Would you consider this to be thin content
-
I always struggle with these pages I have on my site going back and forth debating what I want to do with them. On one side Google was content, yet at the same time its all about user experience.
http://www.freescrabbledictionary.com/word-lists/words-that-start-with/letter/h/
I used to have all my words listed on one page which could have been well over 10,000. Now I pagination them as you can see. I debate writing a header of content for these pages, but honestly users just want the words. Get in, get what you need and get out. What is the recommendation on these pages. Should I write content? Should I not?
-
The test will be to see if google will index these pages, if they will rank high enough for anything to pull traffic, and if Google sees them as a Panda problem. I think these definition pages are risky. Go out and look at what the dictionary sites (that rank for anything) have done on their definition pages. There is a lot more content.
================================
On this page, Google sees a one sentence definition and one sentence that uses the word. There is also a lot of characters that Google will not understand.
http://www.freescrabbledictionary.com/dictionary/word/haboob/
I copied some of the definitions and searched for them in text on Google. The definitions that I checked were found verbatim on over 1000 websites.
The example sentences that use these pages are also not unique. They are found on other websites.
These pages are risky for another reason.
-
Keyword stuffed?
I am referring to the page below.
http://www.freescrabbledictionary.com/word-lists/words-that-start-with/letter/h/
It is nothing more than a big list of keywords. The links that take you to definition pages. That page is stuffed full of keywords.
the only other text on that page is the title.
That is the second problem with this page. if you run it through a spider simulator you will see that google might not be able to see those words. If you "view source" for those pages you will not see those words.
-
I don't consider the page to be thin, I consider it to be useful! It is worth checking what other people are doing on their list pages and seeing how you rank compared to them. If you are not being penalised it presumably isn't causing a problem.
-
Well good, I'm glad you've not gotten a manual action.
When you say feedback, do you mean user feedback or marketer/designer/developer feedback? If it were me, I'd pay more attention to user feedback. If it is what you said in your initial question that users are getting what they want (just the words, and they are clicking from the Letter H page to the HA, HAE, HAAF, etc. pages), then it would seem to me the page is valuable and useful. I wouldn't worry about Google's view of the page unless I started to see a dip in rankings, traffic, etc.
Speaking of feedback, have you surveyed your users to ask about alternative content for these pages? You could ask your users what other content they may want here to make the page more valuable or unique or authentic for those users during their visit. But I wouldn't put in words or content blocks just to try to make Google happy for fear of the page being "thin" because that could create new problems on its own.
-
Nope never a manual, just getting feedback
-
Can I get a little more info on your statements?
Keyword stuffed? The only thing you could be referring too is the links from each word to its definition, because the only other text on that page is the title.
Which page/word with the definition and sentence example was "thin"?
-
I would call the page that you linked to "keyword stuffed".
I would call the page with the definition and the example sentence to be thin.
Most of the dictionary sites that are able to persist in the SERPs have more content per page.
-
The "thin content" question can be tricky. Google's support article about this says that thin content is a page that doesn't provide users with "substantially unique or valuable content". Their support article about original content talks about the need for "authentic content".
Together, I take to mean you should err on the side of what is good for your users. Content is important, but what is really important is useful content. In you case, it sounds like you are giving visitors what they want - get in, get what you need, get out. That seems like there is value and authenticity there for your users. So long as you continue to see higher rankings, more/steady traffic from Google, then I wouldn't think you should worry.
As well, the other question to ask here if if you have received any manual actions about thin content in Search Console? I'm assuming not since you didn't mention that. But, just wanted to double to make sure you were checking for that.
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 ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Content that's behind CSS..
For content that's been loaded onto the page.. but it requires a click for it to be revealed.. as in a slider, or a tab, to save space or for a page's organization.. what are your thoughts on Google counting or weighting this content? It would make sense for Google to give it partial or no weighting as if Google attributes the content to being there, its confusion for the user to land on the page and have to find it/click around to find it.. Sorry if this is an obvious question to SEOs.. I've always assumed as long as it was loaded, it'd be mostly counted.. but I'm beginning to doubt my assumption. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | speedcommerce0 -
Ecommerce product page duplicate content
Hi, I know this topic has been covered in the past but I haven't been able to find the answers to this specific thing. So let's say on a website, all the product pages contain partial duplicate content - i.e. this could be delivery options or returning policy etc. Would this be classed as duplicate content? Or is this something that you would not get concerned about if it's let's say 5-10% of the content on the page? Or if you think this is something you'd take into consideration, how would you fix it? Thank you!
On-Page Optimization | | MH-UK0 -
Same keyword for almost same content
Hi all! my site deals with a concept called "motivation" in two different categories: motivation for teachers (related to kids) and motivation for parents (related to kids all well). These two categories (in different pages and in different menus) deals with the concept through different perspectives. BUT the keyword to optimize the pages is the same. Due to the structure of the web I've been given I am in this position. I can't redesign the web (I'm not allowed to do it). Any solution related to the keyword? Should I maybe optimize one page with the keyword and in this page have a link to the other not-optimzed page?Any ideas? Thanks in advanced.
On-Page Optimization | | juanmiguelcr0 -
Duplicate Content from on Competitor's site?
I've recently discovered large blocks of content on a competitors site that has been copy and pasted from a client's site. From what I know, this will only hurt the competitor and not my client since my guy was the original. Is this true? Is there any risk to my client? Should we take action? Dino
On-Page Optimization | | Dino640 -
Prevent indexing of dynamic content
Hi folks! I discovered bit of an issue with a client's site. Primarily, the site consists of static html pages, however, within one page (a car photo gallery), a line of php coding: dynamically generates a 100 or so pages comprising the photo gallery - all with the same page title and meta description. The photo gallery script resides in the /gallery folder, which I attempted to block via robots.txt - to no avail. My next step will be to include a: within the head section of the html page, but I am wondering if this will stop the bots dead in their tracks or will they still be able to pick-up on the pages generated by the call to the php script residing a bit further down on the page? Dino
On-Page Optimization | | SCW0 -
Duplicate Content Warning
Hi Mozers, I have a question about the duplicate content warnings I am recieving for some of my pages. I noticed that the below pattern of URLs are being flagged as duplicate content. I understand that these are seen as two different pages but I would like to know if this has an negative impact on my SEO? Why is this happening? How do I stop it from happening? http://www.XXXX.com/product1234.html?sef_rewrite=1 http://www.XXXX.com/product1234.html Thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | mozmonkey0 -
Meta Descriptions - Duplicate Content?
I have created a Meta Description for a page that is optimized for SERPS. If I also put this exact content on my page for my readers, would this be considered duplicate content? The meta description and content will be listed on the same page with the same URL. Thanks for your help.
On-Page Optimization | | tuckjames0