'SEO Footers'
-
We have an internal debate going on right now about the use of a link list of SEO pages in the footer.
My stance is that they serve no purpose to people (heatmaps consistently show near zero activity), therefore they shouldn't be used. I believe that if something on a website is user-facing, then it should also beneficial to a user - not solely there for bots. There are much better ways to get bots to those pages, and for those people who didn't enter through an SEO page, internal linking where appropriate will be much more effective at getting them there.
However, I have some opposition to this theory and wanted to get some community feedback on the topic.
Anyone have thoughts, experience, or data to share on this subject?
-
Thanks so much for reporting back! Nonetheless, the responses here helped strengthen my case that on-site elements like this should not exists solely for bots, so I'm making headway!
-
I guess the other thing to consider is if those same links are replicated elsewhere on the page, they will only pass equity once.
-
Thanks for that article, not quite the type of links I'm addressing here, but definitely some applicable nuggets of information there.
-
Understandably. Google has been less than clear on the topic.
I read an article by Marie Haynes Consulting (last updated April 2014) that clearly presents a historical timeline of statements made by our own Cyrus Shepard and John Mueller (Google) on this topic. I suggest you and your team read it a decide what you want to do after that. There is no clear "you should do this" answer because Google hasn't been clear, I don't think any of us have clear evidence what works / doesn't work, just about every scenario is going to be different, and any penalty that gets applied is going to be a manual one, so that translates into inconsistency as well.
Here's the full article - https://www.mariehaynes.com/footer-links-and-penalties/. I think you'll find it helpful.
-
The objection is that those links pass more authority/PR. Therefore the hesitation to remove them is that SEO pages will lose authority. I know this isn't true, but am having a hard time getting others to come to the light side.
-
What exactly is the opposition? It would be easier to respond if we knew exactly what their objection is. Seems like you have some data already (heatmap) to support your case.
-
Of course, no problem! Maybe a comparison of before and after MozBar PA for a couple of the top performing SEO pages? Not sure if that's the best KPI for this test, but it's a rather difficult thing to measure...just throwing out some ideas on how I intend to measure when I'm able to run a similar test.
-
Thanks for your feedback.
I've done the research to prove that people don't use them, but still unable to convince my opponents of the lack of true SEO value in terms of authority, PR, page discovery, etc.
-
Thanks for your feedback.
I totally agree with all 3 of your points, especially the comment regarding better ways to tackle internal linking.
-
Thanks for your feedback.
Glad to hear I'm not the only one dealing with this debate! Would you mind sharing any data you collect on your test once you have enough to be conclusive?
-
Hi Logan,
I'd like to state 2 ideas:
1- On one hand when it comes to the usability and making the more user friendy the site, links in the footer will be a waste of time.
2- On the other hand, it's commonly used by companies. I believe that they feel those links as "good practice" in a profesional web site.
A third point would be in a SEO perspective. In my opinion, they have no value. The internal linking should come in other ways, more like a "spider net".
Hope it's understandable.
GR. -
You're exactly correct--if a link or a list of links is buried in the site's footer then they're really not useful to visitors. No one really clicks on those links. I recommend only having links like "terms of service", "privacy policy", etc. links there.
If you want proof that no one clicks on those links, then check out Google Analytics and see the "in page analytics" to see where people are clicking on your page. You will see that no one clicks on footer links, especially link lists.
I would remove any link lists that you have in your site's footer.
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
-
Back links to pages on our site that don't exist on forums we haven't used with irrelevant product anchor text
Hi, I have a recurring issue that I can't find a reason for. I have a website that has over 7k backlinks that I monitor quite closely. Each month there are additional links on third party forums that have no relevance to the site or subject matter that are as a result toxic. Our clients site is a training site yet these links are appearing on third party sites like http://das-forum-der-musik.de/mineforum/ and have anchor text with "UGG boots for sale" to pages on our url listed as /mensuggboots.html that obviously don't exist. Each month, I try to contact the site owners and then I add them to Google using the disavow tool. Two months later they are gone and then are replaced with new backlinks on a number of different forum websites. Quite random but always relating to UGG boots. There are at least 100 extra links each month. Can anyone suggest why this is happening? Has anyone seen this kind of activity before? Is it possibly black hat SEO being performed by a competitor? I just don't understand why our URL is listed. To be fair, there are other websites linked to using the same terms that aren't ours and are also of a different theme so I don't understand what the "spammer" is trying to achieve. Any help would be appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | rufo
KInd Regards
Steve0 -
Canonical tag On Each Page With Same Page URL - Its Harmful For SEO or Not?
Hi. I have an e-commerce project and they have canonical code in each and every page for it's own URL. (Canonical on Original Page No duplicate page) The url of my wesite is like this: "https://www.website.com/products/produt1"
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | HuptechWebseo
and the site is having canonical code like this: " This is occurring in each and every products as well as every pages of my website. Now, my question is that "is it harmful for the SEO?" Or "should I remove this tags from all pages?" Is that any benefit for using the canonical tag for the same URL (Original URL)?0 -
Why isn't a 301 redirect removing old style URLs from Google's index?
I have two questions:1 - We changed the URL structure of our site. Old URLs were in the format of kiwiforsale.com/used_fruit/yummy_kiwi. These URLs are 301 redirected to kiwiforsale.com/used-fruit/yummy-kiwi. We are getting duplicate content errors in Google Webmaster Tools. Why isn't the 301 redirect removing the old style URL out of Google's index?2 - I tried to remove the old style URL at https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals, however I got the message that "We think the image or web page you're trying to remove hasn't been removed by the site owner. Before Google can remove it from our search results, the site owner needs to take down or update the content."Why are we getting this message? Doesn't the 301 redirect alert Google that the old style URL is toast and it's gone?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | CFSSEO0 -
OSE report doesn't quite reflect the fact for me?
Hope someone could get me some insight if possible. We operate SEO purely on whitehat and for a popular keyword that we have worked hard for years now we ranks 10th. I have compared us with a few competitors who rank better (ranked 1st and 3rd) on OSE and found things confusing. In the following matrix we are way ahead of them in: Domain Authority
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | LauraHT
Page Authority
Just-Discovered
root domain
total links
Social like/Social shares All score of above of our site are substantially higher than the competitors. one of the competitors has only one thing better than us:
Internal Equity-Passing Links plus It shows that both competitors have lots of low quality links as follow -forum signature anchor text links where the account no contribution to the forum
-low authority directories links where many of them are overseas and not industry specific
-links from article sites
-link from sites that are in totally different industries where we only have very a few or no from above I am thinking if the matrix figures from OSE dont count then what else I should be looking at. Any advice? please forgive me if I chose the wrong support question type.0 -
Does posting on Craigslist damage our SEO or reuptation?
We have a website that's a single person barbershop. She has been promoting on Craigslist, and that is outranking the website in the SERPs. However, the craigslist results showing up are actually expired and don't link to anything. They just seem to be cached by Craigslist. My question is, is Craigslist considered to generally not be a good avenue for directing inbound links for services on your site? Or is it a good strategy to use Craigslist to build link traffic for service businesses? I get mixed responses when I search for this. Thanks eYtdHtg.png
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | smallpotatoes0 -
Yet another Negative SEO attack question.
I need help reconciling two points of view on spammy links. On one hand, Google seems to say, "Don't build spammy links to your website - it will hurt your ranking." Of course, we've seen the consequences of this from the Penguin update, of those who built bad links got whacked. From the Penguin update, there was then lots of speculation of Negative SEO attacks. From this, Google is saying, "We're smart enough to detect a negative SEO attack.", i.e: http://youtu.be/HWJUU-g5U_I So, its seems like Google is saying, "Build spammy links to your website in an attempt to game rank, and you'll be penalized; build spammy links to a competitors website, and we'll detect it and not let it hurt them." Well, to me, it doesn't seem like Google can have it both ways, can they? Really, I don't understand why Competitor A doesn't just go to Fiverr and buy a boatload of crappy exact match anchor links to Competitor B in an attempt to hurt Competitor B. Sure, Competitor B can disavow those links, but that still takes time and effort. Furthermore, the analysis needed for an unsophisticated webmaster could be daunting. Your thoughts here? Can Google have their cake and eat it too?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ExploreConsulting0 -
How do you remove unwanted links, built by your previous SEO company?
We dropped significantly (from page 1 for 4 keywords...to ranking over 75 for all) after the Penguin update. I understand trustworthy content and links (along with site structure) are the big reasons for staying strong through the update...and those sites that did these things wrong were penalized. In efforts to gain Google's trust again, we are checking into our site structure and making sure to produce fresh and relevant content on our site and social media channels on a weekly basis. But how do we remove links that were built by our SEO company, those of which could be untrustworthy/irrelevant sites with low site rankings? Try to email the webmaster of that site (using data from Open Site Explorer)?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | clairerichards0
