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).

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.

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?