Can horrific grammar and spelling in comments hurt the value of an otherwise great page?
-
I've got a website whose pages get lots of comments. Tons of activity, which I would think Google would like (and seems to like). However -- I just can't put this nicely -- most commenters are not very bright. Their grammar and spelling is horrific. These are not foreigners who lack English skills, they are just about all primarily English speakers and the site is 99% US traffic. It's a low-income segment of the population.
So, I've been wondering recently if Google will mark down the value of the page due to the bad grammar and spelling in the comments, even if the page's content is otherwise very good and lengthy. I have read that they grammar and spelling into consideration when looking at the page, but would that include comments, or would they know they are comments and not judge a page on that?
It would be a pain, but maybe I should I run all the comments at least through a spell checker? And manually fix their grammar? Problem is I get about 40 comments a day.
And when I say bad grammar and spelling, I mean REALLY bad. Embarrassing.
-
I would argue that if this is the type of person who could be your customer you can keep it as is and let google index it. As you said, it is helping you in the short term. Upon any manual review, it would seem that it would pass easily, and that it is not any type of auto-generated spam or produced with the intention of manipulating pagerank or search results.
Could it get you filtered in the future? Maybe, but more likely maybe not. Is it helping bring in more of the same kind of people? I think it is. But I don't think you have a reason to shy away from such legitimate engagement.
-
I just thought I'd show you all what a typical comment looks like. as bad as this is, it's only about average. They can be much,much worse. And yes, it came in all caps, as many do.
I JUST GOTTEN THIS BUGET PHONE A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO AND I WANT ,,,, TO USE IT BUT I CN'T CONNECT WHAT SHOULD , I DO I NEED A PHONE REEL BAD CAUSE I'M THU THE GOVERMENT PROGRAM AND I DO HAVE MEDICAL-CAL AND I NEED A PHONE TO CONECT PEOPLE AND I'M ON A PROGRAM WITH THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES .AND IF I NEED TO B CONTACT I CAN'T SO WHAT I DO . I BEEN CALLING THE PHONE BUT THERE NO ANSWERS I'M VERY CONFUSE...
-
Good point. Some of the comments are unintelligible, so I might want to manually make them sound like at least a third grader wrote them.
The good thing about our not-so-bright readers is that they get confused and click lots of ads.
-
Flavour - schmavour!
the only thing in my world that hurts conversions - is the inablity to communicate! if the bad grammar does that, then I'd find a way to change it to work for you - rather than against you....
-
Leave the comments as is and do not worry about spelling. Google understands spelling mistakes and I don't think you'll receive any kind of penalty for it.
In fact, if the people commenting are the type of people you want on the site, then the mispellings will work in your favor. That same demographic is typing those horrific misspelled words in Google search and you have them right on page.
-
If the comments are useful (contextual relevant) and don't look spammy, leave them as is.
Will fixing the misspellings hurt you? Most likely no. A Google patent states: "content deemed to be unimportant if updated/changed, such as...comments...may be given relatively little weight or even ignored altogether when determining UA"
However, I would probably leave as is.
-
I don't think so. I have a feeling the grammar/spelling adds to the flavor of your search results and that they help to bring in more folks who are likely to engage in similar ways. However, if the people commenting are not your target audience, that would be a different issue.
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
-
Can I replace categories with a static page
Hello there. I want to replace all of WordPress categories with static pages so that users see a well designed and constructed presentation of all the articles within each topic instead of just a long list of excerpts. I've already done this with 2 categories and although it is hard work I can't help feeling it is a much better thing for my users. However, I'm concerned that I am embarking on this project without being totally sure that it makes sense from an Seo point of view, or whether there are any downsides I haven't thought of? My idea is that the WordPress categories are set to noindex and nofollow. Search engines should find all of my static category pages and all of the content within each category will be spidered from there instead. Just to be sure you know what I mean here is a link to a normal category - https://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/category/consumer/ and here is my static page replacement for it - https://www.whitegoodshelp.co.uk/consumer-rights-appliances/ Both pages contain links to all articles within the category except the one generated by WordPress is just a long paginated list, and my replacement is a proper category page, which is hopefully far more useful . Can someone please confirm that there are no downsides to this strategy? 🙂
On-Page Optimization | | Snowdune1 -
Combine poorly ranking pages into a single page?
I'm doing on-page optimizations for an apartment management company, and they have about seven apartments listed on their site. Rather than include everything on the same page - /apartments/apartment-name/ - they have the following setup: /apartments/apartment-name/contact /apartments/apartment-name/features /apartments/apartment-name/availability /apartments/apartment-name/gallery /apartments/apartment-name/neighborhood With very few exceptions, none of these pages appear to rank for anything, and those that do either rank very poorly for seemingly random keywords or for keywords like the apartment complex name (alongside the main landing page for the complex). I'm of the mind to recommend combining the pages into a single one that contains all the info, eliminates the chances for duplicate content (all of the neighborhood pages contain the same content verbatim), and prevents keyword cannibalization. Thoughts? Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | Alces1 -
How can I drive organic traffic to a specific landing page?
HI, I have a site which is attracting traffic for my target keywords but to the wrong pages. I usually create a series of articles on the topic (10-15) an start getting organic traffic, but I have not been able to drive the traffic to the main page for that topic. How can I get the main page rank over sub pages? Thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | Rajaindiain0 -
Does having landing page text beneath the products at the base of the page hinder SEO?
I have a site that is capable of hosting the landing page description either above the products under the H1 or below them at the bottom of the page before the footer. I have always chosen to keep the text "above the fold" as presumably this would be crawled sooner in relation to the rest of the page content than had it been at the bottom. However, this means that I can only really write just a few sentences for each landing page - otherwise the products would shift further down the page - and I don't think this is good from a UX POV. Question: If I move the bulk of my landing page descriptions to the text snippet located underneath the products, could this negatively affect my SEO? Text at the bottom of the page is obviously not significant for users, so is there a chance this could be seen as spam?
On-Page Optimization | | Silkstream0 -
Wordpress Post as Slideshow - One long page vs many short pages?
We are working on implementing a slideshow format for some of the posts on a website, and it appears that using this format breaks a long post into several shorter pages. That's what we want from a user experience standpoint, but are wondering if there are negative SEO implications from having the content broken up in this way, and whether search engines will view it as one longer page or several very short pages? Here is an example: http://www.forthebestrate.com/10-cheap-ideas-for-summer-fun/ Thanks for the help!
On-Page Optimization | | ILM_Marketing0 -
How can i change my landing page title in search engines?
Hi SEO folks, Please help! I've changed my home page title 30 days ago, but my Google search results is still showing the old one! Why is that happening? can I've a brief explanation please so i can learn. thanks a million cRnPa6d
On-Page Optimization | | aptustelecom0 -
Changing the url of a page
Hello. I would like to change the url of a page. It currently has very few inbound links. I would set up a 301 redirect to the new url. Is there anything else I should take into account before changing the url? Is there a downside to changing a url? Do inbound links carry the same value when a 301 redirect is involved? Thank you!
On-Page Optimization | | nyc-seo0 -
Is reported duplication on the pages or their canonical pages?
There are several sections getting flagged for duplication on one of our sites: http://mysite.com/section-1/?something=X&confirmed=true
On-Page Optimization | | Safelincs
http://mysite.com/section-2/?something=X&confirmed=true
http://mysite.com/section-3/?something=X&confirmed=true Each of the above are showing as having duplicates of the other sections. Indeed, these pages are exactly the same (it's just an SMS confirmation page you enter your code in), however, they all have canonical links back to the section (without the query string), i.e. section-1, section-2 and section-3 respectively. These three sections have unique content and aren't flagged up for duplications themselves, so my questions are: Are the pages with the query strings the duplicates, and if so why are the canonical links being ignored? or Are the canonical pages without the query strings the duplicates, and if so why don't they appear as URLs in their own right in the duplicate content report? I am guessing it's the former, but I can't figure out why it would ignore the canonical links. Any ideas? Thanks0