Analyzing ZAPPOS.com - how do they get away with it?
-
Hi All,
The fun thing about our industry is that unlike poker - most cards are open.
While trying to learn what the big guys are doing I chose to focus on www.Zappos.com - one of the largest sports wear (especially shoes).
I looked how they categories, interlink and on their product pages.
I have a question about duplication in an age where it is SO important.
If you look in their running sneakers category you'd see that they show the same item (in different color) as two separate items - how are these pages no considered duplication?It gets even worse - If you look inside a shoe page (a product page) in the tab "About the Brand" you'd learn that all shoes from Nike (just an example) the about the brand is exactly the same. This is about 90% of the page for hundreds of Nike shoes pages - and goes the same for all other brands.
How come they are ranked so high and not penalized in the era of Panda?
Is it as always - big brands get away with anything and everything?Here are two example shoe pages:
Nike Dart 10 (a)
Nike Dart 10 (b)Thanks!
-
As I said, that is what I would recommend doing. Zappos is not, and it could easily be due to limitations with their eCommerce or fulfillment systems since each color is probably a different sku. It could just as easily be due to the ability of these pages to rank better for each color, in which case they have an advantage over most other competitors because they can get away with it, as you have noticed.
-
Thanks for the detailed answer.
If you are putting a canonical tag then why not simply have one page with a drop down for colors?
-
Hello BeytzNet,
It is not uncommon at all for ecommerce sites to have product variants like this, each with their own SKU. They are, after all, two different products. If someone ordered one color and got the other they would be upset. If someone searched Google Shopping for Gray Nike Shoes and ended up on a page for Pink Nike Shoes it would not be a good experience for them.
Yes, a better way to do this would be to have unique on-page content for each variant of this shoe, or even to have one page that allows the user to choose their color from a drop-down list (oh wait, Zappos does that too...) so the page isn't optimal, but it is unlikely that Google would see this as something worth applying a penalty for. They would more likely just decide to rank only one version. Rather than being sneaky, it is probably just a scalability problem.
With that said, I know lots of lesser-known brands and websites that have been hit hard by Panda for similar "scalability problems". The fact that big, well-known brands can get away with a lot more is something that has been going on for a long time and isn't about to change any time soon. So to answer your question "how do they get away with it" - They get away with it by being a huge, well-known brand. It sucks, but that apparently provides a better user experience for Google searchers. I don't think there is any malicious purpose to that (e.g. Adsense revenue, helping Google partner sites...), rather it has to do with the way we, as searchers, react to branding by clicking on the results we are already familiar with and buying from sites we already trust.
If I were to handle the same situation I'd probably choose a canonical version and redirect the other pages to it since writing unique copy for each color shoe wouldn't be scaleable for a site that size. Of course you would lose some ability to rank for color-specific searches, but you could minimize that by listing the colors out in title or on-page content while allowing the user to select the color from a drop-down.
-
Cody that is not accurate. Only one of the pages references ...10~2 as the canonical URL. The other ones uses <link rel="canonical" href="/nike-dart-10~1" />.
-
It's because they utilize canonicals to specify the url that should get all of the authority. Both of your examples have this:
<link rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" href="[/nike-dart-10~2](view-source:http://www.zappos.com/nike-dart-10%7E2)" /><script type="<a class="attribute-value">text/javascript</a>">
-
Hi, great question and find.
I recently read an article, I think that it was from distilled, on SEO Myths. One of the Myths was about duplicate content penalties.
"has the potential to dilute link equity," but apparently google weren't imposing serious penalties,
It was an interesting little piece, but i would suggest they are using a lot of no follow links.
As an e commerce developer, product variations are a hard one to index well.
I would be interested to get a few takes on how people are doing it well.
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
-
Moving a lot of pdfs to main site. Worth trying to get them indexed?
On my main site we link to pdfs that are located on another one of our domains. The only thing that is on this other domain is the pdfs. It was setup really poorly so I am going to redesign everything and probably move it. Is it worthwhile trying to add these pdfs to our sitemap and to try and get them indexed? They are all connected to a current item, but the content is original.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
.Com version of my site is ranking better than .co.uk for my UK Website for branded search. 301 redirect mess
Dear Mozzers, I have an issue with my UK Website (short url is - http://goo.gl/dJ7IgD ) whereby when I type my company name in to google.co.uk search the .com version returns in Search as opposed to the .co.uk and from looking at open site explorer the page rank of the .com is higher than the .co.uk ?. Infact I cant even see the .co.uk homepage version but other pages from my site. The .com version is also 301'd to the .co.uk. From looking at Open Site Explorer, I have noticed that we have more links pointing to .com as opposed to .co.uk. Alot of these are from our own separate microsites which we closed down last year and I have noticed the IT company who closed them down for some reason 301'd them to the .com version of our site as opposed to the .co.uk but If I look in http://httpstatus.io/ (http status checker tool) to check one of these mircosites it shows - 301 - 302 - 200 status codes which to me looks wrong ?. I am wondering what it should read ... e.g should it just be a 301 to a 200 status code ?. My Website short url is - http://goo.gl/dJ7IgD and an example of some of 10 microsites we closed down last year which seems to be redirected to .com is http://goo.gl/BkcIjy and http://goo.gl/kogJ02 As these were redirected almost a year ago - it is okay if I now get them redirected to the .co.uk version of my site or what should I do ? They currently redirect to the home page but given that each of the microsites are based on an individual category of my main site , would it be better to 301 them to the relevant category on my site. My only concern is that , may cause to much internal linking and therefore I wont have enough links on my homepage ? How would you suggest I go about building up my .co.uk authority so it ranks betters than the .com- I am guessing this is obviously affecting my rankings and I am losing link juice with all this. Any advice greatly appreciated . thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Will these 301's get me penalized?
Hey everyone, We're redesigning parts of our site and I have a tricky question that I was hoping to get some sound advice about. We have a blog (magazine) with subcategory pages that are quite thin. We are going to restructure the blog (magazine) and feature different concert and have new subcategories. So we are trying to decide where to redirect the existing subcategory pages, e.g. Entertainment, Music, Sports, etc. www.charged.fm/magazine Our new ticket category pages ( Concert Tickets, NY Yankees Tickets, OKC Thunder Tickets, etc) are going to feature a tab called 'Latest News' where we are thinking of 301 redirecting the old magazine subcategory pages. So Sports News from the blog would 301 to Sports Tickets (# Latest News tab). See screenshot below for example. So my question is: Will this look bad in the eyes of the GOOG? Are these closely related enough to redirect? Are there any blatant pitfalls that I'm not seeing? It seems like a win/win because we are making a rich Performer page with News, Bio, Tickets and Schedule and getting to reallocate the link juice that was being wasted in an pretty much useless page that was allowed to become to powerful. Gotta keep those pages in check! Thoughts appreciated. Luke Cn6HPpH.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | keL.A.xT.o0 -
How to get content to index faster in Google.....pubsubhubbub?
I'm curious to know what tools others are using to get their content to index faster (other than html sitmap and pingomatic, twitter, etc) Would installing the wordpress pubsubhubbub plugin help even though it uses pingomatic? http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/pubsubhubbub/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webestate0 -
How to get the most out of inbound links from magazine and newspaper stories?
When a newspaper article or magazine article writes a story about your company, some people like seem to immediately write blog posts about the press hit, and then in the blog post they link to the press hit. Other businesses have entire "In the News" sections in which they post links to news stories that reference or link to the company. Does this in any way hinder or the cancel out the link juice that should come from the original inbound link by making it look like a link trade or link swap, or for any other reason? Just curious if anyone has any thoughts on this...Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | williammarlow0 -
Does anyone else have issues with atomysolutions.com?
Nearly all of my domains in webmaster tools show thousands of links to me from atomysolutions.com. Problem is only a couple links show up to them in OSE so can't learn much there. I try to access their site but every page I do I get a 403 forbidden error. All I can gather is they are some kind of health and beauty thing. I did a site search in Google and looked at the cached result of the first page but it took me to sexyshoes.co.uk or something. I honestly cannot figure out. OSE shows them as one of my linking domains, but I can't see any of the pages linking to me. I need to know if this is a spammy site that I need to disavow. I have no idea how or why they link to me. Any insight from any Mozzers is GREATLY appreciated! 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DanDeceuster0 -
If you host a video on another site will you get credit for it?
If we host the video on a third party player & use their player (such as Brightcove), will we get credit for the video (will it show in SERPs on our domain? Or, do we need to host it on our own site?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Where to get a video sitemap creator for Wordpress?
I have a website that is nearly all about videos and is based on Wordpress. Does anyone know of a way to create a video sitemap that updates automatically as I write a new post? The video files and other data are all stored in separate meta-post locations... So it needs to be able to grab them. Any help is appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DojoGuy0