Hreflang doubt use correctly
-
Hello,I have a question, I want to know which option is best for implementing a multi languages. We have a client whose website will have English and Spanish languages, both languages have the same content but English we focus on the US and UK, and Spanish only for the country Spain, the question arises what is the correct nomenclature we use or would it be the best value.**Option 1:****Option 2:**Or any of the two options is correct What would be the correct ?. Another question, if a German user is in Spain, and do a search on (Google Spain), what will be the best option that should be implemented, / is-de / or single / de /, which one will position before ( provided that the statement I is correct). A greeting and thanks.
-
I would go with none of the above.
Your second option has "en" on the Spanish line by the way.
I would use this structure (and hreflang):
Also, once you're done test your code on Flang. And don't forget to do your inner pages as well.
-
You'll want the shortest, most technically feasible URL structure based on whatever website platform you're using. Subfolders like http://example.com/es/ and http://example.com/en/ are ideal, and there is a lot of talk about subdomain vs. subfolder on MOZ. Keep in mind you also have a http://example.com landing page, so you'll either need to redirect users or have visitors select a language on this home page. There is pretty thorough documentation here https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en on how to use the hreflang attribute in each case.
I leave my default language as the base URL and put additional languages in subfolders. Statistically, I tend to rank higher for keywords in my default language than for the translated keywords in additional languages. You might want to target the market with the most traffic or conversions (whatever metric you prioritize) with the default URL and then add additional languages as subfolders, preferably without hyphens or underscores in the locale code, i.e. en-us, en-uk, etc. This is more for your visitors and not a particular ranking factor, but shorter domains are preferable.
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
-
Probably basic, but how to use image Title and Alt Text - and confusing advice from Moz!
I've been doing SEO on my business's site for years and have got good results. I've always used image Titles and Alt Text text. Our blog posts are image-intensive, often with 100-200 pictures (not surprising since we're photographers). For any given blog post, I've tended to have a uniform image Title for each image and then a more specialised Alt Text tag giving a description. A typical image on one of our blog posts would be like this: Image filename: wedding-photography-at-so-and-so-venue-001.jpg .... 002, 003 etc Image Title Attribute: Wedding Photography at So-And-So-Venue by Our-Company-Name - this would be the same for every image in the blog post. Alternative Text: Bride and groom exchanging vows during wedding ceremony at so-and-so-venue - this would be tailed for each image. So my question is - is this right? The Moz help page for image SEO is actually incorrect in one aspect: https://moz.com/ugc/10-tips-for-optimizing-your-images-for-search "Alt text (short for “alternative text”) is used to highlight the identity of an image when you hover over it with your mouse cursor. It also shows as text to all users when there are problems rendering the image." This is not the case. Hovering over the image in Firefox, Chrome, Edge and Opera ALL display the Image Title, NOT Alt Text. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robandsarahgillespie0 -
Hreflang targeted website using the root directory's description & title
Hi there, Recently I applied the href lang tags like so: Unfortunately, the Australian site uses the same description and title as the US site (which was the root directory initially), am i doing something wrong? Would appreciate any response, thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | oliverkuchies0 -
Drupal Alinks is this good to use?
Hi, https://drupal.org/project/alinks We have 1,000's of Soft links created like this in 1,000's of pages Each page 1 to 2 links that are soft links would this be fine? SEO would this be good or should we remove it Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mtthompsons0 -
How to format a video sitemap for GWT using Vimeo iframe code
I noticed a thread on this forum about using the old embedd code from vimeo for videos, although I can't see this option in Vimeo in 2013. My Question is I have Iframe embedded videos from vimeo, How do I format a google video site map accordingly? or do I need a custom media player instead?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robertrRSwalters0 -
Canonical Tag Uses Source Title and Meta Data?
When optimising a regional same language micro site within a sub folder of a .com it dawned on me that our use of the hreflang and canonical meta elements will render individual elements such as H1 and title obsolete. As a canonical tag takes the canonical source title and meta right? It would still have value in optimising localised headings though? Appreciate any thoughts, suggestions (o:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 3wh0 -
Proper use and coding of rel = "canonical" tag
I'm working on a site that has pages for many wedding vendors. There are essentially 3 variations of the page for each vendor with only slightly different content, so they're showing up as "duplicate content" in my SEOmoz Campaign. Here's an example of the 3 variations: http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161 http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=messageWrite http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm?vendorID=4161&action=writeReview Because of this, we placed a rel="canoncial" tag in the second 2 pages to try to fix the problem. However, the coding does not seem to validate in the w3 html validator. I can't say I understand html well enough to understand the error the validator is pointing out. We also added a the following to the second 2 types of pages <meta name="robots" content="noindex"> Am I employing this tag correctly in this case? Here is a snippet of the code below. <html> <head> <title>Reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MAtitle> <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="[/includes/style.css](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/includes/style.css)"> <link href="[http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161](view-source:http://www.weddingreportsma.com/MA-wedding.cfm/vendorID/4161)" rel="canonical" /> <meta name="robots" content="noindex">
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jeffreytrull1
<meta name="keywords" content="Astonishing Event, Inc, Somerset Massachusetts, Massachusetts Wedding Wedding Planners Directory, Massachusetts weddings, wedding Massachusetts ">
<meta name="description" content="Get information and read reviews on Astonishing Event, Inc from Somerset MA. Astonishing Event, Inc appears in the directory of Somerset MA wedding Wedding Planners on WeddingReportsMA.com."> <script src="[http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js](view-source:http://www.google-analytics.com/urchin.js)" type="text/javascript">script> <script type="text/javascript"> _uacct = "UA-173959-2"; urchinTracker(); script> head>0 -
Competitor using shady SEO tactics but still ranks at the top in Organic listings
A competitor of my client has been ranking consistently in the top 2 spots in the organic listings on Google for years. They have the advantage of keywords in the URL but no matter what we do we just can't bump them out of the top position. Recently we discovered that they have 7 or so .org sites set up claiming to be run by volunteers and their opinions are un-biased that "highly recommend" products from the main site's company. Is this against Google's policies? I've submitted a spam report to Google but of course haven't heard anything back from them. Our AdWords rep told us that the policy team doesn't respond directly to claims because of privacy reasons? Anyone know any other way to report things like this to Google? We got dropped from the rankings for 3 months due to malicious code (spammy links) injected into all the pages on our site but these people sit steadily at the top. I don't get it.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | pidot0 -
Examples of sites other than Hubpages that have used subdomains to recover from Panda?
Everyone knows subdomains worked for Hubpages to recover from Panda. Does anyone know of other examples of sites that have recovered from Panda using subdomains?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0