@solenneginx

Hi, sorry for super slow reply.

These are, unfortunately, highly volatile channels. There was a core update in November, and this can have an even larger update on Discover than organic.

All you can really do is check how you perform vs competitors on the issues that Google claims to be valuing - brand trust, site speed, content quality/depth, and so on. Google Discover is particularly sensitive to speed.

Of course, you should also check for any technical hitch with your own site that might be causing issues.

@seoblogs61 Hey, sorry for the super slow reply.

Hosting shouldn't matter unless it changes the URLs (any further than you're deliberately changing them).

Moving from www to non www means you need to make sure there is a 1:1 mapping of old to new URLs as 301 redirects. This may be possible using a server config rule.

Be aware that any URL migration comes with SEO risks. The 301 redirects in theory will carry across most of the value of your backlinks, but there may be delays in Google understanding the new relationship, or a slight dilution, or some technical hitch which causes some URLs to not be caught by your rule.

@beckersbestshoes

Hi

I wouldn't reccommend going through one by one.

Instead, look for patterns that you can fix at scale. For example, many of these titles contain the repetition "Quality Shoes Online | Quality Shoes Online".

See if you can find what in your CMS is adding these, and turn it off

@giftsthatsaywow I think you may have replied to a different post to the one you intended.

@lpantell

One thing you can do is look for closely related terms that do have volume. This might help you to understand how people are phrasing this intent.

"online therapy california" seems intuitively like an odd one to me, because if I was looking for an online service, I would not be worried about the location it was provided from. That said, I'm not an expert in this area so I could be off on that.

One thing I do notice is that "san francisco" therapy terms seem to have higher volume than "california" therapy terms, and "therapist" also often seems more used as a term than "therapy", depending on context. Perhaps among the people who are looking for an online therapist that is nonetheless local to them, California is simply too large a search area?

@lpantell

Hi Lpantell

I think "near me" is a bit of a gotcha - searchers use this term, but Google understands that businesses don't describe themselves this way. If you search for "therapist near me", "restaurant near me", etc., you'll notice that the top ranking sites do not use the phrase "near me". Instead, they mention the location.

@ginovdw

No, I wouldn't say that would cause such issues.

Your pages should get indexed eventually, as they are in your sitemaps (at least the ones I checked), so I am not surprised you're not seeing issues in reports.

But, tools like Moz will often struggle to give more strategic advice (not that we aren't working on it!), and in this case, if these pages are a priority, you need to prominently link to them within your site - this is the most reliably way to ensure rapid indexing.

@annegretwidmer Hi Kasey

In short, probably not.

Long titles and URLs are not ideal, but they're not the kind of really egregious error that might cause Google to see a site as toxic or very low quality overall. Missing meta descriptions are also possibly a missed opportunity, but not a serious threat.

That said, these issues might be symptomatic of a general excess of unmoderated or poorly maintained pages, which would be a more notable cause for concern.

Tom

@ginovdw said in Keywords are indexed on the home page:

brekken.nl/motorbootcharter-lemmer

It seems like some of those simply aren't indexed.

As above, I recommend you investigate in Google Search Console for a clearer idea of why it isn't indexed, but I notice with /motorbootcharter-lemmer it is listed in your sitemaps, so probably Google will index it eventually.

If you want Google to better understand the value of these pages, consider including them in your main navigation, or linking from the homepage.

@ginovdw Have you been able to confirm that those other pages are crawled, indexed, and correctly rendered by Google?

For example, what happens if you inspect them in Google Search Console?

@ginovdw Heya

Could you explain a little more what you're running in to?

For example, when you say that keywords are indexed on the homepage, do you mean that your homepage is ranking for all terms, even though you have optimized other pages for those terms?

@fj66doneoiddpj In some cases users may have a reason for using the site in something other than their browser language.

For example, perhaps a shared device, or simply wishing to check a different localisation.

If your hreflang is working correctly, they should never see the "wrong" version anyhow.

But, there are pros and cons of course.

@billywig

Even if you've fixed the internal link, the old URL will still be periodically crawled by Google and other crawlers (including Moz!), so it's worth fixing.

The issue may be that you're using WordPress to handle a redirect between two different subdomains, where WordPress is hosted in just one of them. Ideally you would address this at server level.

@fj66doneoiddpj

I would use a 302 here, just as an added insurance in case you ever accidentally serve Google the redirect.

However, I'm not a huge fan of auto redirects in general - they tend to cause issues for crawlers and users alike. Can you explain a bit more when/why the user gets redirected? Perhaps instead you could serve a country selection insterstitial if a user seems to be on the "wrong" variant?

@meditationbunny Sorry for the slow reply - but yes, I'd expect Page Authority to increase slightly, if the "other" version had any value to it.

For Page Optimization, yes. For example, for my own site I see:

http://tcapper.co.uk redirects to https://www.tcapper.co.uk/. This on-page analysis is for https://www.tcapper.co.uk/.

@meditationbunny

It may be that one version (www or non-www) has more historical links. You say your PageRank for both is the same, but how are you checking that? Google's public PageRank has not been updated in a decade or so.

Either way, I'd generally say that if you pick one version and stick to it (redirect the other, e.g. so every non-www. URL points to its www. equivalent), you should maintain all rankings. There is a theoretical advantage to picking the version with more links, but in my experience in practice this type of migration tends to be smooth.

@meditationbunny

It may be that one version ("www" or "non-www") has more historical links. You say your PageRank for both is the same, but how are you checking that? Google's public PageRank has not been updated in a decade or so.

Either way, I'd generally say that if you pick one version and stick to it (redirect the other, e.g. so every non-www. URL points to its www. equivalent), you should maintain all rankings. There is a theoretical advantage to picking the version with more links, but in my experience, in practice, this type of migration tends to be smooth.

@alex_pisa

Hi Alex

I think there's likely two issues here - the SEO one, and the PPC/Ads one.

Hi Alex

Google Ads doesn't particularly care about duplication or indexing, so you can have variants for this purpose that are simply noindex and not linked to on your site. Of course it's also find to use pages that exist as international SEO variants, but it's not necessary to do so.

So, for the PPC issue - I'm not an expert, but my understanding is that landing page experience will affect your cost. However, it isn't related to "duplicate without user-selected canonical" - instead, it's a separate algorithm that figures out whether the ad and the page are relevant to each other. A PPC consultant would be the right person to talk to this about.

For the SEO issue - it sounds like Google maybe isn't respecting your hreflang tags, for it to be flagging them as duplicates. This could be because their content is too similar - even if it's in the same language, it should have localisations for Google to respect it as meaningfully different. Alternatively, it could be because the markup is incomplete.

If you do decide to use canonical tags, each localised page should canonical to itself, whilst keeping the existing hreflang markup pointing to translated versions. Canonical tags can be a good way of sweeping up any variants within a localisation (e.g. UTM tags).

Hope that helps!

Tom

@dbills Neither number will be exactly accurate, since links typically come and go quicker than tools recrawl them.

There are also sometimes differences in what counts as a link - for example, perhaps one count includes links that have already been removed, or links which are nofollow, but the other doesn't.

"I'm not sure what my actual urls should look like and what the canonical should be set to." - Your "actual" URLs and your canonicals should both be the #! version. In your example, I'm guessing that'd be "http:app.tikimaster.com#!v=1", as opposed to "http:app.tikimaster.com?escaped_fragment=v=1". The canonicals (and other directives) need to be placed on the ?escaped_fragment= version, because that's the only version Google will crawl.

"how I should be setting up my meta information for Google so 1) pages are indexed timely 2) pages are indexed with the correct information." - You need to ensure that the ?escaped_fragment= version of the page contains the appropriate meta tags. Your sitemap and webmaster tools submissions should use the #! versions.

This is a good resource to get started: http://seogadget.com/javascript-framework-seo/