Welcome to the Q&A Forum

We're attempting to shorten the content and length of the home page, remove some gifs/images. I am hoping that we wouldn't keep many videos, but the team wants to add/keep them. I am hoping to see great results just from the removal of all the crap, but I want them to know that the more videos on the homepage, the longer it will take to load all of those videos. Google Page Speed Insights has us already at the 40s/100 for desktop and mobile. We've compressed images, removed/replaced svg images, compressed gifs, and were still hovering around that page speed. Google Developer Tools from Google Chrome shows us at almost 40 second total load time. We're working on our backlinks and really are not that bad as far as our profile is concerned. I am just hoping that if we fix this home page speed issue, the rankings will follow suite. I was unsure if the actions/automations around the videos could be a problem. I don't know if there is or isn't javascript involved. Sorry, not the most tech savvy, but also not the worst. Our videos are either placed in carousel or under an icon/button that shows a video preview as an image when you hover over the icon. Not sure if that is or is not java. Our videos are hosted on vinmeo and are embedded in the page. I plan on explaining to them that if we want to try to rank for one of these videos then they probably would need their own page or to be placed on a very relevant page. Other than that, is there anything else I can go with? Too many videos considered a poor practice in preparation for the mobile index? If I am wrong or overreacting, then I'll let them put up their videos, but if people have seen results where to many videos hurt the mobile experience or page load time, please let me know. Thanks again!

Thanks. I ended up "no indexing" those pages. Someone else told me not to "no follow", so I changed it back to "follow". Haven't really seen any changes on the SERPs from doing this, so not sure if these pages were causing any issues. Thanks again.

Thank you both for your help!

Hi, Generally the advertisers tend to follow different strategies and stick with the one, which gives them higher Conversions, high Return on Investment (ROI) so some advertiser grouping keyword by match type and some uses all match types in a single ad group. When working with broader matches changes in Ad copy can be very important so it may be that you'll want to split these different match types into their own Groups to allow Ads better suited to those terms and then add embedded negative match type keywords to streamline the traffic. Now, once you accrue data, you can pause the match types which are not proving worth for you and optimize the rest of the keywords. I wouldn't suggest going with too much of the Broad match type keywords because that would tend to bring in lot of irrelevant traffic and your much of the time and efforts would go in adding the negatives, analysing the Search Terms frequently and checking which terms are relevant and which not. BMM & Exact are definitely good option to go for. Hope it helps. Thanks

William and Ramon have good answers here. Roman also has good points  but some of it may be a bit confusing for this thread because it's not fully explained. If the pages haven't been published they shouldn't be indexable to Google based on standard Wordpress functionality. Having a bunch of messy unfinished pages could slow down use of the cms (if only because you have to paginate through them) but as Will and Ramon have said they're unlikely to slow down the site front end unless they are truly huge amounts. Most relevant is the opportunity cost for not having all those pages published, if they aren't published they can't rank. So if you're posting this to get reasoning to finish the work I'd start by considering the keywords those pages are targeting; use semrush, stat, or similar and pull out the search volume for the keywords. Then you can point to what you're accumulatively missing out on. Hope that helps

Thanks. Yea, I did consider those options. I assumed there was a more complicated way to do this then deleting the page and then re-creating it after. All of those make sense though. Thank you for your time. Much appreciated.

Hi Aua, The word you may have been looking for is "reciprocal" linking (you link to me so I link to you). Reciprocal linking isn't/wasn't really a best practice for SEO it's something that SEO's used to do because it was easier to get a link that way. This was used a lot before the conversation in SEO (in a broad sense) really turned towards providing value instead of just trying to game Google. It's actually defined by Google as a no-no (if used excessively) on their support pages: "The following are examples of link schemes which can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results:...... _Excessive link exchanges ("Link to me and I'll link to you") or partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking" _ In example it used to work like this; I reach out to a small business in my area who I want a link from. I explain it's for my SEO and that the more relevant local links I have the more trusted I appear to Google. In lieu of providing any real value or reason to link to my website (such as killer content that might be useful to the businesses users) I would offer to link back to them if they linked to me. That way, both of our websites were getting a link and Google will love us both. To summarise; No it wasn't best practice (never was as far as I am aware) You don't need to link back to the article