WMT Fetch as Google
-
Is there any benefits in using 'Fetch as Google' in WMT and then submitting for indexing?
I have a page which I'm trying to get to rank so far with no luck is it likely to help or could it hinder?
Please speak from experience not hearsay
Many Thanks
-
Hi,
Internal linking can be a fantastic way to build internal page authority and to give more emphasis to particular pages.
In a simple way, here is how it works...
-- Create amazing article related to the page you are trying to rank for
-- High up in the copy, create a target anchor text that leads to the page you are trying to boost. Make the anchor text the same / very similar to your desired phrase - but make sure it makes sense.Have a read of this article over at eConsultancy. This goes through it in a lot more detail and will show you exactly what you need to be doing.
I personally have had some astounding successes with this. The article you create should be better than the norm though. You want something that will get shared socially and hopefully, result in some backlinks too.
-Andy
-
don't under estimate the power of social, local & video!
-
Apart from link acquisition any other ideas on how to build authority?
-
Always helps, as smart as Google is at a basic level it still uses links as a measurement, for now at least.
-
Thanks for your input - Interesting, Have batted it round social media a couple of times and just done a "site:" search and is indexed.
So must be an authority issue, the page has been round a few weeks and I'm fairly confident the pages in reasonable shape.
Maybe start a bit of quality link building?
-
Getting a page to rank is not the same as getting a page to be indexed
Fetching as Google will not increase your rankings for anything it will just indicate any errors in the page that Google with have crawling it.
You can do a quick Google search to see if the page in question is not being indexed by using the search term - "site:yourdomain.com/page.html" if it doesn't show up in the results then it is not being indexed.
If it is a new page it might take a while to appear in organic search.
-
They do the same thing so there is no difference in that sense, Fetch as Google is helpful that it will show you can errors or blocked resources. submitting for Google is not the sole way to rank a page and really its only the very start. A third option is you can submit your site though social media and let it be found this way, it can be helpful because its a bit more organic.
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
-
Tag Clouds in Google Despite Canonical Links for Single Tags/Articles
I am frustrated to see a lot tag clouds in Google even though I programmed my tagged pages to display a canonical link to the linking article if the is only one result for the tag cloud. The goal to to make sure that the article, which is of better quality than the tag page, ends up in Google without a bunch of thin tag pages getting in there. For instance this article should be in Google and this tag should not be because that tag has a canonical URL for that article. I do not have a lot of experience with tag cloud SEO because I prefer to limit such pages to categories, but I have found tag clouds to be important for aggregating information for specific issues, people, or places that are not already a site category. Some tags I have used to power social media pages that update automatically from RSS feeds for their related tag archives. That is quite useful for pages like that. Should I start using Meta noindex for those instead of rel canonical? I have already done that for author profiles because author profiles get a lot of on site links compared to individual articles because my gridviews use javascript for paging. The same is true for the tags, so if a tag is tagged in 30 articles it will have links from 30 articles but if those articles are not in the latest 20 for that tag only the latest 20 will have links back from the tag archive. I also suspect having a lot of tag pages with little content to negatively impact my indexing rate. I will see a number of recent tag pages added before new articles.
On-Page Optimization | | CopBlaster.com0 -
Google Reviews Plugin - Does This Impact Negatively On SEO By Diluting Optimisation
I know optimisation is now considered 'old hat' but like many old hats not only is it comfortable but it is (in my experience) still functional and working in ranking websites. Yes there are plenty of other drivers, but I still consider optimisation to be important, hence the question Google Reviews Plugin - Does This Impact Negatively On SEO By Diluting Optimisation? From my (limited in many ways) understanding this puts hundreds if not thousands of extra words on a page - so this must surely be reducing the amount of optimisation? And then could it actually lead to a decline in rankings? Has anyone had any experience in this, I would love to use the Google Reviews plugin but just wanted to be sure first... Many thanks KT
On-Page Optimization | | Markkc1 -
Google Webmaster Tools Not Showing Correct Data?
Hi, I am experience a weird issue. Google webmaster tools suggested me some HTML improvements a few weeks ago. The suggestions were about duplicate Title Tags and Short Meta Descriptions. I changed the Title Tags and Meta Descriptions. But after 3 Google Updates, webmaster still shows the same suggestion. Please advise Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Kashif-Amin0 -
How the hell do you get microformat to show up on google serp?
Preface: I implemented Microformat aggregate review (http://data-vocabulary.org/Review-aggregate) for our e-commerce website and included only on the homepage. The vote and count are actually coming from real reviews we are getting from our customers, and in the homepage some reviews are shown prominently and a link points to the full list of all the reviews. Microformat markup is correct, validated in GWT. Have been online for a while (probably a couple of years). Our website: http://www.gomme-auto.it The star rating never showed up. When checking competitors I could see their microformats where not showing up either. But now things changed, if I check one competitor (the market leader www.gommadiretto.it) searching for it with their brand name “gommadiretto” no star rating is showing, but if I search for tires of a specific manufactured like “pneumatici barum” I can see their result in serp is showing the star rating for that specific internal page (the brand page) where they simply put the website overall aggregate review microformat mark up, they actually put it on every page. And that make me scratch my head and start asking myself some questions: is google showing their microformats because they manually awarded them somehow? no other competitor seems to have got the star rating in serp is google showing their microformats because they have so much more reviews than I have? I have around 1700, they have around 11000. is google showing their microformats because their reviews are certified by TrustPilot? is google showing their microformats because they put it in the product page? well of course since I am not putting it there (in the brand page) it's a factor, but isn't it recommended to put the website aggregate reviews microformat only on one page? and shouldn't we show the brand reviews on the brand page? isn't it best practice/recommended to put the website aggregate review microformat only on one page? is google showing their microformats because of some other reasons I can't see? What the hell is google criteria for showing the star rating? Does anyone know?
On-Page Optimization | | max.favilli0 -
90 days for Google
Hi, I'm new to Moz so still getting a feel of the forums. If my question has been answered then please point me in the right direction. I have noticed with many SEO companies they advertise that they can get you on google front page in 90 days. I'm not really interested in their techniques but more of why google takes 90+ to even appear. I have been working on my site for over a month, adding content, building good links, social media, blogs etc... but have not even come close to appearing in the top 50 pages for google. Is this normal? Is it just a matter of time before it starts to appear? Also, I have checked my backlinks and there is about 8 links that are coming from random pages in the US and some from China and india which i have no idea of. I tried to visit on of the sites but it had malware. I added all these back links to google disavow so hopefully that will fix it. Could that be the reason google would not even list my site? Thanks... Rick
On-Page Optimization | | pureozone0 -
Will google regards www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 as the duplicate content?
Our site has some affiliates, and the affiliate id is the suffix following with the url "?xxxxxx". I can see Google Analytics regards www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 as the different page, but in fact they are exactly the same, the version www.example.com?331457 is the visit from our affiliate site. And yesterday I start up my Moz Pro membership, and in the crawl issues I see SEOMoz thinks www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 are duplicate content. Is this really an issue? Will the search engine thinks these two pages are duplicate content?? Thanks you guys My first question here, not too dumb I hope. -----------------Update---------------------- I should explain how our affiliates work. We are an eBook related software company, and anyone can apply an affiliate account on the transaction platform "RegNow" even without our permission because we have opened the affiliate door. When a visitor come to our order page from an affiliate site, the url will add the affiliate ID suffix "?xxxxxx", and it's combined in cookies. After the deal is done, the affiliate gets his commission. So no matter how I customize the url with URL Builder, there must be the suffix "?xxxxxx". It's the ID of our affiliate, or they will get nothing. So the key point is, will the suffix "?331457" makes Google think www.example.com and www.example.com?331457 are different pages and duplicate content?
On-Page Optimization | | JonnyGreenwood0 -
What is causing Bing and Google Rankings to Differ by so much?
Does anyone know the trick to have Google Rankings to be as good as Bing/Yahoo Results?
On-Page Optimization | | hfranz0 -
How to make google not index quotes from other sites?
Hey guys, I have a site where we post quite a lot of info from other sites. We don't want google to de-index our pages because parts of it are quotes from other sites. What would you use to make it so Google sees it's a quote from another site? Or to just make Google not index the quote? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | StefanJDorresteijn0