Are "appliance repair" and "appliance repair los angeles" consider the same keyword?
-
Hello,
I know that you can't optimize two pages for 1 keyword because Google will get confused and will rather prefer my competitor. But I can't get if it will consider "appliance repair" and "appliance repair los angeles" same keywords? The homepage of my website, https://www.ifixappliancesla.com, is optimized for "appliance repair", one of the inner pages is optimized for "appliance repair los angeles". None of them shows on the first page in local SERPs for any of those quires. I am wondering if this is because Google sees it as both pages are optimized for "appliance repair"?
-
Could you please let me know if this applies to the backlinks from third-party websites that I'm building?
-
Hi again,
Yes, that's is correct. Do not use the same anchor twice, but you still can use a partial match anchor text like " word + appliance repair Los Angeles" and link to your home page.
Ross
-
Hi Ross,
Thank you very much for your reply! You said, "some of your backlinks need to have "appliance repair Los Angeles" as an anchor text. Keep in mind, never repeat the anchor text." Could you please elaborate on this? Do you mean that I only can have one anchor "appliance repair Los Angeles" linking to my homepage within my entire website?
Thank you!
-
Hi there,
You still can rank your home page for "appliance repair", and your inner page for "appliance repair Los Angeles". However, I see that you are a local business that provides services only in Los Angeles. In that case, I would only use one page( home page) to rank for "appliance repair Los Angeles" and "appliance repair". Make sure you have content on the home page about "appliance repair Los Angeles", Meta Tags, and some of your backlinks need to have "appliance repair Los Angeles" as an anchor text. Keep in mind, never repeat the anchor text. You should be able to rank one page for both terms.
Ross
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
-
Buying Domains with Keywords but no PA, no content
MOZ Community, I am trying to gauge both the potential upside and downside of buying a few (relatively long) URLs that encompass some new keywords that are surfacing in our industry and creating permanent redirects to our branded website. [This wasn't my idea!] These URLs haven't previously had any content or owners so their domain authority is low. Will Google still ding us for this behavior? I hope not but I worry that there might be some penalty for having a bunch of redirects pointing at our site. I have read that google will penalize you for buying content-rich sites with high DA and redirecting those URLs to your site but I am unclear about this other approach. It seems like a fairly mundane (and fruitless) play. I tried to explain that we won't reap any SEO rewards for owning these URLS (if there is no content) but that wasn't really heard. Thanks for any resources or information you can share! I would appreciate any resources.
Technical SEO | | ColleenHeadLight0 -
Keyword cannibalisation - Any way to find out who is eating who?
I have a question regarding some keywords in my site. For some reason, I am ranking for the wrong keyword in some SERPs or my top page is ranking instead. Example: graphic design is ranking for web design Is there any tool or way to figure out how, why or who is eating each other up so to speak? Would you have any advice or links to good sources on how to resolve this issue so that the correct page shows in search for it's particular keyword? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | Kuruto0 -
Redundant categorization - "boys" and "girls" category. Any other suggestions than implementing filtering?
One of our clients (a children's clothing company) has split their categories (outwear, tops, shoes) between boys and girls - There's one category page for girls outwear, and one category for boys outwear. I am suspecting that this redundant categorisation is diluting link juice and rankings for the related search queries. Important points: The clothes themselves are rather gender-neutral, girl's sweaters don't differ that much from the boy's sweaters. Our keyword research indicates that norwegians' search queries are also pretty gender neutral - people are generally searching after "children's dresses", "shoes for kids", "snowsuits", etc. So these gender specific categories are not really reflective of people's search behavior. I acknowledge that implementing a filter for "boys" and "girls" would be the best way to solve this redundant categorization, but that would simply be to expensive for our client. I'm thinking that some sort of canonicalisation would be the best approach to solve this issue. Are there any other suggestions or comments to this?
Technical SEO | | Inevo0 -
New "Static" Site with 302s
Hey all, Came across a bit of an interesting challenge recently, one that I was hoping some of you might have had experience with! We're currently in the process of a website rebuild, for which I'm really excited. The new site is using Markdown to create an entirely static site. Load-times are fantastic, and the code is clean. Life is good, apart from the 302s. One of the weird quirks I've realized is that with oldschool, non-server-generated page content is that every page of the site is an Index.html file in a directory. The resulting in a www.website.com/page-title will 302 to www.website.com/page-title/. My solution off the bat has been to just be super diligent and try to stay on top of the link profile and send lots of helpful emails to the staff reminding them about how to build links, but I know that even the best laid plans often fail. Has anyone had a similar challenge with a static site and found a way to overcome it?
Technical SEO | | danny.wood1 -
Rel="canonical" of .html/ to .html
Hi, could you guys confirm me that the following scenario is completely senseless? I just got the instruction from an external consultant (with quiet good SEO knowledge) to use a rel="canonical" for the following urls. http://www.example.com/petra.html/
Technical SEO | | petrakraft
to
http://www.example.com/petra.html I mean a folder petra/ to petra is ok - but a trailing slash after .html ??? Apart from that I would rather choose a 301 - not a rel canonical. What is your position here?0 -
N/A page rank or "grey bar"
I have a web site that is over 10 yrs old, It also has over 30,000 links to it. Last week it received a N/A or "grey bar" page rank. The site also still is listed in the SERPS for my keywords, in fact for a few they have actually improved. The organic traffic is following the same pattern as last year. Webmaster tools doesnt list any critical issues or errors. Is there anything I can do to remedy the situation, or is this just a wait and see? Website is www.netnanny.com.
Technical SEO | | Court_H0 -
URL paths and keywords
I'm recommending some on-page optimization for a home builder building in several new home communities. The site has been through some changes in the past few months and we're almost starting over. The current URL structure is http://homebuilder.com/oakwood/features where homebuilder = builder name Oakwood Estates= name of community features = one of several sub-paths including site plan, elevations, floor plans, etc. The most attainable keyword phrases include the word 'home' and 'townname' I want to change the URL path to: http://homebuilder.com/oakwood-estates-townname-homes/features Is there any problem with doing this? It just seems to make a lot of sense. Any input would be appreciated.
Technical SEO | | mikescotty0 -
Is SEOMoz only good for "ideas"?
Perhaps I've learned too much about the technical aspects of SEO, but nowhere have I found scientific studies backing up any claims made here, or a useful answer to a discussion I recently started. Maybe it doesn't exist. I do enjoy Whiteboard Friday's. They're fantastic for new ideas. This site is great. But I take it there are no proper studies conducted that examine SEO, rather just the usual spin of "belief from authority". No?
Technical SEO | | stevenheron0