Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hey, something I've been thinking about lately is "where is the point of diminishing returns for keyword research detail?" I get that keyword research is important for finding out stuff like "people generally search for 'doctor' way more often than they search for 'licensed medical professional'", but what about after that? Is there much useful information to be found by sifting through spreadsheets of stats about "doctor" vs "dr" vs "doctors" vs "physician" vs "physicians" etc? Especially when Google seems to treat a lot of those as interchangable? I wouldn't worry too much about "doctor" vs "dr" vs "doctors" - those are synonyms and the intent of the user doesn't change much. Or another example: If a remodeling company did basements, do you think there's much to be gleaned from AdWords data comparing "basement remodeler", "basement remodelers", basement remodeling", "basement remodeling contractor", "basement remodeling contractors", "basement renovation", "basement renovations", "basement renovators", "finished basements", "basement finishers", "basement finishing", etc.? Should those variations be analyzed and each targeted by their own sets of pages and pieces of content (e.g. a blog post that specifically targets "basement remodeler" and a blog post that targets "basement finisher" and a third blog post that specifically targets "renovated basement") This example is different. The intent behind "basement remodeler" and "basement remodel" are rather different. The first is looking for local businesses, the second is looking for general information about remodels. To confirm this, all you need to do is look at the search results. Remodeler has a big local pack and list of local companies when I search it. When I search for the "remodel" version, I get a big photo pack, then local businesses, then People Also Ask questions, so there is clearly multiple search intent scenarios behind that example. I wrote a bunch more about viewing the SERP closely to measure and classify intent here: https://www.contentharmony.com/blog/classifying-search-intent/ in case you're interested in diving deeper on those approaches. To your point regarding targeting separate pages for it, yes and no. A local business should try and rank for one but may not be as focused on the second one. But it is worth creating a page that captures one overall intent and then figuring out which other keywords match it. Or should the takeaway be "there aren't any combinations that people overwhelmingly prefer to use, so let's just make content about basements and topics relevant to basements. Keyword research complete." Nah you need to be more specific or intentional about it than this.

That helps some, but there are a few things I'm a little unclear about. Thanks though!

That's so nice of you to say, Roman. Thank you.

Hi Brian, Yoast's SEO plugin will apply the noindex tag to that unique _http://www.example.com/services/_ page URL. Subsequent pages that adopt that page as a parent will not be affected, so you'll be okay there from a technical standpoint. "there doesn't need to be anything on the parent /services/ page itself" Strategically, I think this is a missed opportunity for SEO and lead generation. Creating a top-level Services page is a great way to position your company well in search for search queries such as "home remodeling [city name]," highlight what services you offer and what sets you apart from the competition, support a better internal linking structure, and generate leads (CTAs, embedded forms, etc.). -Brian

I think what we'll do for now is use an image as a (potentially) temporary solution, but also look at our Schema options. Thanks!

Jordan is right, I don't recommend spinning any of the content, it generally doesn't turn out well for users, and tends to make it 'unreadable'. Your best bet here is to think of Search and Email as two separate things. If you're going to use the content in multiple newsletters and reach other audiences (the same person won't read it twice), then that's perfectly fine. However, if you're going to allow ANY of it to get indexed by the search engines, then I would only allow one copy to get indexed. You can archive the other copies, but just make sure that you don't allow indexing of those copies. Duplicate Content isn't generally thought of as  'penalty', it's more about the fact that only the first crawled version gets indexed, and the others generally don't.

From my experience, several different Javascript and Ajax elements can confuse Google. While you obviously don't want to outright avoid their use, it's always good to have someone knowledgeable sift though any code written externally (like a WP theme or plugin, in your case) to ensure that content is always present, even when it isn't necessarily "called" yet.

Hey Brian Thanks for reaching out. To provide more clarity. Facebook and Google URLs cannot be submitted to Moz Local to verify against. Our verification is a query of the business name and zip code directly to those services and they decide which ones to return as the closest match. If you have duplicate Google and Facebook pages, it is best to make sure those are removed prior to publishing a listing through Moz to avoid being validating against the wrong page. It's much easier when there is only one of each available for Google or Facebook to return. Then you only need to update these pages for any changes or updates to the NAP. If you can send us details of the listing you are referring to, we can take a look at help@moz.com If you need the listing to verify against a different Facebook or Google URL, please also include those links in the message as well. Hope this helps!

I'll try that, thanks.

Thanks, this is what I had figured, but I wasn't 100% sure. I suppose using /hockey-equipment/about-us/ was a bit of an exaggerated example, but what about a more subtle/practical implementation? Specifically, do you think it would make any noticeable difference between using, say... domain.com/about-us/ (and /contact/ and anything else that's obviously NOT equipment) domain.com/hockey-equipment/skates/ (and /sticks/ and other stuff that is actually equipment) vs domain.com/about-us/ (and /contact/ and anything else that's obviously NOT equipment, same as above) domain.com/hockey-skates/ (exact same page as would be on /hockey-equipment/skates/) domain.com/hockey-sticks/ I assume that at this level, it becomes a "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" situation, but again, not 100% sure.

Hi Brian, Good for you for discovering these. The process I would recommend would look like this: Create a strategy for launching a set of new, excellent pages that cover the basics without needing to cover every possible combo as these duplicate/thin pages are likely trying to do. Launch your new pages. Delete the old ones and say, 'good riddance!'

Well, I would add the conversion rate optimization does not necessarily have to mean "get the user to buy something." It could be to make a phone call, signup for a newsletter, etc. So, it really is about choosing something you want a user to do, implementing a strategy to get the user to do that...then seeing what percentage of users actually do...then improving it as best you can (most likely through A/B testing). Website optimization...I don't think it has a standard definition. Monica said "umbrella term for SEO and CRO" and I guess that works, but I've heard it relate to a number of other aspects like site speed and social media plugins. I view it more as a buzzword for marketing companies to sell their "all-in-one" campaign packages than something with a specific definition. Best, Ruben

Hi Brian! Thanks for reaching out! My name is Erin, and I'm on the Moz Help Team. I looked into your account, and it looks like the listings your tried to upload are already being managed by someone else (http://screencast.com/t/IaiCxEMiJ). You can find them under the "Validation Needed" tab (http://screencast.com/t/sbXF9P92). Unfortunately there's not much we can do on the support side with this one! Since the listings have already been purchased, you'll need to reach out to the folks who are currently managing the listing to get everything sorted out. I'm sorry I can't do more to help, but if you have any other questions, please reach out to us at help@moz.com. Kindly, Erin

If it isn't going to be so much work that it will wreck the budget or take someone off of something more urgent, I would use schema markup on anything on which it can be legitimately used - regardless of whether or not Google is currently showing that particular itemtype. Google currently only uses some of them, but will probably add more later. Other sites are starting to use the markup for things like Offers, too. Pinterest just announced that they are now going to have "rich pins", for example. So you can add the markup now and be a little ahead of the game, or wait until you need to catch up.

Hi Brian I understand why you're asking this, as site architecture is very important in passing the link equity/authority of pages and the domain throughout the site. However, unless your site is navigated differently as well, a change in URL structure like the one you have given won't make much of an SEO difference if the page still takes the same amount of clicks through the site navigation. It may have some effect for the user - you may want to use the second structure if you believe it gives the user a more accurate URL to read (I'm undecided on this). It could also have some slight positive SEO effect - it looks as though you'll be getting the targeted keywords in the URL.  There is evidence to suggest a very slight correlation with keywords in URLs and higher rankings, but it's certainly not a huge influence. I'd be more inclined to optimise for the user, rather than the search engines, when it comes to URL structure. You'll notice as well that the SEOMoz report for your site recommends URLs with less than 75 characters and definitely less than 200. Not sure if there is any SEO to this, but certainly from a user perspective being concise can help. Going back to site architecture, I'm reminded of this great SEOMoz blog post - it summarises that your important pages should never be more than 3 clicks away, for a user or a search engine. This is more about navigation structure than file/URL appearance, but worth reading and noting. If you wish to change to URL appearance, I'd always bear in mind what looks best for your user rather than the search engine. Provided that the page can be reached in the sitemap and in 3 clicks or less, your site architecture will be fine. Separating the consistency between the architecture and URL appearance is fine and won't negatively effect you, but I'd always do it for the user in mind. Hope these links and this advice helps you out.

Yes, the best content is usually generated by someone who knows what they are writing about. However, most clients do not have time to generate content. So I try to get the client to do an interview, write out bullet points, write notes or anything that a good copywriter could take and spin into an informative article. If the content is generated by the client and they are a good writer, that would be ideal but rarely happens.

This is a really common problem on shared Windows IIS-based hosting, Brian. In addition to the web.config method Oleg mentions, there's another method if it's only for a few specific pages. This method involves actually having a "placeholder" page on the server at the old URL. You then add a script to provide the 301 redirect. (Or just replace the content of the origianl page, if it's still on the server.) For example: On ASP.net you would create the page oldpagename.aspx and its content would be: On ASP you'd create the placeholder oldpagename.asp and its content would be: <%@ Language=VBScript %> <% Response.Status="301 Moved Permanently" Response.AddHeader "Location", "www.mydomain.com/newpagename.aspx" %> Obviously this method doesn't scale as easily as the web.config method, but it's generally easier if you're just dealing with a few pages every once in a while. Paul