Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks Martijn. I figured that was probably the answer, however, there seemed to be some hubbub over this issue, so I was wondering if there are any other issues regarding AMP pages being hosted elsewhere.

Do you have any insight you could share in that regard?

Hello Moz,

I am thinking about starting to utilize AMP for some of my website. I've been researching this AMP situation for the better part of a year and I am still unclear on a few things.

What I am primarily concerned with in terms of AMP and SEO is whether or not the original publisher gets credit for the traffic to a cached AMP page that is hosted elsewhere. I can see the possible issues with this from an SEO perspective and I am pretty sure I have read about how SEOs are unhappy about this particular aspect of AMP in other places.

On the AMP project FAQ page you can find this, but there is very little explanation:

"Do publishers receive credit for the traffic from a measurement perspective?
Yes, an AMP file is the same as the rest of your site – this space is the publisher’s canvas."

So, let's say you have an AMP page on your website example.com:
example.com/amp_document.html

And a cached copy is served with a URL format similar to this: https://google.com/amp/example.com/amp_document.html

Then how does the original publisher get the credit for the traffic? Is it because there is a canonical tag from the AMP version to the original HTML version?

Also, while I am at it, how does an AMP page actually get into Google's AMP Cache (or any other cache)? Does Google crawl the original HTML page, find the AMP version and then just decide to cache it from there? Are there any other issues with this that I should be aware of?

Thanks

Hi Sergey,

Thanks for this. I have read that article at some point a while back. Interesting read. I was just sort of sounding out a few ideas in my last post. The second option seems to be the best way to go.

Do you know of any other methods to do this that is common in the industry?

Thanks,
Brian

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the reply.

This documentation was helpful. You mentioned the potential for the content to be seen in the cached version of pages. I read the Search Engine Land article there and shes sort of getting at how you don't want to block your content to search engines because then they can't be indexed and ranked. Let's say we don't really care about those parts of the pages that we wan't to block in terms of being indexed, which I sort of mentioned above. If we were to some how display those parts of the pages, images and text, in JavaScript, search engines wouldn't be able to crawl. Would those portions of the page still be visible in the cached version? I would imagine not if the search engines can't crawl JS, but not sure.

A second option I thought of was to create a separate subdomain for logged in users that would only be accessible through a log in form. Search engines cannot follow forms, so I would imagine, that gated content wouldn't be visible to crawlers and therefore not indexed. You could go one step farther and block the subdomain in robots.txt. Do you think that could be a possible solution?

Thanks again for the reply last week.

-Brian

Hi Moz and Moz fans,

We are looking to add a client portal to the website. Basically, I haven't found too much on this with regard to SEO. The idea would be that certain parts of the website would be hidden under a pay wall and for subscribers, they would be able to see all content. I am wondering if anyone has any experience with that and what SEO considerations to take into account.

One thing we are particularly concerned about is how Google will index the portions of the website behind the pay wall, if at all. Obviously, we would rather that they don't index it, so that people can't find a way to get to the info without paying. I would imagine it would have to do with the type of coding, however, I am not a coding guru, so I am not 100% on that.

Anyway, anyone that has any experience in this kind of thing and can comment on this at all, any comment is welcome. Also, any documentation that could be helpful would be welcome too.

Thanks

Is that all one needs to do to get AMP pages on Google's AMP Cache or is there more to it than that?

Thanks guys. That makes sense. I guess a good test is to also check and see if you dominate not only for the branded keyword but also all the common misspellings, etc. That might be harder for some brands such as bitskin and bitskins or intenso and intenseo. But i guess if you have a unique enough name and you rank for those too, then you know search engines really do understand.

Hi,

Just a question/discussion regarding mentions. I have read for the last few years that Google is able to give credit to websites who get mentioned without a link. Even a few months ago there was a big article on the Google update at the end of last year saying how mentions would become an even stronger signal than a link. My question is, if anyone knows, is there any evidence that Google and other search engines are able to give ranking credit to websites whose brand name is slightly different from the domain? Can the search engines figure out that it is the same thing? If not, then there must be a lot of brands missing out.

Thanks.

Hi There Jon and Dr. Pete,

Thanks for the answers. Much appreciated.

The only issue I was envisioning was Google's indexing of the highcharts. I imagined that since they are JS based, Google wouldn't be able to read and index them the way they are able to now with our regular image charts, but we are prepared to sacrifice that for a better UX with the interactive high charts. Luckily, as you touched on Pete, we have some accompanying text with each chart, so they won't be just pages with charts and little other content.

It is good that load times are ok, I hadn't actually thought about that. Our site speed is fairly fast, so most likely introducing HighCharts won't be a big issue even if they were to slow things down a bit.

Thanks for answers!

Hi there Moz Community,

Our org is looking into implementing Highcharts, interactive charts on our website instead of having regular static chart images. I found this post recently about how Moz implemented them a while back, a couple years ago.

https://moz.com/community/q/question-for-moz-developers-highcharts

Moz made a pretty good case for them over alternatives. They would certainly keep people on the page longer, which is good, but is there anything else that I should take into account or think of before going ahead with this from an SEO perspective? Does anyone else have experience with them on their websites?

Thanks

Hey Matt,

Our site saw a massive up tick in links and then an even larger drop in links from one index to the next. Read this post below from Moz about their last index and about their not-so-great indexing over the last year. That might give you the answer you are looking for.

https://moz.com/blog/mozscape-index-2015?mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRonv6TOZKXonjHpfsX56u4kXaK2gIkz2EFye%2BLIHETpodcMTctqNL%2FYDBceEJhqyQJxPr3CLtcNwMR4RhHmDA%3D%3D

I can't remember everything in the article, so rather than try to explain it myself, I'll let them do it for me. Hope that helps.

Just a question (or questions) I have wondered about. What's the difference, besides the actual encoding, between the three? Why have three? Why not just the one? Seems to me that Microdata is the easiest, but maybe I am wrong. Is there a reason to use one versus another? I have not found anything explaining this on schema.org - I suppose this is just a discussion versus getting one right or wrong answer. I am just curious of the opinions of people in the SEO MOZ community. Unless of course there is one answer. I'll take that too.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for the answer. So, as I understand it, and keep in mind this is coming from someone that is not very code-savvy, with JSON-LD, one could put the script anywhere in the HTML, the header, the body, the footer, etc. and it won't show up on the actual page, but the search engine will be able to read it. This implies that no changing or tweaking of the actual HTML is necessary, no messing around with 's or

's like you would with Microdata or RDFa, correct?

A follow up question, if I may, how would you implement something like a "local business" schema with JSON, would you put the script on every page, in the footer perhaps? Or would you just put it on the home page? Does it matter?

Thanks

Great, Peter. Thanks for the answers. I now understand the difference. Much appreciated.