Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the advice Gianluca!

That would be ideal (not even create a clone). The problem with that approach is that the UX would break if a user lands on the Russian versions and then tried to navigate to a page which doesn't exist (like a none translated page in the top nav). How would you handle that?

Not too worried about crawl budget as it's a very small site. Would you agree there is no cause for concern for a site which only has around 120 pages?

Good idea re "implementing the hreflang and setting it up to "en-ru" for the English pages targeting Russia and simply "en" in the ones targeting the English speaking users in the rest of the world."

Hello all,

I'm looking for opinions on this.

Imagine there is a website example.com in English and the company 'Example' wanted to translate some of the pages (not not all) in to Russian.

So they set up example.com/ru and translate the key pages into Russian. But half of the pages on.com/ru are left in English and there are no plans to translate them.

How would you handle the pages in Engish on .com/ru?

My thoughts are that they should:

• Canonicalise to the same versions on .com, and...
• Remove RU hreflang tags from the pages on .com/ru which are in English

Otherwise, users searching in English with Russian browser settings could land on a page in English but then navigate to a translated page in Russian (+the menu navigation items will be in Russian) = bad UX. Not to mention they would be telling Google a page is in Russain but Google would be crawling English.

So IMO, the best option is to use canonicals for this so that the .com version of the page is indexed. Then when a user lands after searching in English they will always be served English pages within that session.

If English speakers/searchers land on the .com/ru page that would lead to a website half in one lang and half in another.

I'm aware that Google recommends not using rel="canonical" across country or language versions of your site, but I believe they are making that recommendation based on an assumption that all pages are going to be translated to another language.

In this case, there is no intention to do that, ever.

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions.

Cheers, Gill.

Ah yes there is a "Thanks for your message" text - what kind of trigger do you use to fire that?

Hello,

I'm currently tracking contact form submissions any time a user clicks 'Submit' on a pop-up form. Once the form is submitted, the URL of the page remains the same (there is no /thank-you page or such like), hence needing to fire the Event based on a click.

Problem is, even if the form is not actually submitted and a user just clicks the Submit button without filling in the fields, the Event will still fire.

I know there is a way to ensure the Event ONLY fires when the form is actually submitted for real, but I don't know how to implement that in GTM.

Any help most appreciated 

Cheers,

Gill.

No I'm not talking about faking anything.

The question is, does Google asses on page metrics as part of their search algorithm using the onpage metrics from traffic via all mediums, or only traffic via organic as a medium.

Not sure your answer makes much sense. No worries though.

Cheers,

Gill.

Hi James,

Thanks for the comment.

You talk very matter of fact!

Do you have any proof of what you are saying?

Cheers,

Gill.

Yeah I'm not talking about direct correlations from other mediums. I'm only talking about when a user lands on a website, do the actions they take matter with regards to Google's seach algo or do Google only look at onpage metrics on visits which came to the site via organic search.

I'm not sure if anyone outside Google has the answer/proof of this but was keen to get other people's thoughts.

Cheers,

Gill.

Hi folks,

This is something I've pondered for a while. I've ask a couple of Googlers but no reponse yet and I don't I'll get one!

In your opinion, do you think Google looks at on page metrics like bounce rate for example from all traffic mediums (organic, paid, email, social  referral etc etc) or they only look at on page metrics from organic traffic?

I'm not talking about direct correlations from other mediums. I'm only talking about when a user lands on a website, do the actions they take matter with regards to Google's search algo no matter of the referring medium, or do Google only look at onpage metrics on visits which came to the site via organic search as a medium.

Option 1

As a very simplified example: Google gives extra weight in the SERPs to website A which has an average bounce rate of 30% from all mediums compared to website B which has a bounce rate of 50% from all mediums.

Option 2

Google gives extra weight in the SERPs to website A which has an average bounce rate of 30% from organic traffic only compared to website B which has a bounce rate of 50% from organic traffic only.

I'm not sure if anyone outside Google has the answer/proof of this but was keen to get other people's thoughts.

If you think the also uses one or the other, can you give an insights/proof of one or the other?

For me it would make sense for them only to use onpage metrics from sessions which came from organic seach traffic, but who knows!

Merci buckets,

Gill.

For sure! At least with social it's almost instantly evident when they don't know what they're doing, for SEO too much wool can be pulled over the eyes of the none technical

Thanks for the comments.

[Comment removed by moderator.]

As Igor says above, those 'articles' are terrible for these reasons:

• Spammy over optimised anchors
• Many identical anchor texts
• Zero value

On top of that the 'articles' are machine generated which I confirmed when I mystery shopped one of the 'blogs'. I assume they are hosted in bad neighbourhoods and there are not something I want to be associated with.

Need to weed out these kind of people and expose them as crooks.

Thanks again,

Gill.

Throws theory out of window

Yep yep. I'm seeing drops across the board, for everyone!

Thankfully not, only between 1 and 3.

I second that.

Agreed! Thanks very much for taking the time!

Thanks for the comments.

[Comment removed by moderator.]

As Igor says above, those 'articles' are terrible for these reasons:

• Spammy over optimised anchors
• Many identical anchor texts
• Zero value

On top of that the 'articles' are machine generated which I confirmed when I mystery shopped one of the 'blogs'. I assume they are hosted in bad neighbourhoods and there are not something I want to be associated with.

Need to weed out these kind of people and expose them as crooks.

Thanks again,

Gill.

For sure! At least with social it's almost instantly evident when they don't know what they're doing, for SEO too much wool can be pulled over the eyes of the none technical