Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Would anyone know why after adding schema.org markup to a websites products, reviews and ratings why it still isn't showing up in Google SERPs? Does Google pick and choose who's rich snippets get displayed on a random basis or some other criteria?

Anyone interested in a reciprocal knowledge sharing opportunity?  Does your team have experience with BloomReach Organic Services? We’re considering testing it out and are unsure of the long-term payoff given the substantial monthly fees for the SEO add-on.  We're a pure e-commerce shop already using BloomReach’s merchandising solution so the technical integration is behind us.

Hi Everett,

Thanks for your response here, I've looked at both pages and our /gifts/birthday-gifts page has way more impressions, higher CTR and higher conversion than our /gifts/birthday-gifts/birthday-gifts version of the page.

So would you still recommend not changing anything or consolidating both pages?

Thanks!

Hi Moz Community,

Recently I've been seeing multiple pages from my eCommerce site pop up in the SERPS for a couple of queries. Usually I would count this as a good thing but since both pages that generally pop up are so similar I'm starting to wonder if we would rank better with just one page.

My example is the query "birthday gifts" Both of the URL's below show up in the search results one after the other on the first page. The URL on the top is our family page and the one below it is our subcat page, you can find both in the top nav. of our site.

www.uncommongoods.com/gifts/birthday-gifts/birthday-gifts (family)

www.uncommongoods.com/gifts/birthday-gifts (subcat)

Both of these pages have different PA's and the subcat page that currently lives in our site nav is actually: **www.uncommongoods.com/gifts/birthday-**gifts?view=all. ****This url doesn't show up in the serps and is rel=canonicaled to the subcat page without the parameter listed above. We use this page in the nav because we think it's a better user experience than the actual subcat page.

If we were to condense all three pages into one would we rank higher?

Any thoughts here would be appreciated.

Thanks

Hi Laura,

Thanks for your response, I know that adding canonical tags can lower our indexed pages count. The only thing I'm worried about is the fact that the drop in indexed pages have been steady since Nov of last year and we just implemented the tags last month.

We have been seeing lower conversions with less traffic some of which has to do with us not ranking as well for a few key-terms as we did last year.

Hey Moz Community,

I've been seeing a steady decrease in search console of pages being indexed by Google for our eCommerce site. This is corresponding to lower impressions and traffic in general this year. We started with around a million pages being indexed in Nov of 2015 down to 18,000 pages this Nov. I realized that since we don't have around 3,000 or so products year round this is mostly likely a good thing.

I've checked to make sure our main landing pages are being indexed which they are and our sitemap was updated several times this year, although we're in the process of updating it again to resubmit. I also checked our robots.txt and there's nothing out of the ordinary. In the last month we've recently gotten rid of some duplicate content issues caused by pagination by using canonical tags but that's all we've done to reduce the number of pages crawled. We have seen some soft 404's and some server errors coming up in our crawl error report that we've either fixed or are trying to fix.

Not really sure where to start looking to find a solution to the problem or if it's even a huge issue, but the drop in traffic is also not great. The drop in traffic corresponded to lose in rankings as well so there could be correlation or none.

Any ideas here?

Hi Moz Community,

Our e-commerce site is trying to gauge the opportunity of certain queries for specific countries. I'm trying to use the search console data presented in GA to do this. I'm looking at the top queries filtered by each country and also the top landing pages for each country as well.

The non filtered data for queries and landing pages is completely different than by country and some if it looks wrong. For instance, our most popular query by impressions shows 0 query impressions in the US once filtered by country. Our site is based in the US so this doesn't make any sense, the same is true for landing pages.

Is the queries and landing page data in GA under search console a combination of all countries? Since our target is set to the USA in search console is this data technically US based?

How is this data so off?

Thanks for answering!

Hey Guys,

I recently noticed that our Christmas Gifts landing page was ranking twice in the Google serps for the query "Christmas Gifts."

One of these pages is an old url that has already been 301 redirected to the new url page which is also showing up in the search results. In the results, the following shows up in position 2 & 3 for the Christmas Gifts query:

<cite class="_Rm">www.uncommongoods.com/gifts/christmas/christmas-gifts</cite> <cite class="_Rm">www.uncommongoods.com/occasions/christmas-gifts/christmas-gifts</cite>The url with "occasions" in it has already been 301 redirected to the url above it. Not sure why this is still showing up. I know it takes Google some time to index 301s and sometimes they show old urls, but it's been a few months since the old "occasions" url was redirected.The title tags for these pages are different but they are actually the same page. The new "gifts" version of the url was made live in the Navigation of our site just last week and before that it was hidden from our Navigation. Would this be the reason it's now showing up in search?Any ideas on why this might be happening? ThanksExplanations?

Hi Moz Community,

We've been implementing new canonical tags for our category pages but I have a question about pages that are found via search and our filtering options. Would we still need a canonical tag for pages that show up in search + a filter option if it only lists one page of items? Example below.

www.uncommongoods.com/search.html/find/?q=dog&exclusive=1

Thanks!

Thanks for being so thorough with your answer!

I'll have our tech team take a look at the markup. We used to have our review content embedded as part of the html code and I've heard that increases crawl frequency and was also easy for search engines to understand. Now I think we  might be using AJAX which apparently causes confusion for crawl bots.

Ok, so you're saying we should have the right markup for our aggregate reviews but that even with the correct markup Google might ignore this anyway? I was told that our reviews helped boost our rankings in the past when we implemented them years ago. But then again this could be the fact that it was new then and we've had reviews on our site for ages now.

Thanks!

Hi Britney,

Thanks for your response, here's an example of an item page:

http://www.uncommongoods.com/product/intersection-of-love-photo-print

I want to make sure that the new way we've set up the reviews don't interfere with Google being able to crawl our review content. We used to have our review text coded in our page code and I was certain Google could crawl our reviews section to gather out user generated content. Now that our page is using JavaScript it might be harder for Google to crawl....When I Google any snippet from a review it shows up in search so it seems like this isn't really a problem?

Hi Moz community,

I've been trying to do some on-site work and noticed that our product pages reviews may not be totally optimized. It used to be that all of the text from the reviews appeared in the actual code of the page, but now none of that text appears, so it may not be getting crawled.  The change was most likely released when we had an item page redesign.  However, when I Google a review snippet, it does seem to come up, so maybe Google is crawling that data despite it not being SEO optimized.

Is this really an issue if the review snippets are showing up in search, there's been a lot of talk that Google is now better at crawling javascript.

Thanks

Hi MOZ community,

I'm hoping you guys can help me with this.

Recently our site switched our landing pages to include a 180 item and 60 item version of each category page. They are creating duplicate content problems with the two examples below showing up as the two duplicates of the original page.

http://www.uncommongoods.com/fun/wine-dine/beer-gifts?view=all&n=180&p=1

http://www.uncommongoods.com/fun/wine-dine/beer-gifts?view=all&n=60&p=1

The original page is

http://www.uncommongoods.com/fun/wine-dine/beer-gifts

I was just going to do a rel=canonical for these two 180 item and 60 item pages to the original landing page but then I remembered that some of these landing pages have page 1, page 2, page 3 ect. I told our tech department to use rel=next and rel=prev for those pages. Is there anything else I need to be aware of when I apply the canonical tag for the two duplicate versions if they also have page 2 and page 3 with rel=next and rel=prev?

Thanks

Hey Moz Users,

Has anyone tried using the WordPress plugin for AMP pages on their blog yet? Here's the link to it: https://wordpress.org/plugins/amp/.

The implementation seems pretty straightforward but since there will be an AMP and a mobile friendly version of the posts on my blog I'm worried it will create a lot of duplicate content issues. I've seen a lot of articles pointing to a rel canonical tag that can be used to fix this situation. Not sure if I'm going to have an AMP version of all the posts on my blog, so this seems like it would be a pain to place the tag manually on specific pages with the AMP version only.

Has anyone tried this plugin and what have you done to fix this duplicate content issue?

Thanks

The page wasn't a time sensitive query at all, it's a product page which we traditionally rank well for. I've checked out links to the page as well and i haven't seen anything out of the ordinary. I'm hoping it's testing related with the new Penguin release like you've stated.

Thanks!

Hi all,

Two weeks ago i noticed that one of our pages which normally ranks in the top 5 of search results dropped out of the top 50 results. I checked to make sure there were no Google penalties and checked to make sure the page was crawlable. Everything seemed fine and after a few hours our page went back into the number one position. I assumed it was a Google Flux.

This number one ranking lasted about a week, today I see my page has dropped out of the top 50 yet again and hasn't come back up. again there are no penalties and there doesn't seem to be issues with the page. I'm hoping it comes back up to the top by tomorrow.

What could be causing such a big dip multiple times?

Any idea why this only happens on mobile?

Hi Moz Community,

I was searching for "Gifts for men" in Google Search on my phone and saw a few results in the 3rd (Nordstrom), 4th (Etsy) and 5th(Grommet) place that had their brand name in the area under the title tag where the green url is usually listed on desktop.

One example of the green text under the title tag is Nordstrom which lookes like this:

Nordstrom > Shop > Gifts

Whereas the first result from UncommonGoods looks like this in the green text:

www.uncommongoods.com > by recipient

I'm trying to figure out what markup Nordstrom, Etsy, ect used on their site to get their brand name to show up not as a url but as a brandname

Anyone know the answer to this?

Thanks!

Thanks John!

I checked a few Etsy category and item pages and found the og: tag.

Great answer and I'm glad you found this interesting and useful.