Moz page optimization score issue, have a score of 95, but can get to 99 if I ad my keyword basically twice in the url.
-
Hello,
I have a keyword for lack of providing too much info we will say my keyword is laptop-bags.
Now we have a /laptop-bags/ page and inside that page
**/laptop-bags/leather-shoulder/ **
We got a score of 95 for that page.
Now I got a score of 99 when I changed it to
**/laptop-bags/leather-shoulder-laptop-bags/ **
The way Bigcommerce handles is it will use the product category title in the url, page title and site links, to me it feels like it's spammy, as well as on my /laptop-bags/ page, I now have 18 keywords of " laptop bags " on that page when before it was 12, since I added laptop-bags to all 6 categories inside the laptop-bags page.
How would you handle this, use the /keyword/ then /longtail-keyword/ in full or would using /laptop-bag/leather-shoulder/ still rank for leather shoulder laptop bags? I've asked this before and was told to use whatever sounded better to the user, but now moz is telling me different.
-
And we worked it out! In case anyone else has a similar question:
When you pair a keyword to a page in the Page Grader tool—such as the page /laptop-bag/leather-shoulder/ paired with the keyword "leather shoulder laptop bag"—the tool will scan the page for exact instances of the phrase. So, even though the words "laptop," "bag," "leather," and "shoulder" are in the URL, the tool doesn't recognize the phrase "leather shoulder laptop bag," and so suggests adding it to the URL. If the URL is /laptop-bags/leather-shoulder-laptop-bags/, though, the tool _does _see the exact term, so it bumps up the score and removes the suggestion.
In this case, though, Deacyde is totally right—/laptop-bags/leather-shoulder-laptop-bags/ is, well, kind of terrible. The thing to keep in mind is that a score of 100 in the tool means that the keyword for which it's evaluating the page is in _absolutely every _keyword optimization position. That doesn't always make sense, especially for a longer-tail term like "leather shoulder laptop bag."
So in this instance, 95 is better than 99.
-
Actually, I'll PM you. It's hard to say what I'm actually trying to ask without giving away your keywords (I can see 'em 'cause I'm an admin).
-
Just to be clear I used placeholder examples so not to give out too much info to competitors if reading.
But yes to both, it's trying to optimize for the longtail with our main keyword in it, and with the above aside, it would be " laptop bags " is what we want to overall be our main keyword or main keyword group.
But inside that group, we have very important longtails, that use that keyword but are different material types, so " leather shoulder laptop bags " would be one of those important longtail keywords.
We have a landing page for the 2 word keyword, and child pages for the longtails, so that's where I feel it's kinda over reaching to include the 2 tail keyword twice, once in the parent category and again trailing the material type.
If it will help I can include the actual page and keywords in a private message, otherwise I don't feel it's in my best interest to unmask these details.
-
Hi Deacyde! I just want to make sure—is "laptop bags" the keyword you're optimizing for in the tool? Because unless I'm mistaken, it sounds as if the tool is trying to optimize for "leather shoulder laptop bags."
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
-
Manage category pages and duplicate content issues
Hi everybody, I am now auditing this website www.disfracessimon.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | teconsite
this website has some issues with canonicals and other things. But right now I have found something that I would like to know your opinion. When I was checking parts of the content in google to find duplicate content issues I found this: I google I searched: "Chaleco de streck decorado con botones" and found First result: "Hombre trovador" is the one I was checking -> Correct
The following results are category pages where the product is listed in. I was wondering if this could cause any problem related with duplicated content. Should I no index category pages or should I keep it?
The first result in google was the product page. And category pages I think are good for link juice transfer and to capture some searchs from Google. Any advice? Thank you0 -
Homepage not ranking for main keyword, all other pages ranking slightly for their own keyword phrases.
Dear Mozzers, We have an ecommerce website (www.pashmina-boutique.com), we want to rank the homepage for the keyword "pashmina". Problem is, we are nowhere to be found, not even in the top 100 search results of Google. It is indexed, we have no crawl errors, except that we had some problems with our hosting (503's), the crawler of Google bumped in a few of those. And we are fixing it. Our other pages, e.g. (http://www.pashmina-boutique.com/15-white-pashminas) ranks for "white pashminas" 24th and "white cashmere pashminas" 23rd. We have done no linkbuilding, in Majestic, you can check that. We have been offline for a long time (over 6 months) and about 3 weeks ago, we did a redesign (SEO). We relaunched, everything is looking fine except the homepage isn't ranking for the main keyword. Could you guys check it out? Is it over-optimization? It can't be Penguin, Panda would be a surprise too. Or do we still have to wait for the monthly Panda data-refresh? We are currently busy with this issue, once this is solved - that the homepage is ranking - we will start linkbuilding. Mr.1000
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mr.10000 -
Pages getting into Google Index, blocked by Robots.txt??
Hi all, So yesterday we set up to Remove URL's that got into the Google index that were not supposed to be there, due to faceted navigation... We searched for the URL's by using this in Google Search.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs2010
site:www.sekretza.com inurl:price=
site:www.sekretza.com inurl:artists= So it brings up a list of "duplicate" pages, and they have the usual: "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more." So we removed them all, and google removed them all, every single one. This morning I do a check, and I find that more are creeping in - If i take one of the suspecting dupes to the Robots.txt tester, Google tells me it's Blocked. - and yet it's appearing in their index?? I'm confused as to why a path that is blocked is able to get into the index?? I'm thinking of lifting the Robots block so that Google can see that these pages also have a Meta NOINDEX,FOLLOW tag on - but surely that will waste my crawl budget on unnecessary pages? Any ideas? thanks.0 -
Using Canonical URL to poin to an external page
I was wondering if I can use a canonical URL that points to a page residing on external site? So a page like:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | llamb
www.site1.com/whatever.html will have a canonical link in its header to www.site2.com/whatever.html. Thanks.0 -
Optimize Pages for Keywords Prior to Building Links?
Greetings MOZ Community: According to site audit by a reputable SEO firm last November, my commercial real estate web site has a toxic link profile which is very weak (about 58% of links qualified as toxic). The SEO firm suggests than we immediately start pruning the link profile, requesting removal of the toxic links and eventually filing a link disavow file with Google for links that web masters will not agree to remove. While removing toxic links, the SEO firm proposes to simultaneously solicit very high quality links, to try to obtain 7-12 high quality links per month. My question is the following: is it putting the cart before the horse to work on link building without optimizing pages (with Yoast) for specific keywords? I would think that Google considers how each page is optimized for specific terms; which terms are used within the link structure, as well as terms within the meta tags. My site is partially optimized, but optimization has never been done thoroughly. Should the pages of the site be optimized for the top 25-30 terms before link building begins. Or can that be done at a later stage. Note that my link profile is pretty atrocious. My site at the moment is receiving about 1,000 unique visitors a week from organic search. However 70% of the traffic is from terms that are not relevant. The firm that did my audit claims that removal of the toxic links while building some new links is imperative and that optimization for keywords can wait somewhat. Any thoughts?/ Thanks for your assistance. Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Can I get posts from a blog host and put them on a private website ?
Hello everybody ! My client has a blog for 2 years with many posts on overblog, a French blog host like Blogger. Now we are currently building a new website with a new blog within the site. Those posts are valuable content that bring some traffic to the old blog. My idea was to re-publish those posts on the new blog to start with some good content. Unfortunately, the blog host don't let me use 301 redirects or re=canonical tags to tell search engines that the post is now in the new website and avoid duplicate content. What is the best SEO solution in this case ? Can we delete the posts on the old blog and publish them in the new one ? Thanks for your help! Bruno
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Buddyweb0 -
Canonical url issue
Canonical url issue My site https://ladydecosmetic.com on seomoz crawl showing duplicate page title, duplicate page content errors. I have downloaded the error reports csv and checked. From the report, The below url contains duplicate page content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trixmediainc
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd And other duplicate urls as per report are,
https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&click=colorsu&brands=66 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40 https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-plum-red-o-14-item-157&category_id=40&brands=66&click=brnd But on every these url(all 4) I have set canonical url. That is the original url and an existing one(not 404). https://www.ladydecosmetic.com/unik-colours-lipstick-caribbean-peach-o-27-item-162&category_id=0 Then how this issues are showing like duplicate page content. Please give me an answer ASAP.0 -
Could this URL issue be affecting our rankings?
Hi everyone, I have been building links to a site for a while now and we're struggling to get page 1 results for their desired keywords. We're wondering if a web development / URL structure issue could be to blame in what's holding it back. The way the site's been built means that there's a 'false' 1st-level in the URL structure. We're building deeplinks to the following page: www.example.com/blue-widgets/blue-widget-overview However, if you chop off the 2nd-level, you're not given a category page, it's a 404: www.example.com/blue-widgets/ - [Brings up a 404] I'm assuming the web developer built the site and URL structure this way just for the purposes of getting additional keywords in the URL. What's worse is that there is very little consistency across other products/services. Other pages/URLs include: www.example.com/green-widgets/widgets-in-green www.example.com/red-widgets/red-widget-intro-page www.example.com/yellow-widgets/yellow-widgets I'm wondering if Google is aware of these 'false' pages* and if so, if we should advise the client to change the URLs and therefore the URL structure of the website. This is bearing in mind that these pages haven't been linked to (because they don't exist) and therefore aren't being indexed by Google. I'm just wondering if Google can determine good/bad URL etiquette based on other parts of the URL, i.e. the fact that that middle bit doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, my colleague Steve asked this question on a blog post that Dr. Pete had written. Here's a link to Steve's comment - there are 2 replies below, one of which argues that this has no implication whatsoever. However, 5 months on, it's still an issue for us so it has me wondering... Many thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gmorgan0