Non Moving #1 Website
-
Hi Guys,
Bit of an odd one we have recently undertaken our SEO in house (6-7 Months) and since doing this have had some great results, we have identified our competitors utilising Ahrefs, Moz and other tools that we have selected. However we have come up against something that we really cannot work out.
-
One of our competitors ranks for everything related to there term on their website and industry at position #1
-
They are not actively doing SEO, Poor backlink structure from the research that we have carried out
-
No fresh content being generate
I was wondering if someone would perhaps mind spending 5 mins having a quick look to see what you think as i can't think what we might have missed.
Tim.
-
-
Yeah, the likes of Wickes etc do have a high domain authority but they're not focusing on these specific search terms. They are appearing because they are closely related. If they did focus specifically on each search term I'm sure they would be number 1.
I'd suggest building up your long tail, maybe slightly varied to your competitor so that you do trump them at the top and just continue down the path of progression. They've probably been there a while and Google has no reason to shift them if people are clicking onto their site and finding what they want.
-
Hi Shaun,
Thanks for having a look it's very much appreciated, i'm currently aware of the server speed and it's something that i need to sort out sooner rather than later!
I do take you point about there domain authority however if you look at some of the other sites DIY.com, wickes.com, bathstore.com have a huge domain authority compared to the link of the site i sent you.
But they still persist to be there on page one for short tail and long tail, it's not so much me i'm worried about however we are slowing increasing our domain authority and moving up the ranks.
Do you think it's because it's a niche site?
Tim.
-
Two things I have noticed.
Your site speed is quite slow. I used tools.pingdom.com. Although your page size is quite small it takes 4.51seconds to load with time to first byte 2.73seconds. There is an blog post about that here. It could be server related.
Secondly, the other site has a lot more high quality links to it, giving it a higher domain authority which may also be interlinked with the social side that Gary mentioned.
Maybe these will help you in your search for #1
-
Send me the link I will take a quick look
-
yes, but we are talking very little amount i would have thought the sites are just not optimised either and another couple of sites that have been setup with site wide links to there main domain.
Main site has 500 back links 20000 crawled pages, however most of these are down to filters and parameters and 30 referring domains
3 other linked sites
- 1 providing 160 back links
- 2 providing 5 each
-
Do those domains interlink and provide juice to the main site?
-
Absolutely chuff all! They have recently have gained 1000 facebook likes but very very little social signals as far as sharing and RT's go nothing
They have a couple of other domains but again nothing special that but to do carry links through, I have checked there is no T1, T2 or Tier 3 Links.
There is nothing untoward about it, we just can't find out why google would rank it better.
Tim.
-
I am seeing this a lot recently.
Do they have any good social mentions/activity?
-
Tim - You can PM me the address if you like.
It is of usually no harm to post it here so others are also able to help.
-
Hi Shaun,
You happy for me to PM you the address?
Tim.
-
Hi Tim,
What are they site addresses?
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
-
Non-standard HTML tags in content
I had coded my website's article content with a non-standard tag <cnt>that surrounded other standard tags that contained the article content, I.e.</cnt> , . The whole text was enclosed in a div that used Schema.org markup to identify the contents of the div as the articleBody. When looking at scraped data for stories in Webmaster Tools, the content of the story was there and identified as the articleBody correctly. It's recently been suggested by someone else that the presence of the non-standard <cnt>tags were actually making the content of the article uncrawlable by the Googlebot, this effectively rendering the content invisible. I did not believe this to be true, since the content appeared to be correctly indexed in Webmaster Tools, but for the sake of a test I agreed to removing them. In the last 6 weeks since they were removed, there have been no changes in impressions or traffic from organic search, which leads me to believe that the removal of the <cnt>tags actually had no effect, since the content was already being indexed successfully and nothing else has changed.</cnt></cnt> My question is whether or not an encapsulating non-standard tag as I've described would actually make the content invisible to Googlebot, or if it should not have made any difference so long as the correct Schema.org markup was in place? Thank you.
Technical SEO | | dlindsey0 -
Launching Website
We are developing a new website and thinking google would not find it because of the directory we put it in (no homepage yet) and because there are no links to it. For example, we are building it in this directory example.com/wordpress/ but somehow google found it and indexed pages not ready to be indexed. What should we do to stop this until we are ready to launch? Should we just use a robots.txt file with this in it? User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | QuickLearner
Disallow: / Will this create repercussions when we officially launch?0 -
Moving from a .com to .co.uk
I need to migrate a wordpress site from domainname.com to domainname.co.uk. If I just put a 301 on every page on the .com will that cover it? Would it make sense to go and change all the backlinks/profile links to the new .co.uk site or doesn't it matter if you have a 301 redirect on it? Thanks
Technical SEO | | littlesthobo0 -
Having www. and non www. links indexed
Hey guys, As the title states, the two versions of the website are indexed in Google. How should I proceed? Please also note that the links on the website are without the www. How should I proceed knowing that the client prefers to have the www. version indexed. Here are the steps that I have in mind right now: I set the preferred domain on GWMT as the one with www. I 301 redirect any non www. URL to the www. version. What are your thoughts? Should I 301 redirect the URL's? or is setting the preference on GWMT enough? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | BruLee0 -
Google Finds New Zealand Websites
Ok my VPS is in America and all my websites with .co.nz have been found by google but luggagenz.com doesn't come up... I then realised that all my websites are classed as american... umm how do I change this without moving my vps?
Technical SEO | | bonmaklad0 -
403 forbidden error website
Hi Mozzers, I got a question about new website from a new costumer http://www.eindexamensite.nl/. There is a 403 forbidden error on it, and I can't find what the problem is. I have checked on: http://gsitecrawler.com/tools/Server-Status.aspx
Technical SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
result:
URL=http://www.eindexamensite.nl/ **Result code: 403 (Forbidden / Forbidden)** When I delete the .htaccess from the server there is a 200 OK :-). So it is in the .htaccess. .htaccess code: ErrorDocument 404 /error.html RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^home$ / [L]
RewriteRule ^typo3$ - [L]
RewriteRule ^typo3/.$ - [L]
RewriteRule ^uploads/.$ - [L]
RewriteRule ^fileadmin/.$ - [L]
RewriteRule ^typo3conf/.$ - [L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-l
RewriteRule .* index.php Start rewrites for Static file caching RewriteRule ^(typo3|typo3temp|typo3conf|t3lib|tslib|fileadmin|uploads|screens|showpic.php)/ - [L]
RewriteRule ^home$ / [L] Don't pull *.xml, *.css etc. from the cache RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !^..xml$
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !^..css$
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !^.*.php$ Check for Ctrl Shift reload RewriteCond %{HTTP:Pragma} !no-cache
RewriteCond %{HTTP:Cache-Control} !no-cache NO backend user is logged in. RewriteCond %{HTTP_COOKIE} !be_typo_user [NC] NO frontend user is logged in. RewriteCond %{HTTP_COOKIE} !nc_staticfilecache [NC] We only redirect GET requests RewriteCond %{REQUEST_METHOD} GET We only redirect URI's without query strings RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^$ We only redirect if a cache file actually exists RewriteCond %{DOCUMENT_ROOT}/typo3temp/tx_ncstaticfilecache/%{HTTP_HOST}/%{REQUEST_URI}/index.html -f
RewriteRule .* typo3temp/tx_ncstaticfilecache/%{HTTP_HOST}/%{REQUEST_URI}/index.html [L] End static file caching DirectoryIndex index.html CMS is typo3. any ideas? Thanks!
Maarten0 -
Hreflang on non-canonical pages
Hi! I've been trying to figure out what is the best way to solve this dilemma with duplicate content and multiple languages across domains. 1 product info page 2 same product but GREEN
Technical SEO | | LarsEriksson
3 same product but RED
4 same product but YELLOW **Question: ** Since pages 2,3,4 just varies slightly I use the canonical tag to indicate they are duplicates of page 1. Now I also want to indicate there are other language versions with the_ rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _element. Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on the canonical page only pointing to the canonical page with "x" language. Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on all pages pointing to the canonical page with the "x" language? Should I place the _rel="alternate" hreflang="x" _on all pages and then point it to the translated page (even if it is not a canonical page) ? /Lars0 -
Www v.s non www
The canonical URLs (and all our link building efforts) is on the www version of the site. However, the site is having a massive technical problem and need to redirect some links (some of which are very important) from the www to the non www version of the site (for these pages the canonical link is still the www version). How big of a SEO problem is this? Can you please explain the exact SEO dangers? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | theLotter0