'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
-
Want to remove a large amount of links from spam sites. SEO company says we will lose a lot of link juice?
Hi, We have a lot of links that have a spam score above 30% and 60%. I don't know if someone has spammed our website. However our SEO company has said we should remove these carefully over a period of 3 months while they add new good links. I don't quite trust this advice. Are they trying to get more business?? They have put doubt in our mind. Can anyone please shed any light on this?? Thank you
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | YvonneDupree0 -
How to find trustful seo specialist?
How to find trustful seo specialist if you don't know about SEO a lot?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | DigiVital1 -
Footer images links, good or bad?
Hi everybody! I have a very serius question because i have a problem with this. We run a website of voucher codes and we are looking that our rivals are putting their logos on footers of online stores with images, sometimes link to home, sometimes link to store within webpage. Should i ask for the same to online stores? I have scary to get a penalty by Google. Please help me with this and recommend me something because we are doing fair play but rivals are doing this and they get best results in SERPS. Thanks very much! Best regards!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | pompero990 -
Are multiple domains spammy if they're similar but different
A client currently has a domain of johnsmith.com (not actual site name, of course). I’m considering splitting this site into multiple domains, which will include brand name plus keyword, such as: Johnsmithlandclearing.com Johnsmithdirtwork.com Johnsmithdemolition.com Johnsmithtimercompany.com Johnsmithhydroseeding.com johnsmithtreeservice.com Each business is unique enough and will cross-link to the other. My questions are: 1) will Google consider cross-linking spammy? 2) what happens to johnsmith.com? Should it redirect to new site with the largest market share, or should it become an umbrella for all? 3) Any pitfalls foreseen? I've done a fair amount of due diligence and feel these separate domains are legit, but am paranoid that Google will not see it that way, or may change direction in the future.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SteveMauldin0 -
Site architecture change - +30,000 404's in GWT
So recently we decided to change the URL structure of our online e-commerce catalogue - to make it easier to maintain in the future. But since the change, we have (partially expected) +30K 404's in GWT - when we did the change, I was doing 301 redirects from our Apache server logs but it's just escalated. Should I be concerned of "plugging" these 404's, by either removing them via URL removal tool or carry on doing 301 redirections? It's quite labour intensive - no incoming links to most of these URL's, so is there any point? Thanks, Ben
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bjs20100 -
I'm worried my client is asking me to post duplicate content, am I just being paranoid?
Hi SEOMozzers, I'm building a website for a client that provides photo galleries for travel destinations. As of right now, the website is basically a collection of photo galleries. My client believes Google might like us a bit more if we had more "text" content. So my client has been sending me content that is provided free by tourism organizations (tourism organizations will often provide free "one-pagers" about their destination for media). My concern is that if this content is free, it seems likely that other people have already posted it somewhere on the web. I'm worried Google could penalize us for posting content that is already existent. I know that conventionally, there are ways around this-- you can tell crawlers that this content shouldn't be crawled-- but in my case, we are specifically trying to produce crawl-able content. Do you think I should advise my client to hire some bloggers to produce the content or am I just being paranoid? Thanks everyone. This is my first post to the Moz community 🙂
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | steve_benjamins0 -
Explain To Me How Negative SEO ISNT Real?
I'm seeing lots of "offers" springing up to do negative SEO on your competitors. I know people keep insisting this sort of thing is just a bogeyman, but follow my logic here: We know the Penguin update PENALIZED, and not just devalued "over optimization." Read: exact match keyword links. We know that if your link profile is too "unnaturally" keyword heavy, (it should be majority your brand or your domain or your company name, etc) you get penalized. Again, not devalued, PENALIZED. Ok. So what is to stop a blackhatter from using one of those software bots to just kill a competitor? Knowing the above two points, lets say a website is ranking for "cool widgets". Why not just create a bunch of exact match keyword spam links for "cool widgets" targeting that website. In a while, the Penguin penalty kicks in and bammo. The thing that scares me about the post Penguin landscape is that google has specifically named an activity ("over optimization") that will get you PENALIZED. So, don't do that, right? Except, that means they've explicitly outlined an activity that will be penalized, and is easy for others to do to you, and that you would be powerless to prevent. I await the usual "this is an age old worry that has never come true" replies. But if you reply that way, ask yourself, can you refute the logic of the points above? And also... oh no... It's happening. I'm seeing it.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | brianmcc1 -
Pages For Products That Don't Exist Yet?
Hi, I have a client that makes products that are accessories for other company's popular consumer products. Their own products on their website rank for other companies product names like, for made up example "2011 Super Widget" and then my client's product... "Charger." So, "Super Widget 2011 Charger" might be the type of term my client would rank for. Everybody knows the 2012 Super Widget will be out in some months and then my client's company will offer the 2012 Super Widget Charger. What do you think of launching pages now for the 2012 Super Widget Charger. even though it doesn't exist yet in order to give those pages time to rank while the terms are half as competitive. By the time the 2012 is available, these pages have greater authority/age and rank, instead of being a little late to the party? The pages would be like "coming soon" pages, but still optimized to the main product search term. About the only negative I see is that they'lll have a higher bounce rate/lower time on page since the 2012 doesn't even exist yet. That seems like less of a negative than the jump start on ranking. What do you think? Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 945010