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.
Toby
-
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 -
Creating a .cn site with the existing site content
Hi all, I'm planning to create a .cn site. If I simply translate the existing content on my site (.com.au) into Chinese, do you think Google will see the .cn site as a duplicate of the main site? Will this cause any duplicate content issues? Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | QuantumWeb620 -
Duplicate content with tagging and categories
Hello, Moz is showing that a site has duplicate content - which appears to be because of tags and categories. It is a relatively new site, with only a few blog publications so far. This means that the same articles are displayed under a number of different tags and categories... Is this something I should worry about, or just wait until I have more content? The 'tag' and 'category' pages are not really pages I would expect or aim for anyone to find in google results anyway. Would be glad to here any advice / opinions on this Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | wearehappymedia1 -
What does Google consider a "Duplicate Title Tag?"
Do the title tags have to be exactly the same, or can they have some of the same keywords but different context? Hypothetical example: Home Page = Raising a Kitten, Tips & Tricks for a Healthy Cat Sub-Page = How to Cat-Proof your Home when Raising a Kitten Since both title tags has "raising a kitten," "cat" and "tips" would this be considered a "Duplicate Title Tag" even though the pages have completely different content in them? Thanks in advance!
On-Page Optimization | | Scratch_MM0 -
Add content as blog post or to product pages?
Hi, We have around 40 products which we can produce plenty of in-depth and detailed "how to"-type pieces of content for. Our current plan is to produce a "How to make" style post for each as a long blog post, then link that to the product page. There's probably half a dozen or more of these kind of blog posts that we could do for each product. The reason why we planned on doing it like this is that it would give us plenty of extra pages (blog posts) on their own URL which can be indexed and rank for long tail keywords, but also that we can mention these posts in our newsletter. It'd give people a new page full of specific content that they can read instead of us having to say "Hey! We've updated our product page for X!", which seems a little pointless. Most of the products we sell don't get very many searches themselves; Most get a couple dozen and the odd few get 100-300 each, while one gets more than 2,000 per month. The products don't get many searches as it's a relatively unknown niche when it comes to details, but searches for the "categories" these products are in are very well known (Some broad terms that cover the niche get more than 30,000+ searches a month in the UK and 100,000+ world wide) [Exact].
On-Page Optimization | | azu25
Regarding the one product with more than 2,000 searches; This keyword is both the name of the product and also a name for the category page. Many of our competitors have just one of these products, whereas we're one of the first to have more than 6 variations of this product, thus the category page is acting like our other product pages and the information you would usually find on our product pages, is on the category page for just this product. I'm still leaning towards creating each piece of content as it's own blog post which links to the product pages, while the product pages link to the relevant blog posts, but i'm starting to think that it may be be better to put all the content on the product pages themselves). The only problem with this is that it cuts out on more than 200 very indepth and long blog posts (which due to the amount of content, videos and potentially dozens of high resolution images may slow down the loading of the product pages). From what I can see, here are the pros and cons: Pro (For blog posts):
1. More than 200 blog posts (potentially 1000+ words each with dozens of photos and potentially a video)..
2. More pages to crawl, index and rank..
3. More pages to post on social media..
4. Able to comment about the posts in the newsletter - Sounds more unique than "We've just updated this product page"..
5. Commenting is available on blog posts, whereas it is not on product pages..
6. So much information could slow down the loading of product pages significantly..
7. Some products are very similar (ie, the same product but "better quality" - Difficult to explain without giving the niche away, which i'd prefer not to do ATM) and this would mean the same content isn't on multiple pages.
8. By my understanding, this would be better for Google Authorship/Publishership.. Con (Against blog posts. For extended product pages):
1. Customers have all information in one place and don't have to click on a "Related Blog posts" tab..
2. More content means better ability to rank for product related keywords (All but a few receive very few searches per month, but the niche is exploding at an amazing rate at the moment)..
3. Very little chance of a blog post out-ranking the related product page for keywords.. I've run out of ideas for the 'Con' side of things, but that's why I'd like opinions from someone here if possible. I'd really appreciate any and all input, Thanks! [EDIT]:
I should add that there will be a small "How to make" style section on product pages anyway, which covers the most common step by step instructions. In the content we planned for blog posts, we'd explore the regular method in greater detail and several other methods in good detail. Our products can be "made" in several different ways which each result in a unique end result (some people may prefer it one way than another, so we want to cover every possible method), effectively meaning that there's an almost unlimited amount of content we could write.
In fact, you could probably think of the blog posts as more of "an ultimate guide to X" instead of simply "How to X"...0 -
Thin content and tabs on page
I am reviewing a site, and the web designer used tabs to impart information. I think the tabs idea looks great, but it leaves the page looking thin. Here is a link to a product page, could anyone chime in please? http://www.aireindustrial.net/spill-berms/foam-berm-drive-over-berms.asp Thanks in advance for your opinion!
On-Page Optimization | | drufast10 -
How Should I Fix Duplicate Content in Wordpress Pages
In GWMT i see google found 41 duplicate content in my wordpress blog. I am using Yoast SEO plugin to avoid those type of duplicates but still the problem was stick.. You can check the screenshot here - http://prntscr.com/dxfjq Please help..
On-Page Optimization | | mamuti0 -
Does Google still see masked domains as duplicate content?
Older reads state the domain forwarding or masking will create duplicate content but Google has evolved quite a bit and I'm wondering if that is still the case? Not suggesting that a 301 is not the proper way to redirect something but my question is: Does Google still see masked domains as duplicate content? Is there any viable use for domain masking other than for affiliates?
On-Page Optimization | | TracyWeb0