Google for Jobs: how to deal with third-party sites that appear instead of your own?
-
We have shared our company's job postings on several third-party websites, including The Muse, as well as putting the job postings on our own website. Our site and The Muse have about the same schema markup except for these differences:
The Muse...
• Lists Experience Requirements
• Uses HTML in the description withtags and other markup (our website just has plain text)
• Has a Name in JobPosting
• URL is specific to the position (our website's URL just goes to the homepage)
• Has a logo URL for OrganizationWhen you type the exact job posting's title into Google, The Muse posting shows up in Google for Jobs--not our website's duplicate copy. The only way to see our website's job posting is to type in the exact job title plus "site:http://www.oursite.com".
What is a good approach for getting our website's posting to be the priority in Google for Jobs? Do we need to remove postings from third-party sites? Structure them differently? Do organic factors affect which version of the job posting is shown, and if so, can I assume that our site will face challenges outranking a big third-party site?
-
We have found the following:
1 Using the API is better than waiting for Google to crawl the jobs.
2 They have you must have data fields, but they have would like to have and be tickled pink if you have fields. Filling in all three changes rankings in the testing we have done.
3 The quality of the title you give vs the title they understand.
4 The overall authority of your site. No exact on this yet but a gut feel factor.
5 SERPs result are also jumping around like crazy just now, we see the Google for jobs panel with no links about it and then four hours later it has 4 organic links about it for the same search, then a day later 2, then a day later none, then back to four then an hour later none...Testing google for jobs when it landed in the UK three weeks ago its results are inconsistent with its own rules, we have found jobs with the wrong suggested title format, the wrong address format, landing pages not actual jobs have found their way onto the service!!! jobs with red warning have made it onto the service and so the list goes on.
-
Yeah, I'm sorry I'm not seeing a really good resource for you, Kevin. It's early days. The person who takes on the task of writing that resource will have valuable information to share. I would say your best hope is in experimentation with this, but I don't see that anyone has figured out a solution to the important questions you've asked.
-
Thanks, Miriam. This article offers a good summary of information that Google put out there, but it doesn't discuss factors that may affect which version of a duplicate posting appears. Ideally, there's be a way to canonical third-party duplicates, but I'm not sure if this would be possible with these huge third-party job posting sites or even if this would affect which version of the posting appeared in Google for Jobs.
-
Hi Kevin! It's nice to speak with you, too. Another article that might help:
http://www.clearedgemarketing.com/2017/06/optimize-google-jobs/
I'd love to see someone do a deep dive on the exact questions you've raised.
-
Wow, a reply by the Miriam Ellis! I've found your past posts on local search very useful.
Seriously, though, this was a very good thread on which I could begin to pull. I took a look at the article and found this helpful line: "For jobs that appeared on multiple sites, Google will link you to the one with the most complete job posting." I'd be interested in knowing more about what constitutes "complete." I'm assuming it's the post that has the most schema items included and in particular the "critical" items according to Google's rich cards report. If this is the case, then it would seem that organic signals may not affect the visibility of the job posts as much as I originally suspected.
Then again, there's got to be some keyword relevance going on here.
Our website's job posting is being included in Google for Jobs. However, this posting only appears with a very specific search (typing in the exact job title plus "site:http://www.oursite.com".)
So, maybe it's a combination: multiple versions of the same job can be part of Google for Jobs, but Google for Jobs will show the posting that is both most keyword relevant and most complete. This is just a theory without significant research (everyone's favorite kind of theory, right?), but I'm going to send an email to the author of the TechCrunch article to see if there's any more detail he can share. Thanks again!
-
Hey Kevin,
I'm afraid I'm not very familiar with Google for Jobs, but here's something that caught my eye in a TechCrunch article:
To create this comprehensive list, Google first has to remove all of the duplicate listings that employers post to all of these job sites. Then, its machine learning-trained algorithms sift through and categorize them.
This sounds like it might be applicable to what you're describing. Maybe read the rest of the article? And I'm hoping you'll get further community input from folks who have actually been experimenting with this new Google function.
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
-
I have followed all the steps in google speed ranking on how to increase my website http://briefwatch.com/ speed but no good result
My website http://briefwatch.com/ has a very low-speed score on google page speed and I followed all the steps given to me still my website speed doesn't increase
Local Website Optimization | | Briefwatch0 -
Correct Localisation of my website on Google
I have a website which services various countries, specifically the United Kingdom and United States of America. I am now expanding the target of my website to focus on Australian and South African customers. The structure of my website is www.websitename.com/us/ for the American audience. This is also what appears on a Google search when browsing in the USA. For the United Kingdom we use just www.websitename.com which works and shows in the UK. When I have created the new versions which are:
Local Website Optimization | | A95Bennett
www.websitename.com/au/
www.websitename.com/za/ I go onto google search my company and still www.websitename.com shows (When browsing from the relevant location). When it should show the /au/ or /za/ versions. I have submitted the relevant sitemaps to Google Search Console. Yet still from Australia and South Africa the .com version of the website it what shows. Please offer any advice to how I can get the correct version of the website showing in the correct location?1 -
How to Get 1st Page Google Rankings for a Local Company?
Hi guys, I'm owning a London removal company - Mega Removals and wants to achieve 1st page rankings on Google UK for keywords like: "removals London", "removal company London", "house removals London" but have no success so far. I need professional advice on how to do it. Should I hire an SEO or should focus on content? I will be very grateful for your help.
Local Website Optimization | | nanton1 -
Site Getting hacked
Hi There, My one Website gets hacked Again and Again, I had Reset Many times ,But again, Also generating unnecessary URLs to My website in Webmaster tools, Can anyone Help Me To Solve This Problem please? please help, thx in advance,
Local Website Optimization | | nupuriepl0 -
Does it matter how or what site you use to GeoTag your photos?
I found a site that was very easy for me to upload my pictures, add the coordinates, download it and put it on my site. The site is GeoImgr.com, but it's not nearly as popular as some of the other's out there. Does that matter? I'm under the impression that as long as the GPS coordinates show up in the XIF Viewer, then I've gotten whatever benefit (albeit slight) there is to get. Is that correct? Or is there something about tagging them from the more popular sites like Flickr or Panaramio? Thanks, Ruben
Local Website Optimization | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Australian local business website on a dot.com - how do I ensure its indexed/ranked by Google.com/au as priority
look forward to your advice My client is a local business in australia but has a dotcom site which is hosted in US. We are just moving it to wordpress and new hosting. I want to ensure that Google.com/au will be able to index and rank the content. How can I tell google its a site for people in australia? I thought best to set up a subfolder like this hissite.com/au and redirect anyone from australia to go to this url? Thanks for your recommendations
Local Website Optimization | | bisibee10 -
Killing it in Yahoo/Bing...Sucking it in Google. What gives?
Our website http://www.survive-a-storm.com has historically performed well in Google for the search terms "storm shelters" and "tornado shelters." Our geographic focus is nationwide, but we are particularly interested in ranking up for Oklahoma. Right now we are hovering at about the third position in Yahoo/Bing, and in some geographic areas (i.e., as selected in Google's search settings) we are doing reasonably to quite well for these terms in Google (i.e., first page). In Oklahoma, though, we are holding steady around positions 20-25. We have just changed the title tag on our home page, cleaned up a bit of on-page optimization, and are going to work on getting some more optimized content on the page. We are outperforming the competition on Domain Authority (38) and Page Authority (46), and as far as I can tell, other key metrics are respectable. Our social isn't bad, but could always use improvement--which we are working on. Any idea why we might be lagging so badly in Google? Any help would be appreciated!
Local Website Optimization | | Survive-a-Storm0 -
Does Google play fair? Is 'relevant content' and 'usability' enough?
It seems there are 2 opposing views, and as a newbie this is very confusing. One view is that as long as your site pages have relevant content and are easy for the user, Google will rank you fairly. The other view is that Google has 'rules' you must follow and even if the site is relevant and user-friendly if you don't play by the rules your site may never rank well. Which is closer to the truth? No one wants to have a great website that won't rank because Google wasn't sophisticated enough to see that they weren't being unfair. Here's an example to illustrate one related concern I have: I've read that Google doesn't like duplicated content. But, here are 2 cases in which is it more 'relevant' and 'usable' to the user to have duplicate content: Say a website helps you find restaurants in a city. Restaurants may be listed by city region, and by type of restaurant. The home page may have links to 30 city regions. It may also have links for 20 types of restaurants. The user has a choice. Say the user chooses a region. The resulting new page may still be relevant and usable by listing ALL 30 regions because the user may want to choose a different region. Altenatively say the user chooses a restaurant type for the whole city. The resulting page may still be relevant and usable by giving the user the ability to choose another type OR another city region. IOW there may be a 'mega-menu' at the top of the page which duplicates on every page in the site, but is very helpful. Instead of requiring the user to go back to the home page to click a new region or a new type the user can do it on any page. That's duplicate content in the form of a mega menu, but is very relevant and usable. YET, my sense is that Google MAY penalize the site even though arguably it is the most relevant and usable approach for someone that may or may not have a specific region or restaurant type in mind.. Thoughts?
Local Website Optimization | | couponguy0