Whats happening with Google UK?
-
Within the last week we have had a handful of our rankings drop dramatically down the SERPS. About 15% but this an estimate and has not been fully investigated yet.
Whilst looking into possible scenarios that could be causing this i wanted to check what the SERPS looked like for the terms that we are still holding position on.
Typing "extending dining tables" into Google UK today i was amazed at what i found...
Ranking in position 1 and 2 is a massive UK furniture store.
But isnt that the same landing page being returned for both positions??It appears to be a navigation problem within the site category tags causing duplicate content. However they have been rewarded with the top two positons subsequently pushing our website onto page two.
I find it so frustrating that we listen to Googles best practices when it comes to pagination issues yet this is how our hard work is rewarded!
Anyone else have any thoughts about this?
-
Pleasure. Shout if I can help!
-
Fantastic. Thank you very much. Interestingly this website is hosted on a different platform to our others, so I wonder whether this has something to do with the config. We'll set up 301s for w. and ww. as a short term fix and look at the config going forward.
Many thanks again.
-
Hey, I think I have spotted something:
Google this:
portland clic-clac sofa bed
& Closely Check the result:
http://ww.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.html
ww not www
Also, we have another version of that page indexed:
v 1.
info:ww.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.htmlv 2.
info:www.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.htmlSo, you have something whack going on with your sub domains.
Digging a bit deeper:
site:franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/portland-clic-clac-sofa-bed.html
This shows that we have not only some ww. & www. results we also have pages being returned on
w.
ww.
www.
www.w.These are all the clic clac sofa bed pages so that most likely explains that one away and could well be at the root of your other problems.
I quickly checked the obvious and you do a 301 from franceshunt.co.uk to www.franceshunt.co.uk but if we do a general indexation query
site:franceshunt.co.uk
We see all kinds of weirdness and for the homepage alone (again, checking very quickly we have indexed and can resolve that page on
So.... not to hard to assume you may have lost a little bit of trust here through duplicate version of the page.
It obviously needs a bit more digging around but this should be easily fixed with a 301 for all these variations to www. and a double check across the board and on your internal linking to figure out just how this has happened and why it resolves on those wacky sub domains.
I didn't find a:
if-we-create-duplicate-versions-of-the-site-do-we-get-more-serp-share.franceshunt.co.uk but.... it resolves so it seems the site will resolve on any sub domain so we have two main issues
1. The virtual host is wrongly configured to allow it rank on anything.franceshunt.co.uk - a competitor could use this to harm you!
2. There are variations indexed that you need to take care of and a (*). rule for anything other than www. should 301 to the www. version of the page and that should, given a bit of time for reindexation etc, do the job (or at least help, who's to say we don't have multiple issues here).
Hope it helps and please let me know how it works out!
Marcus
-
First of all, thanks very much for taking the time to have a look for us and offer your opinions Marcus, much appreciated.
We are certainly going to be experimenting with the canonical tag in this way moving forward. We've never experienced problems with user interaction within the site since Google decided to start ranking the "show all" version of the pages instead so we've never really worried too much about it until now.
The worst hit was another non-competitive term "clic clac sofa bed" - we grew it steadily from 10th position back in feb and this was 3rd last week (!) and is no longer ranking at all! The page that was ranking is: http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/live/sofa-beds/
When this campaign began back in the old days of yore we were still using free directorys for optimisation of deep pages. Ive read alot about these being slowly de-indexed by Google so was wondering if this was having an adverse impact on some of the "weaker" pages. As you can see though there has been no off-site optmisation towards this page its a pretty new term (only added to campaign in feb) so im discounting that theory - for now!
-
Hey
First up, you have rel = next & prev on the paginated pages so that's good but I would also use the rel=canonical to the view all page as described here:
http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html
The view all page in this category is not huge and loads nice and quickly so I cant see any reason not to 'help' google and give them the indication that this is where you want all rankings for those pages to be concentrated.
As always, experimentation is needed but I see things like this:
-
You have a view all page and that is the desired page to display and Google prefers it all by itself
-
You have a rel=next & rel=prev set up that is really for when you want to display individual component pages rather than the main page
-
The search query you are referencing has no intent that makes it more specific to one of the paginated pages so the ideal landing page is the view all page
So, remove the rel=next & rel=prev and canonical it to the view all page and see how you get on. Allow it to reindex, record the results and make an decision based on that information.
As a disclaimer, this may not make any difference with the ranking as it seems they are not indexing your paginated pages AND if we do an info query on the main category page it shows details for the show all page. That said, this is the correct way to do it unless you would rather show the individual pages so I would still make the change.
I think when it comes down to it, Harveys just have like 5 x as many linking domains as you and you both have fairly natural looking anchor text (at the most cursory of views) so they are just outranking you here. I have not digged into the other results between you and them and a drop from 3 to 11 is a bit more than the usual flutters - is there anything else that has had a similar drop?
-
-
Thanks Marcus!
Our site is http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/
We have asked a couple of questions before on Moz as to how best to solve the pagination issues within our site.
Google seems to prefer to rank the "show all" version of the targeted landing pages.
So whilst we are optimising http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/dine/extending-dining-tables/
Google prefers to rank http://www.franceshunt.co.uk/dine/extending-dining-tables/?p=all
Which hasn't caused us any problems before, yet now im wondering if this could be part of the issue too. Please let us know what you think!
-
We were ranking third before the update for this term.
Surely brand exposure and social signals are related to their number one positioning, but whats with the second result?
This is the same landing page yet through a different navigational path. This is what im questioning here?
-
Hmmm, yeah, that kind of sucks. That is the same page, and like you say it just seems to be either tagged as either living room or dining room. Looking at them closely, they are vaguely different, not a lot in it, both just a weak category page.
Whilst this is an obvious example of something amiss here, they should not have the top two spots, I would not waste too much time worrying about it. I imagine this will be a short lived deal for them.
Can you drop a link to your site? Maybe we can better advise you on what you can control so you can try to win back some footing here?
-
The update went in favour of companies with good brand exposure, so it is possible that Harvey's link profile is a mix of brand and keyword anchor text.
Your also notice they have 9,000+ facebook fans, in order to obtain that they must activity work on social media, so your also looking at social signals being built another thing Google is now focusing on.
But I don't really see that keyword being that competitive, you should be able to push through SERP's
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
Will Google Judge Duplicate Content on Responsive Pages to be Keyword Spamming?
I have a website for my small business, and hope to improve the search results position for 5 landing pages. I recently modified my website to make it responsive (mobile friendly). I was not able to use Bootstrap; the layout of the pages is a bit unusual and doesn't lend itself to the options Bootstrap provides. Each landing page has 3 main div's - one for desktop, one for tablet, one for phone.
Web Design | | CurtisB
The text content displayed in each div is the same. Only one of the 3 div’s is visible; the user’s screen width determines which div is visible. When I wrote the HTML for the page, I didn't want each div to have identical text. I worried that
when Google indexed the page it would see the same text 3 times, and would conclude that keyword spamming was occurring. So I put the text in just one div. And when the page loads jQuery copies the text from the first div to the other two div's. But now I've learned that when Google indexes a page it looks at both the page that is served AND the page that is rendered. And in my case the page that is rendered - after it loads and the jQuery code is executed – contains duplicate text content in three div's. So perhaps my approach - having the served page contain just one div with text content – fails to help, because Google examines the rendered page, which has duplicate text content in three div's. Here is the layout of one landing page, as served by the server. 1000 words of text goes here. No text. jQuery will copy the text from div id="desktop" into here. No text. jQuery will copy the text from div id="desktop" into here. ===================================================================================== My question is: Will Google conclude that keyword spamming is occurring because of the duplicate content the rendered page contains, or will it realize that only one of the div's is visible at a time, and the duplicate content is there only to achieve a responsive design? Thank you!0 -
URLs appear in Google Webmaster Tools that I can't find on my own site?!?
Hi, I have a Magento e-commerce site (clothing) and when I had a look through some of the sections in Google Webmaster Tools I found URLs that I can't find on my site. For example, a product url maybe http://www.example.co.uk/product-url/ which is fine. In that product there maybe three sizes of the product (Small, Medium, Large) and for some reason Googlebot is sometimes finding a url like: http://www.example.co.uk/product-url/1202/ has been found and when clicked on is a live url (Status code: 200) with is one of the sizes (medium). However I have ran a site crawl in Screaming Frog and other crawl tests and can't seem to find where Googlebot is finding these URLs. I think I need to: 1. Find how Googlebot is finding these urls? 2. Find out how to keep out of index (e.g. robots.txt, canonical etc.... Any help would be much appreciated and I'm happy to share the URL with members if they think they can have a look and help with this problem. I can share specific URLs which might make the issue seem clearer, let me know? Thanks, Darrell
Web Design | | clickyleap0 -
URLs with Hashtags - Does Google Index Them?
Hi there, I have a potential issue with a site whereby all pages are dynamically populated using Javascript. Thus, an example of an URL on their site would be www.example.com/#!/category/product. I have read lots of conflicting information on the web - some says Google will ignore everything after the hashtag; other people say that Google will now index everything after the hashtag. Does anybody have any conclusive information about this? Any links to Google or Matt Cutts as confirmation would be brilliant. P.S. I am aware about the potential issue of duplicate content, but I can assure you that has been dealt with. I am only concerned about whether Google will index full URLs that contain hashtags. Thanks all! Mark
Web Design | | markadoi840 -
META Description Not Showing Up On Google
Hi, I have noticed recently that for my highest ranking keyword on Google United Kingdom, the meta description (that has not changed for several months and always used to be displayed when someone searched for this keyword) now only shows the first couple of words. Also, instead of the rest of the Meta Description there is a list of items that I offer for sale all squashed together with their individual prices. I am the only company on page one of Google who's impression looks like this and I think it looks really unprofessional. Why has this happened and how do I change it? Any help is much appreciated
Web Design | | g3mmab0 -
Why is Google sending traffic to our homepage, not our optimized pages?
Hello Forum, My team and I just completely redid a yoga eCommerce site, including its SEO. The old version of the site didn't feature page-specific optimization and, as a result, Google's search results for our keywords almost always directed visitors to the homepage. For example, a Google search for the term "yoga bolster" sent users to the homepage, not the product category page for yoga bolsters. After redoing the site and optimizing specific pages (i.e. the yoga bolster page is now optimized for the keyword "yoga bolster"), the Google search results are still taking users to the homepage, not the optimized page. (i.e. if you search for yoga bolster, find our search result, and click the search result link, you're taken to the homepage, not the bolster page) It's only been about 36 hours since we've launched the new website and submitted it to Google's webmaster tools. Does anyone know why Google is still sending people to our homepage and not the keyword-optimized pages we created? Is this a timing issue?
Web Design | | pano0 -
Google News we were dropped and need help finding ot why
Hi i have a site called in2town lifestyle magazine http://www.in2town.co.uk/ and up until two months ago we were with google news and for a long time. But then all of a sudden we were dropped which left us with no confidence about our site and led us to make changes to the site, some good and some bad to try and find out what was wrong with our site and why we were dropped. We have now been concentrating on sorting the site out which has led in a drop in traffic due to not updating it as we should because we are more concerned in trying to make it a quality lifestyle magazine and get back in google as well as making it a good experience for our readers.. I would like your help and finding out what you feel is wrong with our site so we can then work on it and change it and try and find out what went wrong with google news. we have spent years on the site but now we have gone in the wrong direction because we were more worried about google news. If you can advise us on how we should change the site and sort the site out and make it into the professional site it was once more then that would be great.
Web Design | | ClaireH-1848860 -
How to work with US Website and UK Website?
We currently have two websites. Our headquarters in the US and our other in the UK. We currently rank very well for both websites in both countries. Currently, US is hosted in the states and the UK is hosted in the UK. I would like to keep it this way. However, I am going to be converting them to a CMS and redsign both of them. We need our main website to have a feature that they can choose which location they prefer. We also offer other locations through the US. Which we would like our customers to know that we have a few different locations. Also, we will be expanding to Austraillia and maybe others as well. We need to make the websites to look almost identical, yet, different in a way that they can tell one is US, one is UK and so on. Some will only have some of our products, so they will be smaller websites. What is the best way to go about doing this? I know some CMS offer a copy feature that allows you to make the same website. However, how can you do this if they need to be hosted in the different countries? Do I need to do them all individually on each of there servers, or can this be done differently? Also, if they are hosted in there own countries, can the content be the same, or is that still considered duplicate content?
Web Design | | hfranz0 -
Advice on migrating from .com to .co.uk without dropping in rank?
I have a retail business in the UK whose website has *.com address and it has taken 3 years to reach a page rank of 3. We are building an updated site which will have a completely new url structure and optimized for SEO. We are considering launching the new site at a *.co.uk as we understand this will have advantages in local search and ranking as we are primarily targeting UK traffic. Does anyone have comments on **.com vs .co.uk and/or have any advice on how to handle the migration while minimizing any drop in traffic and ranking?
Web Design | | brian.james0