Welcome to the Q&A Forum

No, everything the same. The only thing what was changed, the loading over lazy load to have a propper testing environment.

I wanted to implement lazy loading on my whole domain, but was unsure about the effect on the organic image search. Therefore I implemented it some months ago on 3 selected URLs with medium organic image traffic. Unfortunately all 3 pages dropped significantly (roughly 80%) of image impressions and clicks (seach console data). It seems that just images within the fold, that are not loaded via lazy load are still ranking.

Does anybody have here more positive experiences?

Yeah I am in contact with a fb consultant now as well - I will let you know once I have a response

Hello Guys,

I have something which annoyes me already a long time with FB Ads.

When you set up a campaign and an ad set and you have in your ad set 3 different ads (which makes totally sense to test them against each other) facebook is deciding really often way too early which ad might be the best ad. Often the algorithm starts to prefer one ad already after a few hundred impressions and the other ads are not getting any impressions any more. I cannot find an option like in Google Adwords that just all Ads are shown the same amount of times and that I can decide then on my own which ad I prefer to run. Unfortunately I cannot find anywhere an option to disable this 'auto-optimization' and I didn't find anyhting in the web as well.

Would be pretty happy if someone can help me with this problem!

Thanks!

Josh is right about the reason. Personally I would just do it if the old structure is really really bad

It's  obvious that google doesn't has the changes yet if you search for it via site: in google.

Of course you are right about the fact, that maybe the title changes for specific queries, but this will not be the case if you look it up over the site: search!

However the last point you mentioned, that google maybe prefers the old title tag - I never ever experienced something like this in my life

Hey,

when you did these changes? I confirm that your page title is different

Usually it can take some time until google crawls you again and the changes show up in the SERPs. To speed this process up go to GWT (or now Google Search Console) and under the point "crawl" go to "fetch as google". Here you can request manually a re-crawl of the page. Usually it takes then just 24-48 until you see the changes in the index.

P.S.:

Your new page title is too long. To make sure everything shows up keep it at maximum 58 characters.

Cheers

Yes, that the new index: https://moz.com/blog/mozscape-index-2015

The index is smaller, therefore in most cases you will have less links as well.

Moreover it seems that on average DA/PA significantly dropped with the update.

Definitely implement a 301 reconnect for all pages.

But maybe it makes sense to check all Pages as well and sort out pages which basically are getting no traffic at all.

Then I would decide a) is it worth to optimze this page and reconnect to the improved page or b) completly delete this page and take it out of the index (If the specific page/URL maybe has some valuable links and is still not generating traffic you can think of redirecting it to a related to page, then you don't will loose any link-juice).

thanks guys, I don't know why, but now it is working. it seems, that it just took of about 24 hours until it started working, but now everything is fine

Hello Guys,

I want to track traffic / conversions from different domains (basically same brand - but a lot of different TLD's). The "problem" is that the main conversion which I want to track always happens on the .com TLD and all other TLD's link to there. The problem is, that now the traffic always counts as Referral Traffic, even after setting up cross domain tracking over the google tag manager...

So example:

Sessions begins on example.co.uk/landing-page11 after User searched on it on google. He decides to buy the product and therefore moves to example.com for the checkout process. No I will have the conversion in my google analytics under referral with example.co.uk. --> but I want to have it under organic, and not under referral.

How I can manage this?

Thanks for you Help!

If I get you correctly, yeah I would avoid one-on-one duplicate targeting / page title / meta decriptions for the blog and the other "normal" landing pages.

On the blog you can go for more broader topics, which are surrounding your main keywords - usually you want to rank for you best phrases/keywords not with the blog, but with your "normal" landingpages.

My rule of thumb would be:

Take all pages offline, which have under 30 organic sessions per month.

Like Dmitrii already mentioned, check your past data for these posts and have a look at average sessions durations / bounce rates / pages per sessions, with which you can valdiate the "quality of the traffic". If there are posts which have decent stats - don't take them offline. Rather update them or write a new blog post about the topic and make a redirect. In this case have a look in GWT for the actual serach queries (maybe you find some useful new insights).

Thanks Dan, but I have registered the right URL (http).

However today I have again 100% indexed from the submitted URLs (changed nothing). Really Crazy.

Cheers,

Heiko

I didn't change the sitemap in the last 4 months. At the beginning the numbers match exactly, so submitted and indexed URLs where the same. But this week I recognized, that now of about 20% are not indexed any more. So I already got confused, but the manual check showed that everything is ok.

However, I just would like to know, why there is this difference in webmaster tools....

Cheers

this is clear, but has nothing to do with my original question. I just wanted to know why webmaster tools doesn't display the right number of indexed pages from the sitemap. It would just be the easiest way to recognize when some pages will get de-indexed for whatever reason.

Hey Guys,

I just recognized, that of about 20% of my submitted URL's within the sitemap don't get indexed, at least when I check in the webmaster tools. There is of about 20% difference between the submitted and indexed URLs. However, as far as I can see I don't get within webmaster tools the information, which specific URLs are not indexed from the sitemap, right?

Therefore I checked every single page in the sitemap manually by putting site:"URL" into google and every single page of the sitemap shows up. So in reality every page should be indexed, but why does webmaster tools shows something different?

Thanks for your help on this

Cheers

Hello,
​
​regarding #15 of the last moz friday I have a question: http://moz.com/blog/15-seo-best-practices-for-structuring-urls

What would you prefer if the lenght of the URL will be still under 60 characters and you have an example like this:

Let's call it a specific page in a category. As I like the old shoe examples: You have a page about red shoes in your shoe category.

Which URL would you prefer:

a) www.mydomain.com/shoes/red-shoe

b) www.mydomain.com/shoes/red

Personally I would prefer a) or would you already consider this as spammy? My real example is not that trivial like the shoe example and the categories will be in plural and the specific pages always in singular (like in the example shoes vs shoe).

c) would be to put it independently from the side structure on www.mydomain.com/red-shoe - but personally I have the experience that a) or b) will help the rankings of the category page if you have the specific pages in the same subfolder.

What's your opinion on this?

We have there pretty good scores (90+), but that's not really location related...

Hello Guys,

what are your experiences? How accurate is google analytics data regarding page load times?

I know that one of my sites has trouble with pageload times, especially in India and USA. We are based in middle Europe and regarding to the GA data we have here in middle europe of about 2 seconds page load time. Moreover we have of about 4 seconds in USA and 10 seconds in India.

Therefore I decided to test for a few sides a CDN (on these pages all static files are served over the CDN). However, first GA data indicates, that the page load times are even getting worse!!! But when I test it for example with pingdom (http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/) and compare it with an old landing page without CDN implementation, the tool says it's faster. The CDN provider (maxcdn) send me also some reports, which indicate, that the page load time should be faster...That's the reason why I ask about your experience with the GA page load time data, because personally I get the impression you cannot trust the data...

Thanks for your help!

Cheers

yes thank you guys, that's how I thought about it as well and just wanted to clarify

thanks shakur..

but I still think the original question is not answered completly or I missinterprete the google guidelines..

"remove it from your index" --> I can remove it via webmaster tools, but still can leave it on the server..

Personally I think it will make no difference If I remove it or not from the server, if I set the redirect, but would be happy to clarify this before.

Hello just one quick question which came up in the discussion here: http://moz.com/community/q/take-a-good-amount-of-existing-landing-pages-offline-because-of-low-traffic-cannibalism-and-thin-content

When I do 301 redirects where I put together content from 2 pages, should I keep the page/html which redirects on the server? Or should I delete? Or does it make no difference at all?

Thanks Everett for your response, changes are in process and I will implement it this week. But it would be even better do remove the not redirected URLs in webmaster tools. right?

Technical question to the redirected URLs: Is there any difference if I leave the redirected webpages on the server or if I delete them?

1. Well, yes I expect that the other pages will benefit from it, because I basically can overtake the good content parts to the similiar pages. Moreover I can set more internal links to the pages which are actually ranking and generating more traffic. Of course, I could just take off all internal links from the dead pages, but I see no sense in there existence any more.

2. I know that you don't get a penalty for duplicate content. But I think it makes more sense to have one (improved) page for a topic/keyword than having 2 pages and one is basically dead from traffic perspective. From their whole structure the pages are just to simiiliar beside the "content" and even if this cannot force manual actions, it can lead to panda/hummingbird issues you will never recognize.

3. Yeah this action has nothing to do with the dead pages, you are right, I just wanted to mention it, because for me I inptreted it in the way, that google tests similiar pages in there performance and this can lead to longterm decreases. That was for me just another reason for putting similiar websites together and think more in "topical hubs". I talk about really similiar websites like for 3 phrase keywords when just the last word differs and the content is unique but basically tells the user the same like on the other page...

Yes I checked, these pages don't have external backlinks, generating only link juice through internally linking. As I will change the internal linking and the pages I take down will not get any more internal links this should'nt make any difference...

I just want to avoid any redirect, which is not necessary to really make sure that only pages who have a relevant similiar page get a redirect. makes sense, right?

Thanks for your opinions!

There are no manual actions against the pages, so shouldn't care about this! Like I said mostly they are generating no traffic at all (for these ones I cannnot see a good reason to redirect and not just delete them from the index and take them down) and some URL's are just competing against each other and the ranking fluctuations are quite high and therefore I want to put these competing pages together.

I guess I will redirect the pages which still have relevant similiar pages left, but don't redirect pages which basically had no traffic at all in 8 months and no real similiar page is existing.

Hello Guys,

I decided to take of about 20% of my existing landing pages offline (of about 50 from 250, which were launched of about 8 months ago).

Reasons are:

• These pages sent no organic traffic at all in this 8 months

• Often really similiar landing pages exist (just minor keyword targeting difference and I would call it "thin" content)

• Moreover I had some Panda Issues in Oct, basically I ranked with multiple landing pages for the same keyword in the top ten and in Oct many of these pages dropped out of the top 50.. I also realized that for some keywords the landing page dropped out of the top 50, another landing page climbed from 50 to top 10 in the same week, next week the new landing page dropped to 30, next week out of 50 and the old landing pages comming back to top 20 - but not to top ten...This all happened in October..Did anyone observe such things as well?

That are the reasons why I came to the conclustion to take these pages offline and integrating some of the good content on the other similiar pages to target broader with one page instead of two. And I hope to benefit from this with my left landing pages. I hope all agree?

Now to the real question:

Should I redirect all pages I take offline? Basically they send no traffic at all and non of them should have external links so I will not give away any link juice. Or should I just remove the URL's in the google webmaster tools and take them then offline? Like I said the sites are basically dead and personally I see no reason for these 50 redirects.

Cheers,

Heiko

I would not go for the second domain solution with a foundation. Regardless if you generate many links to this site, you will just give a tiny part of link juice to your mainsite through some links. Just imagine the example that another big page is linking to you, you will not automatically get all its link juice, right? Moreover you can get trouble if both domains are registered on the same name or use same IP adresses etc, as google identifies this as your "personal" link farm.

If you really think you will benefit THAT much from a second foundation domain page I would more think about how you get a good amount of the traffic from the foundation site to your mainpage and convert it there. But then I would try to rank only with the foundation domain.

Cheers,

Heiko

Hey,

I don't think so, why there should be a difference between internal linking within one subdomain and between different subdomains? It's not unnatural to use exact anchor texts as you are control of your own website..

If you are not really overdoing internal linking (completely unnatural) this should never hurt your rankings at all!

Greez

Hello Moz Community,

At first I wanted to say that I really like the Q&A section and that I read and learned a lot - and today it is time for my first own question

I checked our backlink-profile these days and I found in my opinion a few bad/spammy links, most of them are auto-generated by pickung up some (meta) information from our webpage. Now my question is if I should dasavow these links over webmasters or if these links shouldn't matter as I guess basically every webpage will be picked up from them. Especially from the perspective that our rankings dropped significantly last weeks, but I am not sure if this can be the real reason.

Examples are pages like:

https://www.askives.com/ -Auto-Generates for example meta descriptions with links

http://www.websitesalike.com/ -find similar websites

http://mashrom.ir/ -no idea about this, really crazy

Or we are at http://www.europages.com/, which makes sense for me and we get some referral traffic as well, but they auto-generated links from all their TLDs like .gr / .it / .cn etc. -just disavow all other TLDs than .com?

Another example would be links from OM services like:

seoprofiler.com

Moreover we have a lot of links from different HR portals (including really many outdated job postings). Can these links “hurt” as well?

Thanks a lot for your help!

Greez

Heiko