Google's 'related:' operator
-
I have a quick question about Google's 'related:' operator when viewing search results. Is there reason why a website doesn't produce related/similar sites?
For example, if I use the related: operator for my site, no results appear.
https://www.google.com/#q=related:www.handiramp.comThe site has been around since 1998. The site also has two good relevant DMOZ inbound links. Any suggestions on why this is and any way to fix it?
Thank you.
-
Anything ever come of this, folks? Just noticed this about our website (https://www.google.com/#&q=related:epicwebstudios.com), but also noticed MOZ now has related sites appearing. So does Thom's Handiramp site. Still probably not a huge deal but I going nuts trying to understand where the "related" is being generated and how we can help improve the graph by improving our website. FWIW, all of the aforementioned tips have been applied to our site, epicwebstudios.com.
-- David -
With "related:" - you could say all the same things with Moz.com, and we also don't have the related results, but I doubt it's hurting our search rankings at all.
Regarding Dmoz - there's no particular way to get Google to recognize Dmoz listings and include them. They seem to do so sometimes and not others. You can actively prevent them using that listing with the noodp tag, but there's no way to do the reverse and get them to pay attention. One thing you might try is making sure they've actually crawled & indexed the page on Dmoz with your listing recently. If they haven't (you can look at the cache date in Google's results), you might try linking to it, using "Fetch as Googlebot," etc.
-
Hi Rand/Matt, I understand your answer but I really think there is something more there. We have developed tremendous content, our site has been up since 1998. We have good PA and DA and no sense of any type of penguin type penalty. We have in the past dominated the SERPs often at the top slots. Then as Google added "brand" consideration to the mix we've been placed more middle of the first page (some have mentioned that this might be related to a panda hit but I don't think so when I look at the quality of our site versus the quality of the sites beating us). All of our competitors have "related" classifications and those related tags are page, not site related. Interestingly, our URLs will show up from time to time on the competitors related listings. I'm not sure how long this has been going on but I'm thinking that there is some sort of manual tag (I don't think this is a penalty of any sort) that Google has attached to our domain. I truly believe that the lack of a related tag some how is reducing our SERP ranking. I'd love to find an answer to this mystery.
On a related but separate note I've noticed that some of our competitors have another type of notation that shows up right next to the related/cache arrow that references DMOZ of Wikipedia listings. While we don't have a Wikipedia listing we do have a DMOZ listing, but that is not shown by Google either. Do you have any idea how to get Google to recognize our DMOZ posting? (I realize that DMOZ in it self is really pretty useless but if Google is recognizing it as important enough to list with the URL listings for some of our competitors there must be some value there.)
Any help or insight that you can provide would be much appreciated.
-
Hi Thom - unfortunately, I don't have much to give you, but I can say that this isn't necessarily a problem. Tons of sites that do really well in search results, have popular brands, and are legitimate don't have "Related:" results. Moz itself is one, but we've seen others. There may be elements about Google having issues understanding your content or not seeing many powerful links from sources to your site that also link to other places, but we don't know for sure.
Long story short - if you're not seeing other issues with your site in Google, I wouldn't worry about it.
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
-
Over-optimizing Internal Linking: Is this real and, if so, what's the happy medium?
I have heard a lot about having a solid internal linking structure so that Google can easily discover pages and understand your page hierarchies and correlations and equity can be passed. Often, it's mentioned that it's good to have optimized anchor text, but not too optimized. You hear a lot of warnings about how over-optimization can be perceived as spammy: https://neilpatel.com/blog/avoid-over-optimizing/ But you also see posts and news like this saying that the internal link over-optimization warnings are unfounded or outdated:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SearchStan
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-no-internal-linking-overoptimization-penalty-27092.html So what's the tea? Is internal linking overoptimization a myth? If it's true, what's the tipping point? Does it have to be super invasive and keyword stuffy to negatively impact rankings? Or does simple light optimization of internal links on every page trigger this?1 -
Is it good practice to use "SAVE $1000's" in SEO titles and Meta Descriptions?
Our company sells a product system that will permanently waterproof almost anything. We market it as a DIY system. I am working on SEO titles and descriptions. This topic came up for discussion, if using "SAVE $1000's.." would help or hurt. We are trying to create an effective call to action, but we are wondering if search engines see it as click bait. Can you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tyler.louth0 -
Category Page - Optimization the product's anchor.
Hello, Does anybody have real experience optimizing internal links in the category page? The category pages of my actual client uses a weird way to link to their own products. Instead of creating diferents links (one in the picture, one in the photo and one in the headline), they create only one huge link, using everything as anchor (picture, text, price, etc.). URL: http://www.friasneto.com.br/imoveis/apartamentos/para-alugar/campinas/ This technique can reduce the total number of links in the page, improving the strenght of the other links, but also can create a "crazy" anchor text for the product. Could I improve my results creating the standard category link (one in the picture, one in the photo and one in the headline)? Hope it's not to confuse.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Nobody15569049633980 -
What's the best way to A/B test new version of your website having different URL structure?
Hi Mozzers, Hope you're doing good. Well, we have a website, up and running for a decent tenure with millions of pages indexed in search engines. We're planning to go live with a new version of it i.e a new experience for our users, some changes in site architecture which includes change in URL structure for existing URLs and introduction of some new URLs as well. Now, my question is, what's the best way to do a A/B test with the new version? We can't launch it for a part of users (say, we'll make it live for 50% of the users, an remaining 50% of the users will see old/existing site only) because the URL structure is changed now and bots will get confused if they start landing on different versions. Will this work if I reduce crawl rate to ZERO during this A/B tenure? How will this impact us from SEO perspective? How will those old to new 301 URL redirects will affect our users? Have you ever faced/handled this kind of scenario? If yes, please share how you handled this along with the impact. If this is something new to you, would love to know your recommendations before taking the final call on this. Note: We're taking care of all existing URLs, properly 301 redirecting them to their newer versions but there are some new URLs which are supported only on newer version (architectural changes I mentioned above), and these URLs aren't backward compatible, can't redirect them to a valid URL on old version.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | _nitman0 -
How should I handle URL's created by an internal search engine?
Hi, I'm aware that internal search result URL's (www.example.co.uk/catalogsearch/result/?q=searchterm) should ideally be blocked using the robots.txt file. Unfortunately the damage has already been done and a large number of internal search result URL's have already been created and indexed by Google. I have double checked and these pages only account for approximately 1.5% of traffic per month. Is there a way I can remove the internal search URL's that have already been indexed and then stop this from happening in the future, I presume the last part would be to disallow /catalogsearch/ in the robots.txt file. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GrappleAgency0 -
Will Canonical tag on parameter URLs remove those URL's from Index, and preserve link juice?
My website has 43,000 pages indexed by Google. Almost all of these pages are URLs that have parameters in them, creating duplicate content. I have external links pointing to those URLs that have parameters in them. If I add the canonical tag to these parameter URLs, will that remove those pages from the Google index, or do I need to do something more to remove those pages from the index? Ex: www.website.com/boats/show/tuna-fishing/?TID=shkfsvdi_dc%ficol (has link pointing here)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | partnerf
www.website.com/boats/show/tuna-fishing/ (canonical URL) Thanks for your help. Rob0 -
Dynamic 301's causing duplicate content
Hi, wonder if anyone can help? We have just changed our site which was hosted on IIS and the page url's were like this ( example.co.uk/Default.aspx?pagename=About-Us ). The new page url is example.co.uk/About-Us/ and is using Apache. The 301's our developer told us to use was in this format: RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^/Default.aspx$
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GoGroup51
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^pagename=About-Us$
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.co.uk/About-Us/ [R=301,L] This seemed to work from a 301 point of view; however it also seemed to allow both of the below URL's to give the same page! example.co.uk/About-Us/?pagename=About-Us example.co.uk/About-Us/ Webmaster Tools has now picked up on this and is seeing it a duplicate content. Can anyone help why it would be doing this please. I'm not totally clued up and our host/ developer cant understand it too. Many Thanks0 -
Do I need to use canonicals if I will be using 301's?
I just took a job about three months and one of the first things I wanted to do was restructure the site. The current structure is solution based but I am moving it toward a product focus. The problem I'm having is the CMS I'm using isn't the greatest (and yes I've brought this up to my CMS provider). It creates multiple URL's for the same page. For example, these two urls are the same page: (note: these aren't the actual urls, I just made them up for demonstration purposes) http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Omnipress
http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/bossman.cmsx (I know this is terrible, and once our contract is up we'll be looking at a different provider) So clearly I need to set up canonical tags for the last two pages that look like this: http://www.omnipress.com/boss-man" /> With the new site restructure, do I need to put a canonical tag on the second page to tell the search engine that it's the same as the first, since I'll be changing the category it's in? For Example: http://www.website.com/home/meet-us/team-leaders/boss-man/ will become http://www.website.com/home/MEET-OUR-TEAM/team-leaders/boss-man My overall question is, do I need to spend the time to run through our entire site and do canonical tags AND 301 redirects to the new page, or can I just simply redirect both of them to the new page? I hope this makes sense. Your help is greatly appreciated!!0