How to handle large numbers of comments?
-
First the good news. One site that I've been working on has seen an increase in traffic from 2k/month to 80k!
As well as lots of visitors, the site is also getting lots of comments with one page getting more than 70 comments/day and showing no sign of a slow down! Approximately 3000 comments in total and growing!
What is the best approach for handling this? I'm not talking about the review/approval/response but just in the way these comments are presented on the website taking both seo and usability into account.
Does anyone have any particular recommendations? Options I've considered are:
- Just show the most recent x comments and ignore the rest. (Nobody is going to read 3000 comments!)
- Paginate comments (risk of duplicate content? Using Ajax could hide long-tail phrases in comments?)
- Show all comments (page load speed is suffering and this is likely to be causing problems for mobile visitors)
How do active comments on a page contribute to an article's freshness?
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
-
Hi Paul. On many CMS's you'll find that the additional comments don't change the page's Last Modified http header or indeed the posted date in the body of the article. The comments are so far down the page that their perceived importance is going to be pretty low.
That said, active commends do show that there's significant visitor engagement which has got to be a good thing!
Interesting question about running a poll regarding the order of comments. I think however the order of the comments can work either way depending on the content/context.
For example, "news" type articles with a relatively short shelf-life tend to work better with comments in chronological order. There tend to be fewer comments (which dry-up as the article ages) so the ability to follow disussions in the comments is greatly improved.
For "ever-green" content it doesn't work so well. It can be jarring to come to the comments and be presented with one from 5 years ago!
The other SEO issues related to comments (especially out of the box on many CMS's) is the use of links (followed or no-followed).
If I've got a VERY popular page that's earning lots of real links, having all those links in the comments is going to be eating into the page equity that's going to be available to other pages I'm linking to on my own site. Paginating comments might be one way affect this?
I'm hoping to get some time to make the changes to the page in question - it'll be interesting to see what (if anything) changes!
Thanks!
-
My understanding of the freshness aspect of the algorithm is that just adding or changing content on a page won't help it look more "recent" to the SE's. So new comments aren't really a benefit there.
As a user, I prefer comments that appear in chronological order, but I know many who prefer reverse chrono. That would be a really good question for an interactive poll on the site. If visitors are that engaged with comments, you'd likely get a large enough response to be statistically significant.
The big SEO issue I encounter from large numbers of comments is that all the extra content can dilute the original keyword focus of the page as you created it. Sure, there may be long-tail phrases introduced, but if they start to override the terms you were originally trying to focus on & rank for, things can get messy. Not suggesting dropping comments, obviously, but paginating them with a canonical back to the original post might at least partly help.
I'm also curious whether, if the comments all repeat the target key phrases to frequently, the page could look keyword stuffed. have no proof of that, unfortunately, just the suspicion.
And yea, whatever you decide will definitely have to address the page speed issue for visitors.
Paul
-
Thanks Greg, I'd not considered "lazy loading", although while this is going to help with loading times I'm still a little concerned about page size! At least with user controlled pagination it's their choice to load more comments...
-
Thanks EGOL. Totally understand your point about respecting visitors who take the time to leave a comment. What makes it harder is that effort is being spent answering questions/engaging visitors in the comments which gets lost is we arbitrarily cut off comments.
-
Thank you!
I see that now. That looks great. Visitors can get to all comments but pageload time is saved.
-
EGOL, just to clarify...
With Lazy Loading and displaying only 20 comments, more comments get displayed when you scroll down, rather than having the page load all 3000 comments at once.
In other words, the comments wont be hidden, just tucked away and loaded as needed, when scrolling down the page.
http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/lazy-loading-dynamic-function-loading
Greg
-
I would paginate.
People who leave comments may come back a couple days later to see the comments left after theirs. I think that it would be disrespectful of these dedicated visitors to show only some of the comments.
Take care of these people. They are your most important asset.
-
I would go with your first point.
The more content on the page the better. Even better is user generated content!
Perhaps for user experience, display only 20 comments and wrap the wrest under "lazy loading" (suggestion from developer sitting next to me)
In other words, let the bots see all 3000 comments on the same page, but for user experience so the page doesn't take days to load, incorporate the "lazy loading" feature....
GREG
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
-
Huge number of crawl anomalies and 404s - non- existent urls
Hi there, Our site was redesigned at the end of January 2020. Since the new site was launched we have seen a big drop in impressions (50-60%) and also a big drop in total and organic traffic (again 50-60%) when compared to the old site. I know in the current climate some businesses will see a drop in traffic, however we are a tech business and some of our core search terms have increased in search volume as a result of remote-working. According to search console there are 82k urls excluded from coverage - the majority of these are classed as 'crawl anomaly' and there are 250+ 404's - almost all of the urls are non-existent, they have our root domain with a string of random characters on the end. Here are a couple of examples: root.domain.com/96jumblestorebb42a1c2320800306682 root.domain.com/01sportsplazac9a3c52miz-63jth601 root.domain.com/39autoparts-agency26be7ff420582220 root.domain.com/05open-kitchenaf69a7a29510363 Is this a cause for concern? I'm thinking that all of these random fake urls could be preventing genuine pages from being indexed / or they could be having an impact on our search visibility. Can somebody advise please? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | nicola-10 -
Root domain change - how do we best handle existing backlinks from our own content platforms on youtube, etc?
Hi, we have recently changed our brand name after 7 years and have changed our root domain to match (33shake.com since 2012, now 33 fuel.com) The site is the same (no migration to a new one) as there were no other business changes apart from the name/domain. 301 redirects are looking after all former 33shake.com links, which are now being redirected to their new 33fuel.com equivalents (slugs are the same in 99% of cases). My question is: We have a lot of backlinks for our old domain (33shake.com) on our own content via our YouTube channel (100+ videos) and also our podcast (64 episodes in, broadcast on 10 platforms). For maximum SEO benefit as we continue to restore domain authority, etc to 33fuel.com, are we best to leave these historical backlinks pointed at the old domain and let the redirects pick them up when people click? Or are we better off swapping all of these old historical backlinks so they point directly to the new domain? Any advice would be greatly appreciated, this is quite a maze we are now picking our way through! Warren
Technical SEO | | WP331 -
Log files vs. GWT: major discrepancy in number of pages crawled
Following up on this post, I did a pretty deep dive on our log files using Web Log Explorer. Several things have come to light, but one of the issues I've spotted is the vast difference between the number of pages crawled by the Googlebot according to our log files versus the number of pages indexed in GWT. Consider: Number of pages crawled per log files: 2993 Crawl frequency (i.e. number of times those pages were crawled): 61438 Number of pages indexed by GWT: 17,182,818 (yes, that's right - more than 17 million pages) We have a bunch of XML sitemaps (around 350) that are linked on the main sitemap.xml page; these pages have been crawled fairly frequently, and I think this is where a lot of links have been indexed. Even so, would that explain why we have relatively few pages crawled according to the logs but so many more indexed by Google?
Technical SEO | | ufmedia0 -
Phone number in Meta Description - Is it a good idea?
Is it a best practice to place your company's phone number in the meta description for a page? Are there any rules as to what is acceptable for meta tags? One of our competitors recently started doing this but for some reason I think it might be against Google's guidelines. They (competitor) is also engaging in web spam, plagiarizing our content, and other black hat techniques so I'm leery of anything they do.
Technical SEO | | mathamatix0 -
Best strategy to handle over 100,000 404 errors.
I recently been given a site that has over one-hundred thousand 404 error codes listed in Google Webmasters. It is really odd because according to Google Webmasters, the pages that are linking to these 404 pages are also pages that no longer exist (they are 404 pages themselves). These errors were a result of site migration that had occurred. Appreciate any input on how one might go about auditing and repairing large amounts of 404 errors. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | SEO_Promenade0 -
Differing numbers of pages indexed with and without the trailing slash
I noticed today that a site: query in Google (UK) for a certain domain I'm looking at returns different numbers depending on whether or not the trailing slash is added at the end. With the trailing slash the numbers are significantly different. This is a domain with a few duplicate content issues. It seems very rare but I've managed to replicate it for a couple of other well known domains, so this is the phenomenon I'm referring to: site:travelsupermarket.com - 16'300 results
Technical SEO | | ianmcintosh
site:travelsupermarket.com/ - 45'500 results site:guardian.co.uk - 120'000'000 results
site:guardian.co.uk/ - 121'000'000 results For the particular domain I'm looking at the numbers are 19'000 without the trailing slash and 800'000 with it! As mentioned, there are a few duplicate content issues at the moment that I'm trying to tidy up, but how should I interpret this? Has anyone seen this before and can advise what it could indicate? Thanks in advance for any answers.0 -
Which is The Best Way to Handle Query Parameters?
Hi mozzers, I would like to know the best way to handle query parameters. Say my site is example.com. Here are two scenarios. Scenario #1: Duplicate content example.com/category?page=1
Technical SEO | | jombay
example.com/category?order=updated_at+DESC
example.com/category
example.com/category?page=1&sr=blog-header All have the same content. Scenario #2: Pagination example.com/category?page=1
example.com/category?page=2 and so on. What is the best way to solve both? Do I need to use Rel=next and Rel=prev or is it better to use Google Webmaster tools parameter handling? Right now I am concerned about Google traffic only. For solving the duplicate content issue, do we need to use canonical tags on each such URL's? I am not using WordPress. My site is built on Ruby on Rails platform. Thanks!0 -
For large sites, best practices for pages hidden behind internal search?
If a website has 1M+ pages, with most of them being hidden behind an internal search, what's the best way to get pages included in an engine's index? Does a direct clickpath to those pages need to exist from the homepage or other major hub pages on the site? Is submitting an XML sitemap enough?
Technical SEO | | vlevit0