keyword: tights, we have no manual action warnings.
Some brands are not bad, Pierre Mantoux, Trasparenze, Glamory.
Cheers
Jonathan
-
Hi Jonathan,
These sorts of problems can be many different things. With what you are saying, I would be leaning towards thinking that you had a penalty from Google - that would be where I would start looking.
You mention a lot more links back to you than your competitors have - perhaps it is Penguin that has performed a manual / algorithmic action on the site? When was the last time you were ranking well, or has this always been the case that the site has never ranked too well? Who built the current links to the site and how long ago was this done?
It could be so many other problems that it could be impossible to go through them all here, but the correlation between Bing and Google is something I have seen many times with penalties. Rank well in Bing, but bad in Google.
Sorry it's a little open ended, but like I said, it could be so many other things.
-Andy
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
-
Old brand name being suffixed on Google SERP listings
At the end of some of our listings in Google search results pages, our old brand name is being suffixed even though it is not in our title tags. For context, we re-branded several months ago, and at that time also migrated to a new domain name. Our title tags have our current brand name suffixed, like "Shop Example Category | Example©". In the Google search results, but not in Bing nor Yahoo, about half of our pages have titles whcih instead look like this: "Shop Example Category | Example© - oldBrandName". The "dash" and the old brand name are not in our title tags, but they are being appended, even when our title tags are fairly long. For example, even with titles at 54 characters (421 pixels), the suffix is being appended. BUT, not with our longer title tags. We are actually OK with the brand name being appended if our title tags are on the shorter side, but would prefer that our current brand name be appended instead of the older one. I realize we could increase the length of all our title tags, and perhaps we may go that route. But, does anyone know where Google would be getting the old brand name to append onto the URLs? We've checked and it is not in our page source (the old brand name is used in our page source in some areas of text and some url paths, but not in any kind of meta tag). Per Google's guidance (https://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-do-not-put-organization-schema-markup-on-every-page/289981/) we only have schema for the "Organization" on our home page, and not on every page. So, assuming this advice is correct to not add schema to every page, how can we inform Google of our current brand name so that it stops appending our old brand name on pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoelevated0 -
When rebranding, what's the best thing to do with the new domain before rebranding?
A. Do nothing
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Maxaro.nl
B. Redirect to legacy site (current domain)
C. Create a placeholder with information about the rebranding
D. Other... What do you think is best?0 -
Why do people put xml sitemaps in subfolders? Why not just the root? What's the best solution?
Just read this: "The location of a Sitemap file determines the set of URLs that can be included in that Sitemap. A Sitemap file located at http://example.com/catalog/sitemap.xml can include any URLs starting with http://example.com/catalog/ but can not include URLs starting with http://example.com/images/." here: http://www.sitemaps.org/protocol.html#location Yet surely it's better to put the sitemaps at the root so you have:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart
(a) http://example.com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml
http://example.com/sitemap-spongecakes.xml
and so on... OR this kind of approach -
(b) http://example/com/sitemap.xml
http://example.com/sitemap/chocolatecakes.xml and
http://example.com/sitemap/spongecakes.xml I would tend towards (a) rather than (b) - which is the best option? Also, can I keep the structure the same for sitemaps that are subcategories of other sitemaps - for example - for a subcategory of http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes.xml I might create http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes-cherryicing.xml - or should I add a sub folder to turn it into http://example.com/sitemap-chocolatecakes/cherryicing.xml Look forward to reading your comments - Luke0 -
We used to speak of too many links from same C block as bad, have CDN's like CloudFlare made that concept irrelevant?
Over lunch with our head of development, we were discussing the way CloudFlare and other CDN's help prevent DDOS attacks, etc. and I began to wonder about the IP address vs. the reverse proxy IP address. Before we would look to see commonalities in the IP as a way that search engines would modify the value to given links and most link software showed this. For ahrefs, I know they still show common IPs using the C block as the reference point. I began to get curious about what was the real IP when our head of dev said, that is the IP from CloudFlare... So, I ran a site in ahrefs and we got an older site we had developed years ago that showed up as follows: Actos-lawsuit.org 104.28.13.57 and again as 104.28.12.57 (duplicate C block is first three sets of numbers are the same and obviously, this has a .12 and a .13 so not duplicate.) Then we looked at our host to see what was the IP shown there: 104.239.226.120. So, this really begs a question of is C Block data or even IP address data still relevant with regard to links? What do the search engines see when they look for IP address now? Yes, I have an opinion, but would love to hear yours first!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RobertFisher0 -
Should I disallow via robots.txt for my sub folder country TLD's?
Hello, My website is in default English and Spanish as a sub folder TLD. Because of my Joomla platform, Google is listing hundreds of soft 404 links of French, Chinese, German etc. sub TLD's. Again, i never created these country sub folder url's, but Google is crawling them. Is it best to just "Disallow" these sub folder TLD's like the example below, then "mark as fixed" in my crawl errors section in Google Webmaster tools?: User-agent: * Disallow: /de/ Disallow: /fr/ Disallow: /cn/ Thank you, Shawn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
I can't help but think something is wrong with my SEO
So we re-launched our site about a month ago, and ever since we've seen a dramatic drop in search results (probably due to some errors that were made) when changing servers and permalink structure. But, I can't help but think something else is at play here. When we write something, I can check 24 hours later, and if I copy the Title verbatim, but we don't always show up in SERPs. In fact, I looked at a post today, and the meta description showing is not the same, but when I check the source code, it's right. What shows up in Google: http://d.pr/i/jGJg What's actually in the source code: http://d.pr/i/p4s8 Why is this happening? Website is The Tech Block
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ttb0 -
Who is a good provider of many class C hosting IP's ?
this is to host about 80 different websites all in the same niche, all doing very well in ranking for their specific keywords, currently at hostgator seohosting plan, but hostgator has issues I do not want to continue dealing with
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | beehappy0 -
Is it worth submitting a blog's RSS feed...
to as many RSS feed directories as possible? Or would this have a similar negative impact that you'd get from submitting a site to loads to "potentially spammy" site directories?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeterAlexLeigh0