Will google punish us for using formulaic keyword-rich content on different pages on our site?
-
We have 100 to 150 words of SEO text per page on www.storitz.com. Our challenge is that we are a storage property aggregator with hundreds of metros. We have to distinguish each city with relevant and umique text.
If we use a modular approach where we mix and match pre-written (by us) content, demographic and location oriented text in an attempt to create relevant and unique text for multiple (hundreds) of pages on our site, will we be devalued by Google?
-
Agreed. Domain authority will play a significant role and more authoritative site may get away with it easier than a small one. I speak from what I have seen (not a speculation).
-
I think you may be misunderstanding what PageRank is. But moving past that for a moment. No, interlinking within your own site is not going to hurt you, generally speaking. However this is assuming all the pages reside on the same subdomain (www for example).
If you have every metro on a subdomain e.g. "seattle.yoursite.com" and interlink all of those... THAT could create a problem.
Recommend you stick with:
www.yoursite.com/state/metro/ instead.
-
Thanks! We actually already have unique local content about each metro., but we are still not getting pagerank, in part because we have only local and shopping-data driven results on our pages. We're now writing how-to content (how to do RV Storage, how to pack your house for putting it into storage, how to choose a storage property that fits your needs, etc.) on our site, and then linking to it with keyword anchor text phrases from our metro-page paragraphs. Question is, will we be penalized for mentioning and linking to the same how-to content on multiple metro pages?
-
hmm. Tough call. Depends on the authority of your domain honestly. I've seen absolute garbage + duplication rank given the right link profile. That being said you might do better to pull in some local data with APIs and scrapers and mash it up to bring extra content to the page that is more localized. Then find a way to incentivize UGC for further diversification.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Need only tens of pages to be indexed out of hundreds: Robots.txt is Okay for Google to proceed with?
Hi all, We 2 sub domains with hundreds of pages where we need only 50 pages to get indexed which are important. Unfortunately the CMS of these sub domains is very old and not supporting "noindex" tag to be deployed on page level. So we are planning to block the entire sites from robots.txt and allow the 50 pages needed. But we are not sure if this is the right approach as Google been suggesting to depend mostly on "noindex" than robots.txt. Please suggest whether we can proceed with robots.txt file. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Do we take a SEO hit for having multiple URLs on an infinite scroll page vs a site with many pages/URLs. If we do take a hit, quantify the hit we would suffer.
We are redesigning a preschool website which has over 100 pages. We are looking at 2 options and want to make sure we meet the best user experience and SEO. Option 1 is to condense the site into perhaps 10 pages and window shade the content. For instance, on the curriculum page there would be an overview and each age group program would open via window shade. Option 2 is to have an overview and then each age program links to its own page. Do we lose out on SEO if there are not unique URLS? Or is there a way using metatags or other programming to have the same effect?
Algorithm Updates | | jgodwin0 -
Don't use an h1 and just use h2's?
We just overhauled our site and as I was auditing the overhaul I noticed that there were no h1's on any of the pages. I asked the company that does our programming why and he responded that h1's are spammed so much so he doesn't want to put them in. Instead he put in h2's. I can't find anything to back this up. I can find that h1's are over-optimized but nothing that says to skip them altogether. I think he's crazy. Anyone have anything to back him up?
Algorithm Updates | | Dave_Whitty0 -
Should I use canonical tags on my site?
I'm trying to keep this a generic example, so apologies if this is too vague. On my main website, we've always had a duplicate content issue. The main focus of our site is breaking down to specific, brick and mortar locations. We have to duplicate the description of product/service for every geographic location (this is a legal requirement). So for example, you might have the parent "product/service" page targeting the term, and then 100's of sub pages with "product/service San Francisco", "product/service Austin", etc. These pages have identical content except for the geographic location is dynamically swapped out. There is also additional useful content like google map of area, local resources, etc. As I said this was always seen as an SEO issue, specifically you could see in the way that googlebot would crawl pages and how pagerank flowed through the site that having 100's of pages with identical copy and just swapping out the geographic location wasn't seen as good content, however we still always received traffic and conversions for the long tail geographic terms so we left it. Las year, with Panda, we noticed a drop in traffic and thought it was due to this duplicate issue so I added canonical tags to all our geographic specific product/service pages that pointed back to the parent page, that seemed to be received well by google and traffic was back to normal in short order. However, recently what I notice a LOT in our SERP pages is if I type in a geographic specific term, i.e. "product/service san francisco", our deep page with the canonical tag is what google is ranking. Google inserts its own title tag on the SERP page and leaves the description blank as it doesn't index the page due to the canonical tag on the page. Essentially what I think it is rewarding is the site architecture which organizes the content to the specific geo in the URL: site.com/service/location/san-francisco. Other than that there is no reason for it to rank that page. Sorry if this is lengthy, thanks for reading all of that! Essentially my question is, should I keep the canonical tags on the site or take them off since Google insists on ranking the page? If I am ranking already then the potential upside to doing that is ranking higher (we're usually in the 3-6 spot on the result page) and also higher CTR because we can get a description back on our resulting page. The counter argument is I'm already ranking so leave it and focus on other things. Appreciate your thoughts on this!
Algorithm Updates | | edu-SEO0 -
Keyword search results
Is there any tools that provide information on how many results there are for a given keyword? Also, would this be a good way to do research for which keyword I should optimize my page for google SERP, basically to find a less competitive keyword. My thinking was that if the search results were lower it would be easier to rank for that keyword with SEO.
Algorithm Updates | | bilsonx0 -
Difference in which pages Google is ranking?
Over the past two weeks I've noticed that Google has decided to change which pages on our site rank for specific keywords. The thing is, this is for keywords that the homepage was already ranking for. Due to our workload, we've made no changes to the site, and I'm not tracking any additional backlinks. Certainly there are no new deep links to these pages. In SEOmoz dashboard (and via tools/manual checking with a proxy) of the 24 terms we have first page ranking for, 9 of them are marked "new to top 50". These are terms we were already ranking for. Google just appears to have switched out the homepage for other pages. I've noticed this across a couple of client sites, too, though none to the extent that I'm seeing on our own. Certainly this isn't a bad thing, as the deeper pages ranking means that they're landing on the content they want first, and I can work to up the conversion rates. It's just caught me by surprise. Anyone else noticing similar changes?
Algorithm Updates | | BedeFahey1 -
If a page one result for a keyword is mostly directories, do I have a chance to rank for this keyword?
I feel like although directories carry a lot of weight and links, I'd think that my client would be able to gain a top position, since none of the others are competitor pages, nor are the directories engaging.
Algorithm Updates | | randallseo0 -
If Google turns down the weight of keywords in domains then what will they be turning up?
Per Matt Cutts video "We will be turning that keyword in domain down." http://youtu.be/rAWFv43qubI So what will they be turning up?
Algorithm Updates | | Thos0030