Google Answer Box For Old Forum Discussions
-
Thinking about taking some pages that are one question discussion form pages and attempting to gain an answer box in Google SERPs.
Just like here on Moz, each page has one questions and often many, many, answers. This would mean making an unordered list with the question and the components of the answer in a box, maybe with a jpg. The info in the box would be kind of a summary of key points in answering the question.
I'm looking for suggestions on:
a) Is this a good idea?
b) What might help achieve the intended search result?
c) Does it matter that the box answers are summarized from a variety of folks forum posts, so not just one author?
d) Might it drive up bounce rate on the actual page?
e) Other considerations?
These are pages that have been around for awhile and aren't currently active discussions.
Thanks!
-
Here's an update fellows. After a couple of months of data it seems pretty clear that the unordered list content has really refreshed the majority of these old forum discussions. By including other resources in the unordered list, they also convert better. Thanks!
-
Just to add a note to what Everett & Dr. Pete have said:
1 - Take a look at Quora's "Answer Wiki". It's a combination of other answers on the page and summarizes the best answers. You could use a similar format and even a similar title, eg "Best Answer", and could take the time to word it properly in a way that is likely to look like a clear answer. EG if you're trying to generate a snippet on a page titled "What is the capital of New York?", then you'd have an answer clearly written as "The capital of New York is Albany." followed by the rest of the answers. That's an oversimplified example of course. Dr. Pete has other good ones in his Searchfest presentation.
2 - Use OL, UL, and Table formatting in the answer whenever you can. These elements are frequently cited within featured snippets and fairly easy to implement.
-
Thank you, gentlemen. I appreciate the comprehensive answers.
Best... Mike
-
I'm pretty much 100% on board with Everett, but just adding a couple of things. I do think it's worth experimenting, and a good time to do that. That said, there's a lot we still don't know.
You do have to rank on page 1 for the queries in question. So, if you're not clearing that hurdle, this won't be time well spent. If you are clearing it for a solid % of pages, then excellent. Move forward.
We have a pretty good sense of how to change a "Featured Snippet" (Google's term for attributed-link answer boxes) and how to take one from someone else, but not how to get Google to show one when they don't currently. So, if you make your page more answer-like, it will increase your odds of getting an existing Featured Snippet, but we're not clear if it increases your odds of the query being interpreted as a question. In other words, can well-organize content get you from no Featured Snippet at all to Google showing one? Initial experiments suggest "no", or at least, that it's not easy. That said, the percentage of Featured Snippets has been increasing steadily.
I think, done right, this could have user value and actually drive down bounce rates. Try to make the result something that site visitors would find useful as well. I think these kinds of answers can be win-win for both SEO and CRO.
If you want to see if your page would be eligible for a Featured Snippet (and what text Google is seeing), use "site:yoursite.com query". If you have pages eligible for a Featured Snippet for that term, you'll see which page Google is choosing and which text on the page they're selecting. That can be a big help, since this is otherwise a black box.
-
Hello 94501,
First of all, congratulations for being on top of this right now. It's unfortunate that most businesses are just trying to keep their heads above water on the basics. You are a very forward-thinking marketer.
a) Is this a good idea?
Yes, I do think this is a good idea. I've been experimenting with it myself.b) What might help achieve the intended search result?
1. Domain Authority overall, as well as the Page Authority of these pages.
2. Being on the first page of Google, the higher the better (though they do use content from results lower on the page too)
3. Formatting on the page using easy-to-understand markup like header tags and lists, which it sounds like you're aware of already.
4. Formatting of the question and the answer to make that Q&A relationship obvious.c) Does it matter that the box answers are summarized from a variety of folks forum posts, so not just one author?
1. I don't think the author, or mixture of authors, matters. However, it may be difficult to format it in such a way as to give multiple answers. Maybe choose the best one, or write your own based on an amalgamation of them all.d) Might it drive up bounce rate on the actual page?
1. Not if it answers the question.
2. You risk someone not even coming to the page because they have their answer already, but I think this is what Google wants to happen so that wouldn't be a negative ranking signal. And if you're in spot #8 with a #1 Answer Box that's definitely a net gain for traffic.e) Other considerations?
1. Have you looked into SEMRush yet? They have a feature in Beta right now that lets you see all of the enhanced search results (including Answer Box, Knowledge Graph and others) for which a site ranks.
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-selected canonical makes no sense
Howdy, fellow mozzers, We have added canonical URL to this page - https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/houston-tx/margot-schurig-8715369/share, pointing to https://www.dignitymemorial.com/obituaries/houston-tx/margot-schurig-8715369 When I check in Google search console, there are no issues reported with that page, and Google does say that it was able to properly read the canonical URL. Yet, it still chooses the page itself as canonical. This doesn't make sense to me. (Here is the link to the screenshot: https://dmitrii-regexseo.tinytake.com/tt/MzU0Mjc0M18xMDY2MTc4Ng) Has anyone dealt with this type of issue, and were you able to resolve it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DmitriiK0 -
Is Google ignoring my canonicals?
Hi, We have rel=canonical set up on our ecommerce site but Google is still indexing pages that have rel=canonical. For example, http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?colour=7883&p=3&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/novelty.html?p=4&size=599 http://www.britishbraces.co.uk/braces/children.html?colour=7886&mode=list These are all indexed but all have rel=canonical implemented. Can anyone explain why this has happened?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HappyJackJr0 -
Sitemap Migration - Google Guidelines
Hi all. I saw in support.google.com the following text: Create and save the Sitemap and lists of links A Sitemap file containing the new URL mapping A Sitemap file containing the old URLs to map A list of sites with link to your current content I would like to better understand about a "A list of sites with bond link to current content" Question 1: have I need tree sitemaps simultaneously ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mobic
Question 2: If yes, should I put this sitemap on the Search Console of the new website?
Question 3: or just Google gave a about context how do we make the migration? And I'll need really have sitemaps about the new site only..? What about is Google talking? Thanks for any advice.0 -
Rotating content = Google Penalty?
Hi all. We have an ecommerce site which features various product sections. In each section you might have 60 products each displayed neatly in pages of 10. We recently added functionality, so that if a product is out of stock, it will automatically drop that product to the back of the list and bring another in stock one forward. We're just worried that Google will view the same information, repeatedly rotating on the first page of 10 products (the page that ranks) and think we're in some way trying to trick Google into thinking the content is fresh? Does anyone have a throw on this? Is it likely to penalise us? Thank you!!! Ben
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bnknowles10 -
Organic Google Sitelinks - can I edit?
A client just contacted me saying a competitor is threatening legal action threatened against a page description in a Google sitelink (just double checked and its in the serps results too). I checked the site and the content doesn't appear on that page or anywhere else on the site. I also added a Meta description to that page to see if that will have an effect. The page is the home page and I don't really want to demote it. Is there anything else I can/should do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | agua0 -
Time for Google to change the emphasis?
Why doesn't Google recommend that links are nofollow as standard, via HTML5, etc., with follow being added if the link is on a quality site (defined by PR, or whatever.) and adds value. Wouldn't this save alot of time? Then they could whack all the sites with coding that doesn't comply, couldn't they? Also, instead of enabling negative SEO, why doesn't Google simply focus on wiping out the sites developed simply to pass on PR. I'm sure we could all send them a few thousand suggestions!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Effect of I-Frame on Google Rank
My commercial real estate web site (www.nyc-officespace-leader.com) allows visitors to search for office space listings. The site sources listings through a third party and they are displayed in an i-frame. The i-frame directs visitors to listing pages such as: http://listings.nyc-officespace-leader.com/getspace.mpl?sp_id=A0173921&cust_id=offspldr Atleast 10,000 of these pages have backlinks to my site. My question is the following: Could these tens of thoudands of alpha numeric URLs be detrimental to my sites ranking on Google after the Panda/Penguin updates? SIte traffic dropped from 7,000 per month to about 3,300 after the April Google update. Rewriting content for dozens of pages and adding a blog have only somewhat mitigated the negative effects of Panda/Penguin. Could Google be viewing these links from the third party lisitng provider as a negative when they viewed these links as a plus before? Any downside to removing the third party links and parsing these listings from landlord websited and displaying them as part of my site with their own URL, title tag, description tag? Obviously the new URLS would not be alphanumeric. If these links have not caused the drop in traffic last April, what could be responsible? Thanks in advance for your opinion!!! Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Google badge extracted to SERPs
It's a while ago that (i thought) I read the following information on the Google badge. Here https://developers.google.com/+/plugins/badge/ we have the implementation guide, however I was under the impression the Google badge could be thereafter extracted into SERPs so the user could follow etc... direct from SERPs. I can't find anything confirming this. I think that it might clash with authorship data which does a similar job, but where a site page is not relevant to authorship at all, I would have thought linking back to the G+ page from SERPs was a sensible option. Can anyone confirm the Google badge can appear in SERPs?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | richcowley0