Welcome to the Q&A Forum

...I've read many articles about page rank loss from 301 redirects

You are right that there is a loss of PR from a 301, but it is going to be very small.

In terms of managing the site, long term, you are going to find it much more straight forward to take the route of tidying up.

I have just been through this with a site over almost 2000 pages and we didn't notice any drop in the SERPs at all. However, we did see a few uplifts, but there could have been a few other reasons for this as well.

If you were changing the URL's to try and gain favour with Google by having more friendly URL's, I would tell you not to bother. This, however, seems like a worthwhile change.

-Andy

All of this ^^

-Andy

I don't think there is as much of a need to worry about disavowing as there was before the update from Google, but it is still something that you need to look at on a case by case basis. I don't think you could classify a particular set of criteria to disavow against or ones to ignore.

-Andy

Urgh!

Hi Shalu,

If Google is adding your brand name to the end of a page title, that is probably because it is something that they suggest. As a general rule of thumb, I tend to follow this format for page titles:

• Homepage: Brand Name | Title Description
• All other pages: Title Description | Brand Name

Brand is important to Google, but might be worth having a read though their best practices on page titles here.

However, if it is more than that, then I would suggest looking at what is being changes and why this might be - it could be that what you have written isn't descriptive enough for the page and Google is trying to make it better.

-Andy

MOZ doesn't allow these sorts of posts I'm afraid.

-Andy

Daft question perhaps, but are you sure nothing is blocking access as it seems to suggest in the screenshot?

When did you do the fetch as Google?

-Andy

Sometimes

That is a big question as there are some amazing tools out there, but here are a few that I use on a regular basis... Depends what I am doing really.

• MOZ / OSE
• SEMrush
• OnCrawl
• DeepCrawl
• URL Profiler
• Ahrefs
• Search Console
• Screaming Frog
• Sistrix
• Rankpage Redirect Check
• Raven SEO Auditor
• Dynomapper Visual Site View
• Greenlane Indexation Tester
• Google Page Speed Insights
• GTMetrix
• Webpage Test
• Pingdom
• Wayback Machine
• Buzzsumo
• Hemmingway
• Copyscape
• Siteliner
• Check Dog
• uClassify
• Google SERP Preview
• Portent Title Maker
• Google Preview Tool
• Geo IP Facts

-Andy

OK, so if you have duplicated the content on each TLD, then this needs resolving. However, if you are just pointing say the .com to a .org, then this is absolutely fine.

If this content is live on each domain and it isn't intended for a different country, then this is a big no-no. You would normally handle this with HREFLANG, but, there is something to think about.

You could noindex / disallow access to all but one website so that Google can't see lots of duplicates, but the sites are still going to be available to browse for a user.

-Andy

HI,

First of all, have a watch / read of this Whiteboard Friday where Marie talks all about links and what can work for you.

https://moz.com/blog/what-links-comply-googles-guidelines-whiteboard-friday

In my view, if someone has linked to your site without you asking, then there is never usually a problem, but it depends on the the type of links / quantity of links.

There is too much at play to give a generic answer that will fit everything you ask here. You should look at each site on its own merits, but with the introduction of Penguin into the main algorithm and this now running in real time, there is less of a need to be worried about these kinds of things. There is less of a need to disavow links because Google has improved how it scores these and if it spots a spammy link, is more likely to just devalue it.

-Andy

Hi Nicky,

How far off do you see the content as being published? The reason I ask if because Mobile First isn't far off and this is changing how Google indexes pages and works out the rankings.

Part of this is that they are going to start viewing the content behind a tab or accordion - the main reason for this is that Google is going to start using the mobile site for both mobile and desktop rankings and they see this as the best technique to keep mobile users happy. It is good for UX.

At the moment, Google will index that content, but it will be given a lower score than if it was all shown, but you also need to think about how a page might look without it - will it just be a huge page that you can get lost in, or is it not so big that you could have only 20 Q&A's and have it still looking good?

-Andy

Hi,

Just to confirm, do you have the same content on each TLD or just have these forwarding to your primary domain?

-Andy

Option A is definitely the one that is going to be the best long-term approach. Google wants unique content and anything you can do to give them this is a winner.

-Andy

Hi Thomas,

You are correct that Mobile First is changing the game when it comes to tabbed / accordion content. Google's take on this now is that they will help usability by not having pages and pages of content on show.

From a desktop point of view, will this help when visitors arrive? Will they know to find the answers they seek behind a tab? Can you have one design for desktop and another for mobile?

Google haven't really said anything about using tabbed content on a desktop site once Mobile First hits, but based on the fact that it will be powering the desktop SERPs, I wouldn't have thought it was a big problem - as long as it enhances the page for a desktop user.

One more thing - John Mueller did tell me in a recent Tweet that layout can affect ranking, so take the time to test what works well for your visitors - it could be the difference between a win and a loss.

-Andy

Hi,

Open up search console (as long as you have it setup) and check to see if there are any warnings from Google.

It might be something very straight forward, but I would start here.

I would then read the MOZ guide on how they score these - you might pick up some ideas as to what can be causing this.

It's a bit awkward to say what else might be causing this without spending some time looking at it.

-Andy

Hi Jaro,

Please see my answer to your other question.

Perhaps have a read of these two resources to get some ideas as well?

• https://blog.kissmetrics.com/seo-for-ecommerce-websites/
• http://backlinko.com/ecommerce-seo

Depending on how your site is structured, the platform and many other factors, there could be other considerations.

-Andy

Hi Jaro,

Head into search console and use the Temporary Remove URL tool - this should work pretty quickly. The next time Google comes around to that page, they should see the NOINDEX flag and not re-index it.

-Andy

**My intention for the questions was to discuss if some call to actions, or sales copy in the SEO Titles can hurt rankings. **

It certainly wont help Tyler. Google (or indeed anyone searching) wants to see something less in-your-face in terms of what is promised. I personally wouldn't visit a page with a title like that as it sounds like a sales page, even before you get there.

Put yourself in a shoes of a Google rater. Do you think they would see that as a worthwhile title or something spammy? Is someone searching for 'how much can I save' or are they searching for a solution to a problem?

I can't think of any situation where a title like this would be helpful for SEO.

-Andy

Hi Adriaan,

In terms of handling low value pages, Google advises you make the pages better rather than no-indexing them.

If that can't be handled easily, I would be looking to suggest that canonical tags are used only if there are similar multiples that relate to a main primary page. So if you had 10 pages of plates with different designs from one main page about plates, then you would canonicalise these. Ideally you would have the multiple options on one page.

Does that answer your situation?

-Andy