Fred Update & Ecommerce
-
Hi
I wondered if there had been any other insights since March about the Fred update or any other Google update?
I don't think we were hit by Fred but in March we dropped out for a lot of keyword rankings, I just cannot pinpoint why.
We are an ecommerce site, so some of our product/category pages don't have a huge amount of written content.
We might have a couple of extra backlinks to disavow, but nothing major.
Does anyone else have any insights?
Thanks!
-
I don't know of any further updates about Fred other than what is here:
https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change
However, over the last week (Mid May) there has been a lot of noise and fluctuation according to many sources.
Let us know if there is anything we can learn by what you find out. Happy to discuss further if you share some details, but it would not be uncommon for Google to decide to push thin eCommerce pages down.
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
-
What is the best strategy to SEO Discontinued Products on Ecommerce Sites?
RebelsMarket.com is a marketplace for alternative fashion. We have hundreds of sellers who have listed thousands of products. Over 90% of the items do not generate any sales; and about 40% of the products have been on the website for over 3+ years. We want to cleanup the catalog and remove all the old listings that older than 2years that do not generate any sales. What is the best practice for removing thousands of listings an Ecommerce site? do we 404 these products and show similar items? Your help and thoughts is much appreciated.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | JimJ3 -
Could lots of links pointed to 301 & 302 redirects be a problem?
Hello, We've got hundreds of links found in screaming frog that are pointing towards 301 & 302 redirects. Could this be hurting rankings? We've got very few 404s. A lot of the problem is breadcrumbs of categories pointing to 302s, but the original category pages that are 302ed are not indexed so we may be OK. We can't change the 302 redirects, it's part of the cart. Could all these non-updated hyperlinks be the cause of continual ranking drop in Google? We've gone from the top 3 to the second page for our main terms. Thanks!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
Ajax Pagination on Ecommerce category pages - Good or Bad?
We have an ecommerce site. We installed an AJAX feature that when you scroll down to say, the end of 6 rows of products, it loads another page below the seam. Question is, is this good or bad for SEO? Any tests you can suggest? Thanks Ben
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bjs20100 -
Are the Majority of SEO Companies 'Spammers, Evildoers, & Opportunists'?
This may not be the most productive Q&A discussion, but I've had some really interesting experiences this last month that have made me even more distrusting of "SEO" companies. I can't help but think of this post (not much has changed since '09). Even though it takes a pretty extreme stance, I agree with the core of it - _"The problem with SEO is that the good advice is obvious, the rest doesn’t work, and it’s poisoning the web." _ I didn't start doing this type of work wanting to have such a negative opinion of SEO companies, but I just keep having the same experience: I'll get referred to someone who isnt' happy with their SEO company. They send me their web address, I check out the site, and seriously can't believe what I find. MISSING PAGE TITLES, EVERY CANONICAL URL ISSUE IMAGINABLE, AND 10'S OF THOUSANDS OF BOT SPAM EMAT LINKS FROM PAGES LIKE THIS...AND THIS and just recently a company a called one of my clients and conned him into paying for this piece of spam garbage, obviously scraped from the site that I made for him. and what's worse, sometimes for whatever reason these companies will have all the client's FTP and CMS logins and it can be hell trying to get them to hand them over. There's no webmaster tools set up, no analytics, nothing.... These businesses are paying a good chunk of change every month, I just can't believe stuff like this is so common...well acutally, it's what i've come to expect this point. But I used to think most SEO companies actually had their clients best interest at heart. Does every honest consultant out there run into this same type of stuff constantly? How common is this type of stuff really? Now, on to the positive. This community rocks, and I feel like it represents real, ethical, solution-oriented, boundary-less SEO. So thank you Mozzers for all you do. and I love using the tools here to help businesses understand why they need an honest person helping them. If anyone has thoughts on the topic, I'd love to hear 'em...
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | SVmedia3 -
Does the SEOmoz Suggested Directory List Need to be Updated?
So, since Google updated their link schemes page (http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66356) with avoid using "Low-quality directories", I've been thinking a lot about what makes a directory "low-quality". Obviously, this is important, or Google wouldn't have mentioned it. I was wondering if someone could explain to me how some of the directories suggested by SEOmoz at http://www.seomoz.org/directories are NOT low-quality, specifically some of the ones marked "General". The page lists stuff like busybits.com, for instance. One that I guess many are aware of, and yea it has a high home page PageRank, and it's got some history, and it's human-edited, ok great. But does it actually add any value to anyone that's not just looking to get a link? A page like http://busybits.com/Business/Others/2/ having (dofollow) listings like "Phone cards, Calling cards" "Insurance in Canada" .... ect. It just looks like an SEO backlink hub. No value at all to a user trying to discover new sites/content. Anyway, back to my main question, how is something like this NOT "low-quality"? Thank you
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | MadeLoud4 -
Google Sitemaps & punishment for bad URLS?
Hoping y'all have some input here. This is along story, but I'll boil it down: Site X bought the url of Site Y. 301 redirects were added to direct traffic (and help transfer linkjuice) from urls in Site X to relevant urls in Site Y, but 2 days before a "change of address" notice was submitted in Google Webmaster Tools, an auto-generating sitemap somehow applied urls from Site Y to the sitemap of Site X, so essentially the sitemap contained urls that were not the url of Site X. Is there any documentation out there that Google would punish Site X for having essentially unrelated urls in its sitemap by downgrading organic search rankings because it may view that mistake as black hat (or otherwise evil) tactics? I suspect this because the site continues to rank well organically in Yahoo & Bing, yet is nonexistent on Google suddenly. Thoughts?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | RUNNERagency0 -
Link Building after Google updates!
Hello All, I just wanted to ask the question to start a discussion on link building after the Google Updates. I haven't been very proactive lately with regards to link building due to the updates and not wanting to get penalised! Are there any link building trends/techniques people are using since the changes? Thanks, seo_123
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | TWPLC_seo0 -
Link Wheel & Unnatural Links - Undoing Damage
Client spent almost a year with link wheels and mass link blasts - end result was getting caught by google. I have taken over, we;ve revamped the site and I'm finishing up with onsite optimization. Would anyone have any suggestions how to undo the damage of the unnatural links and get back into googles favour a little quicker? Or the best next steps to undo the damage.
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | ravynn0