Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hey again,

I would first and foremost check that the script tag is firing on the page/site using Google's structured data testing tool - https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool. Just put in the link of the page where the code snippet exists/fires and this should debug whether or not it has been put in correctly.

Google can be a little picky about branded KG results and it often only shows some of the bigger brands - I would say just be patient and check every now and again? In terms of reviews, if these are associated with your G+, they should appear when your business appears as a knowledge graph or local business result - again, be patient with this as it might take some time.

I would advise using GTM to implement these tags - it's a lot more flexible than amending core page code each time.

All the best,

Sean

Hey Michael,

If you're using the same pages/URLs but just updating the design/functionality, search engines don't need to update the URLs that they have indexed, they just need to recrawl the new design to determine content/design changes to update their records of your domain. This would be a slightly different story if you were redirecting old pages to new pages and using a variety of different redirects to do so (301/302 etc.)

I wouldn't have said that updating the design of a site would mean that you're going to lose any rankings - if anything this should help reinforce/improve the rankings that you already have.

Cheers,

Sean

Also, although not directly related to your question, this was a really helpful article to get to the bottom of how GMB insight metrics are calculated.

http://www.joyannehawkins.com/interpret-google-business-gmb-insights/3/

Ditto, although it sounds like it's going to have the most noticeable effect on websites breaking Google link guidelines. I doubt you'll see any great change, especially if your own sites/client sites are in reputable niches.

I've definitely heard of this working with people using crowd-sourcing websites (such as Crowdflower) to pay next to nothing for thousands of people to Google a keyword and click on a specified listing.

Whilst the effects of CTR manipulation are pretty instant and it definitely works, it's often short lived and Google is quick to pick this up as an anomaly, rather than data of statistical significance.

In short, it works and it works pretty quickly but if you can't sustain the CTR metrics, you're going to fall back down the rankings.

Hi Rob,

Historically, updating redirects by amending the URL at their source DID pass on SEO value as each redirect chain caused a link to lose a small portion of equity - I believe this is what Andy is referring to.

A few weeks ago, Google announced that this is no longer the case and 301 redirects DON'T lose any equity any longer. This update now means that webmasters no longer have to spend time updating links at their source, rendering the practice of outreach pretty much redundant.

You can check out the blog here - https://moz.com/blog/301-redirection-rules-for-seo

In short, I wouldn't bother with any outreaching as it'll provide zero SEO benefit.

All the best,
Sean

Hey Scott,

Interestingly, this is something I've faced with a client of mine recently and have gone on to write up a case study about it. My client is in the housing sector with a whole bunch of housing developments which we subsequently setup on Google My Business. Originally we thought this was a great way of increasing organic exposure and should be a doorway to more organic traffic. It was only after we implemented GMB listings for around 50-60 housing developments that we noticed organic traffic saw a sudden decrease.

This was to do with a section of the target audience no longer needing to go to the website to find out important details such as contact information (phone numbers & email addresses) as well as navigational details (postcodes and addresses) as these were now obtainable through search results and maps results. Fundamentally we were making the user journey more streamlined as there were less clicks needed to get to vital information and users could now Sat Nav their journey at the click of a button, BUT it did mean they were no longer visitors to the main client site.

My advice would be to check the date that you launched GMB and have a look at a cross section of 'organic traffic' and 'organic conversion rate' OR 'organic traffic' and 'organic bounce rate' (if you have no conversions set up) to see if you see a sudden increase in conversion rates (as less 'low quality' traffic is visiting the site) or a sudden decrease in bounce rates (due to users only visiting one page to find out contact/location information).

I would bet my bottom dollar that you're facing a similar situation.

Hope this helps,

Sean

Hey Radi,

Historically there used to be 'Site-wide' and 'Partial' penalties for link spamming.

SEOValley covered this pretty well here - http://www.seovalley.com/blog/googles-manual-penalty-site-wide-matches-vs-partial-matches.html

If you've been hit with either one of these, it should appear in Google Search Console.

What you're referring to might be a more small-scale fluctuation that might indeed be based on a couple of the links that you weren't so sure on. Check the competitive landscape of the page and, if other sites haven't been improving their SEO substantially, consider evaluating those links you've acquired and remove them if you're not 100% sure.

Cheers,

Sean

I would try and be as on the ball as possible with disavowing links that need it, even if there has been no penalty. One of the first things I look to do when onboarding a new client is review the current disavow file (if there is one) or looking at their backlink portfolio to find potential spam. The spam tool on Moz is quite good at finding these links but make sure you cast your eye over them first as it's likely some good links will have got caught up in there.

Just be careful - it's hard to come back from making a mistake with the disavow process!

Hi there,

Absolutely - you can update your disavow file at any time in Google Search Console!

Just to reiterate your point - the effects that disavowing links has can be extreme and it takes some time to get back once you've made a mistake so proceed with caution.

all the best,

Sean

Hey Susannah,

Generally speaking, sorting out GMB listings can be quite a troublesome process.

Your best bet, if you can't verify ownership yourself, is to report the page. There's a good guide to how to do this here:

https://www.bowlerhat.co.uk/how-to-report-a-fake-google-business-page/

Failing that, I've found the GMB team at Google quite helpful for dealing with these kind of things - It's a troublesome process to get in contact with them but once you do, they're not bad.

There should be an option to request a call from GMB within your GMB login interface - it takes a bit of looking to find it but I'm sure you will.

I hope this helps,

Sean

Hey there,

My advice would be to minimize those redirect chains as soon as you can, not just for potential SEO benefit but more to lessen server stress and speed up page load.

Interestingly, chained 301s don't lose equity in the eyes of a search engine now (see updates below) so it's interesting that you're seeing such a fluctuation.

https://moz.com/blog/301-redirection-rules-for-seo

For the .html to trailing slash pages, did you say that he did a page-to-page remap for all of them instead of putting a redirect rule in place to catch them all? That seems like a crazy thing to put in place! Your redirect file (htaccess or similar) must be enormous!

Hope that helps,

Sean

David's comment is pretty much bang on the money. As an addition to this, if you're using a separate mobile site, make sure it's tagged up correctly so as not to directly compete with the desktop version.

Make sure you're using 'rel=canonical' from the mobile version of the page to the desktop version of the page and 'rel=alternate' from the desktop version of the page pointing to the mobile version.

Full Google documentation can be found here: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/separate-urls

Hey Anders,

My advice would be to put the links in where it feels natural. If you're mentioning each term 10 times within the article, don't put 20 internal links in it for the sake of it - it's spammy and isn't great for user experience. After all, no one likes reading an article that's littered with blue underlined links.

Maybe hyperlink the first mentions of each keyword within the article and then add a section at the bottom that says something along the lines of:

"If you want to know more about {keyword A} or {keyword B}, click here"

This way, people can click the links in the article if they so wish and, if they reach the end, they can be directed to logical next location in their website journey.

I hope this helps,

Sean

Hi there,

Do you have the URL for the webpage? It's hard to answer your question without knowing how it's optimised or the keyword its optimised for.

Check the following:

• has it been excluded in the robots.txt file?
• is there a meta noindex tag on the page?
• has the content been duplicated from another site?
• has the page been duplicated within your site on another URL?

There are so many possibilities. If you can supply a URL, maybe we can help you?

I hope this helps,

Sean

To be honest, it all looks correct and that would have been the way I did it. If Google is currently not ranking the correct URL, it'll likely update when they take the 301 into account when they next recrawl the page.

It might be a factor in why rankings have dropped but it's likely to pick back up again when their index is updated. My advice is to hold tight and hope it all fixes itself soon.

All the best,

Sean

It looks like these are keywords that are causing impressions in search results - can you explain why these are 'bad queries' - is it that they are terms not associated with your website?

Check your website for any mention of these terms to see whether or not you've been hacked and pages have been inserted? I would also run a few of these searches into Google to see what pages are showing up and why?

I hope this helps,

Sean

Is the linking domain (not the link that links to that domain) relevant to your business?

i.e. is it an old domain that used to be active or is it just a dummy domain that was set up for the practice of link building?

Hey Rhys,

I've got you coming up at the top of page 3 for a search for 'biochemistry degree'.

Give it a quick check in incognito mode on your browser and let me know how you get on

Cheers,

Sean

Hey there,

Personally, I don't look at footers as duplicate content, whether they are the same across multiple domains or multiple subdomains. More often than not, footers are pretty generic and contain social links as well as a few links to secondary pages on the site such as 'terms and conditions'.

Unless you're packing your footer with a large chunk of text, I wouldn't worry about duplicate content issues as there aren't going to be any.

Duplicate content on main pages across sub domains will ALWAYS be the biggest issue and that should be concentrated on above site footers - I would have a word with your outsourced specialists and ensure they're concentrating on the biggest wins for the site rather than the nitty gritty bits that would have little to no impact.

All the best,

Sean