Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi. I have a client who is about to deploy ads on their site. To avoid bots clicking on those ads and skewing data, the company would like to prevent any bots from seeing any ads and, of course, that includes Googlebot. This seems like it could be cloaking and I'd rather not have a different version of the sites for bots. However, knowing that this will likely happen, I'm wondering how big of a problem it could be if they do this. This change isn't done to manipulate Googlebot's understanding of the page (ads don't affect rankings, etc.) and it will only be a very minimal impact on the page overall.

So, if they go down this road and hide ads from bots, I'm trying to determine how big of a risk this could be. I found some old articles discussing this with some suggesting it was a problem and others saying it might be okay in some cases (links below). But I couldn't find any recent articles about this. Wondering if anybody has seen anything new or has a new perspective to share on this issue? Is it a problem if all bots (including Googlebot) are unable to see ads?

https://moz.com/blog/white-hat-cloaking-it-exists-its-permitted-its-useful
https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4535445.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBO-1ETf_dY

Thanks for the reply! Yep, it is the same company (though each country's website is managed by a different group). Good idea on just doing the home page for the brand terms. Could maybe extend that logic for top-level pages too - target similar topics even if the content is a bit different per site.

Hi. I have a client with international websites targeting several different countries. Currently, the US (.com) website outranks the country-specific domain when conducting a search within that country (i.e. US outranks the UK website in the UK). This sounds like a classic case for hrelang. However, the websites are largely not 1:1. They offer different content with a different design and a different URL structure. Each country is on a country-specific domain (.com, .co.uk, .com.au, etc.). As well, the country-specific domains have lower domain authority than the US/.com website - fewer links, lower quality content, poorer UX, etc.

Would hreflang still help in this scenario if we were to map it the closest possible matching page? Do the websites not sharing content 1:1 add any risks? The client is worried the US/.com website will lose ranking in the country but the country-specific domain won't gain that ranking.

Thanks for any help or examples you can offer!

Hi Judd. You wouldn't need the title or description tags for Google's sake (or Bing's sake) on pages behind a login since they couldn't crawl those pages. That said, title tags aren't just used by search engines. That is also the title that shows for the page in the browser window and in the bookmark name (if people bookmark those pages), so it can be worthwhile to add a good title tag to help your visitors. Obviously, beyond the meta description tag, there are other meta tags that you might need (like meta viewport or metra reresh, etc.).

Hi. If you are getting duplicate content warnings between the Mandarin version of your website and a website in a different language, the first thing I'd suggest looking into is to see if your code correctly uses the alternate/hreflang attributes to specify the different versions of the pages in different languages. This tag is intended for sites that have translated content from one language to another and gives you a way to tell Google that the Mandarin version of the page is at this URL, the Spanish version is this URL, the English site is at this other URL, and so on.

In terms of title, descriptions, and all other content, you do want to make that specific to the language of the page. So, your Mandarin website would have titles, descriptions, etc. written in Mandarin and your English website would have titles, descriptions, etc. in English, and so on. After all, your Mandarin website is intended for people speaking (and searching in) Mandarin so using that language throughout will increase your chances of ranking for that audience.

Hey. I agree with what Martijn said that generally, you want to request links from more active sites. Those sites tend to have better overall quality, search performance, and a more active audience. The one thing I'll add is that sometimes you can find blogs that have great evergreen content (good rankings, good links, seem to have decent traffic, etc.) even though they don't have a lot of recent content. In these cases, a link to a relevant page on your site could enhance that evergreen content and sometimes site runners are willing to update old articles (even if they aren't adding anything new). For example, maybe an old blog post on a currently inactive site has a great recap of the best ways to do X (where X is a subject that hasn't changed much in years). You have a page that offers another way to do X or is somehow tightly connected, so including it in that older blog post could be of use to the people who find that old article.

We are working with a client who has one irrelevant, off-topic post ranking incredibly well and driving a lot of traffic. However, none of the other pages on the site, that are relevant to this client's business, are ranking. Links are good and in-line with competitors for the various terms. Oddly, very few external links reference this off-topic post, most are to the home page. Local profile is also in-line with competitors, including reviews, categorization, geo-targeting, pictures, etc. No spam issues exist and no warnings in Google Search Console. The only thing that seems weird is this off-topic post but that could affect rankings on other pages of the site? Would removing that off-topic post potentially help increase traffic and rankings for the other more relevant pages of the site? Appreciate any and all help or ideas of where to go from here. Thanks!

Generally speaking, this isn't the worst problem you can have with your XML sitemap. In an ideal world, you'll be able to remove duplicate URLs from the sitemap and only submit a single URL for each page. In reality, most larger sites I've encountered have some amount of duplicate content in their XML sitemap with no real major problems.

Duplicate content is really only a major problem if it is "deceptive" in nature. So long as this is just a normal consequence of your CMS, or similar, vs. an attempt to game the rankings you are probably fine. For more about that check out this support article.

The other problem you may encounter is with your search results for those duplicate pages. That article makes mention that Google will pick the URL they think is best (more about that here as well) and the URL they deem the best will be the URL that surfaces in the search results. That may or may not be the same URL you or your visitors would deem best. So, what you might find is Google picked a not great URL (like one with extra parameters) and with the not great URL appearing in the SERPs, your search result isn't as compelling to click on as some other version of the URL may be.

Yeah, that would probably make the most sense. For sites where I've done something like this before, it is usually a single page (or maybe a few pages, depending) that talks about the trade program, answered common questions, allowed login, and encouraged signup. You could then promote that page(s), optimize it for appropriate terms, get links going to it, etc.

Hey Lewis,

I would imagine it is possible to merge the two sites with limited implications. From a pure SEO standpoint the biggest consideration factor is if there is any negative "baggage" associated with the B2B site--especially spammy backlinks or any wonky technology that would impact the B2C site (speed, redirect issues, etc.). Given that, I'd do a careful review of the B2B site first to evaluate backlinks to that site and any errors reported about that site (using something like Moz's crawl tool and/or in Google Search Console).

The other potential risk is if there is any duplicate content that would be created as a result of the merger of the two sites. For instance, if you have a page on the B2B and B2C sites about Product X, after the merger you'd potentially end up with two pages about Product X. From what you said, it seems like the B2B's site content would be hidden behind a login and wouldn't be accessibile to bots. If that is the case, then maybe this isn't much of an issue. But where this is an issue, I'd also work to figure out the sitemap of the merged site and map out any link changes or redirects that are required to implement that new sitemap.

Along with SEO considerations, there are of course non-SEO factors to consider that could have indirect implications on SEO. Would there be any harm in the customers of the B2C side knowing the B2B trade side exists? If so, that could potentially harm the visitor experience and the brand which could negatively impact clicks, social shares, link building, etc. in the future. Likely not a risk, but I've seen a handful of companies who've merged their two sites only to find that they should have kept their audiences more segmented.

Hope that helps!

any duplicate content that would be created as a result of the merger

Really great question and there really isn't any one right answer here. In general, from an SEO perspective, I lean toward one consolidated website that is really well organized. That way all of your SEO efforts benefit one domain. For example, instead of building links to three sites, you can concentrate on building links to one website. Even if the content for patients gets more links (let's say), if everything is on one domain those patient oriented links will still help the content for therapists earn rankings because they'll contribute to overall domain strength.

Along with the SEO though, my other question would be if there is any great harm in having one website serve multiple audiences? There are numerous examples of companies who are able to do exactly that with their content. Doing so requires a strong information architecture to clearly define what each section is, who it is for, how sections are labeled, how you navigate to various sections, etc. Totally doable, and good IA tends to also be good for SEO too. That said, in some cases one audience group might be distracted/offended/annoyed by content that is intended for another audience group or maybe there is just one set of content you'd rather one group not see. Do you have any situations like that? Have you surveyed users for their opinions about the content to identify these pitfalls?

Of course, the other question to ask here is if there is a strong business case for dividing the sites apart? It doesn't sound like it based on your question, but I want to throw that idea out there. I've worked with some organizations where they have one department focused on a certain audience group. To simplify dev and maintenance, the business case is pretty compelling to split the sites apart. Still though, in a lot of cases it is easier to have one website because then all dev, design, branding, etc. budgets (of time and money) can be focused on the one domain vs. divided across multiple domains.

I've not seen any instances of a limit to how many redirects you can have pointing to your website. I have some clients who have thousands of redirects in place (lots of old pages being moved to a new version of that product). Those sites haven't had any issues with rankings at all. In fact, many of the links pointing to the sites still reference the URLs that are redirected and those pages that are redirected to are ranking perfectly fine.

The biggest limit I've seen is on chaining. I've seen issues where chained redirects simply aren't followed. However, if you can keep it to a 1 step redirect, or 2, then things should be okay. It doesn't sound like that is what you are asking about though. More from Matt Cutts on this:
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/matt-cutts-discusses-301-permanent-redirects-limits-on-websites/46611/

In terms of managing those redirects, you can't usually keep this many on an htaccess file without going a little bit nuts (or risking some future dev deleting those in an effort to clean up the htaccess file - ug). If you are using WordPress, the 301 redirects plugin works quite well: https://wordpress.org/plugins/301-redirects/

Unfortunately, I've also run into sites that aren't in a CMS where you can use a plugin. In those cases, I usually put these redirects in a database table. On the 404 file, I then have the code check the would-be error URL to see if we need to redirect that URL somewhere else. If a redirect is place, it redirects instead of throwing the 404 error. If no redirect is in place, the code then throws a 404 error.

Hope that helps.

For what it is worth, I'm in the US and seeing the 999 limit on all my accounts and domains. So, I guess that means the clock is ticking and if you don't have that limit yet, then you better get downloading fast!

You are correct that the Search Analytics queries report does limit down to 999 queries. However, when you load the Acquisition -> Search Engine Optimization -> Queries report in Google Analytics, you may be able to see more than 999 terms. I just double checked in a dozen or so accounts and all reports in Google Analytics were plus 999, though that may or may not be changing based on Google's new updated to the Analytics report. Also, keep in mind though that there is a limit to how long the data would stick around - for clients I work with ongoing, I export the reports monthly just so I don't lose the limited data you do have.

As Charles said, though, this data about queries isn't always reliable and it is limited in what you can get out of this data. That said, if you are using it for a general idea of what terms people found you for and what pages were related to which term, it can be helpful. Certainly not as good as the pre-"not provided" days and you obviously can't rely on it to calculate ROI, but it at least gives you an idea of terms and a relative idea of performance.

As for other ways to get around not provided and find those queries, here are some articles with some good tips and tricks:
https://moz.com/blog/landing-pages-report-in-moz-analytics
https://blog.kissmetrics.com/unlock-keyword-not-provided/
http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/how-to/2297674/google-not-provided-keywords-10-ways-to-get-organic-search-data

Hey Vanessa. I'd ask a few additional questions about the pages before making a decision...

1. If you were to implement redirects, would the redirect go from Treatment (the page) -> Treatment (the Ajax-loaded content)? Or, would it go from Treatment (the page) -> topic page (and people would have to click a link to view treatment content)? If the redirect goes from the page, to the related content of the page then maybe this isn't too terrible an idea. That would mean the Ajax-loaded page section for treatment would have some unique kind of URL associated with it (like /topic-name#treatment).

2. Next question, though, is how much traffic does this affect? Of the traffic those pages get individually right now, how much of that traffic enters the site on those pages (from any source - direct, referral, social, organic, paid)? If right now almost everybody comes into the site via an overview page and then clicks to Symptoms or Treatment, then probably okay to consolidate those into a single page. That said, if all three pages are landing pages for a reasonable amount of visitors I'd be reluctant to make this kind of change to disrupt the traffic...esp. if the answer to question #1 is no.

3. What about links? Do you have a lot of links pointing to the individual pages within each section? Yes, redirects will help retain the link equity, but with any redirect you lose some. So, if a large percent of the links to your site are to these pages, I'd be hesitant to make any kind of change without further testing/research around the weight and importance of those links.

Along with those questions, I'm also wondering why the agency thinks this would help with load time. Why can't they improve load time on the individual pages? Are they talking about the load time from clicking to the Treatment page from Symptoms? If so, there are probably better ways to address that vs. removing pages from the site. When you run a speed test, what is slowing down the page load? Is it something with the server or content that can be tweaked? I'd start there before trying to consolidate pages and running the risk of disrupting any existing traffic.

I hope that helps as you work toward a decision.

Why don't you sell those products? Is it because those other products are inferior in quality, too expensive for value, etc.? If there are specific reasons like that, it can some times be helpful to state that specifically as a means of helping to educate your customers and potentially sway them into seeing the value of what you do sell.

The other thing to look at is what keywords are driving traffic to the page. Granted, this data is hard to get but you can get a good sense of this in Search Console. Figure out why you are ranking for the things you don't sell. For example, if you have a lot of links pointing to you referring people your way referencing something you don't carry, see if there is a way to change those links to something more specific

Alternatively, if you are getting enough people coming to the site interested in products you don't carry but there isn't a great reason your company doesn't carry them, maybe see if there is a way you can carry the products (or resell them or something like that). I've worked with more than one client who didn't realize so many people may be interested in Product X until they saw the search traffic and that traffic helped them decide to change products offered.

Without looking at the site or this one page, but based on what you are describing, I would suspect the bounce rate is high because of an expectation gap. The people coming to this article sound like they are in the early stages of the buying cycle--they want information about the types of products available and how to use this product. Maybe many of these people aren't quite ready to look at category pages or product pages because it is simply too early in the buying cycle for that to happen. Your links expect one thing (products/shop/buy) but visitors expect another (more info).

In these cases to lower the bounce rate, you need some kind of in-between content. Something that moves people to the next step of the buying cycle. Basically, you need to solve for X in this equation: early pre-purchase research -> X -> product page. To start solving for X, I want to know what questions people have after reading this article. There are several ways to get that, but user testing with targeted customers can usually be a good place to start.

Another place to look is in regards to trust factors. Do the people coming to that informational article trust your brand? It seems like they are because of how long they spend on the page. However, it could be people trust the company enough for information and insight, but maybe not enough to purchase. Again, user testing this page to gauge trust factors could be helpful to clarify what more you can do here to get people to stick around.

Final thought - it may simply be that this page will always have a high bounce rate. This is where re-targeting ads can be helpful. You know people are interested in your proudct but aren't quite ready to look at products just yet. So, after they visit this page you should re-target an ad to them as they continue their research building up to purchasing the product.

Well good, I'm glad you've not gotten a manual action.

When you say feedback, do you mean user feedback or marketer/designer/developer feedback? If it were me, I'd pay more attention to user feedback. If it is what you said in your initial question that users are getting what they want (just the words, and they are clicking from the Letter H page to the HA, HAE, HAAF, etc. pages), then it would seem to me the page is valuable and useful. I wouldn't worry about Google's view of the page unless I started to see a dip in rankings, traffic, etc.

Speaking of feedback, have you surveyed your users to ask about alternative content for these pages? You could ask your users what other content they may want here to make the page more valuable or unique or authentic for those users during their visit. But I wouldn't put in words or content blocks just to try to make Google happy for fear of the page being "thin" because that could create new problems on its own.

The "thin content" question can be tricky. Google's support article about this says that thin content is a page that doesn't provide users with "substantially unique or valuable content". Their support article about original content talks about the need for "authentic content".

Together, I take to mean you should err on the side of what is good for your users. Content is important, but what is really important is useful content. In you case, it sounds like you are giving visitors what they want - get in, get what you need, get out. That seems like there is value and authenticity there for your users. So long as you continue to see higher rankings, more/steady traffic from Google, then I wouldn't think you should worry.

As well, the other question to ask here if if you have received any manual actions about thin content in Search Console? I'm assuming not since you didn't mention that. But, just wanted to double to make sure you were checking for that.

If it is a drop in organic desktop traffic, then that won't be caused by the mobile change (as Andy said). Out of curiosity, what are your percentages of organic traffic by device? Does mobile account for a sizable amount of your organic traffic? I'm wondering if mobile is being mis-reported as desktop?

While I'm doubtful that mobile usability issues would cause a drop in desktop traffic (assuming it is legitimately desktop traffic not being mis-reported), one easy way to test this would be to take a page that get lots of organic traffic that has mobile usability issues reported, fix those mobile usability issues. This ranking factor is real time and page by page (see Search Engine Land), so you should see some results quickly if that is the factor.

Another question for you - what exactly did you change about your product descriptions? Meta description, on-page text, both? Are those the pages that lost traffic? Maybe try reverting back and see what impact that has.

I'm guessing you don't want to share your domain here, but feel free to connect with me privately with the website URL and I'd be happy to take a look at your domain more specifically to see if I can spot anything else that might be causing this issue.