How to know when do use singular vs plural in anchor text and on-page copy?
-
I'm building out a specific section of our site and I want to make sure I target it correctly.
Is there a rule of thumb when to know how to use "car" vs "cars"? (as an example)
Is there a specific way to research the right approach?
thank you!
-
A lot of results for singular/plural and synonyms are so similar as to be nearly identical for the first page or two, which is what really matters, and which is what Gregory Baka is referring to. You will notice a lot of times if you search for something you'll see synonyms and variants bolded in the description and title in the SERPs. That would be your signal that one is being treated as synonymous with (though not "identical to") the other.
In terms of singular vs plural I tend to include both variations naturally within descriptions and on-page copy. External links tend to contain both versions too unless you're buying the anchor text. I would think, based only on common sense and experience, and not any quantifiable study, that Google looks for a natural variation. If you have two different landing pages, one targeting singular and the other targeting plural, that would not only be wasting effort, money, link equity, etc... but it would seem very unnatural. If I were writing an algorithm I'd probably figure out a way to push such pages lower in the results unless other signals point to really high quality at the page and/or domain level.
ALL of this "common sense" stuff flies out the window though when any ambiguity of intent or results is involved. For example, with "cars" you could be talking about the animated movie, which is why you see IMDB, Disney and Wikipedia in the results. This disambiguation factor is why Google is pushing for semantic markup of the web, and is probably why topic modeling has become increasingly important (e.g. want to rank better for "cars" when the user intent is to find the animation, use words like "Pixar" and "Lightening Steve McQueen" in the copy).
As a rule of thumb, I tend to go with whatever sounds better and makes more sense to the user. For example, on a category page I might write "blue widgets" in the title, but I'd use "blue widget" on a single product page. From there I go with what the data says. Looking at Analytics a few months later I pay attention to traffic and keywords as a follow-up. If the "blue widgets" category page gets 80% of it's traffic from a #3 ranking for "blue widget" when it ranks #1 for "blue widgets" that tells me I should probably change the title to the singular version.
In the end I usually find I get the best results when I don't think too hard about it and just go with my gut when writing. I know that's not scientific or anything, but if it works it works.
-
No research. Just memory of doing searches with and without an S for my own keywords and noticing that the results were fairly similar.
I just checked garden and gardens - many of the page 1 results are the same.
Then I checked tool and tools - very different results because of the band "Tool"
Checking garden tool and garden tools takes it back to many similar page 1 results.
The original poster just asked for a Rule of Thumb. So perhaps the answer is "It depends on the keyword. Google it and see what happens."
-
I did a search for "car" vs "cars" and I see a drastically different number of results.
3.3B vs 1.5B, respectively.
Do you have any research to support your response? Just curious where you're getting your information from.
-
When the plural is made by just adding an S, then Google seems not to differentiate the singular or plural. You can verify it by opening two windows and searching for the term both with and without the S and seeing if the results are ranked differently.
But if the plural is a whole different word, like Goose and Geese or Mouse and Mice, then you will definitely have to makes a decision on which to use.
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
-
Moz Pro > Links > Top Pages: many are images, useful?
My site is 10 years old, and has always ranked well for the variety of garden tools it sells. Looking at our Moz Pro > Links > Top Pages report I see that many of the "pages" are actually image URLs. And many of those are images we do not even use anymore (though they are still hosted). Question: As a way of gaining some link juice to deeper pages, what about 301 redirecting some of those old images over to appropriate pages? (example: redirecting old-weeding-hoe.jpg to the page garden-hoes.html) Would it be worthwhile? Would it be safe? Thanks for any and all input!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GregB1230 -
301 Redirect to Home Page or Sub-Page?
What do you think about 301 redirect of good expired domain to a sub-page instead of the home page? I'm doing this so I don't hurt my brand name. Let me know your thoughts please. Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JuanWork0 -
Facet Values as Anchor text
Hi I've reviewing our internal linking structure & have found that the facets/filter buttons on a category, are crawled and have anchor text to each link, for example: The anchor text to filter the product listing results by those under £50 would be: | Facet Value Less than £50.00 (15) Less than £50.00 (15) | This also has the source URL & destination URL of http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/lockers I haven't come across this before - is this an issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Using rel="nofollow" when link has an exact match anchor but the link does add value for the user
Hi all, I am wondering what peoples thoughts are on using rel="nofollow" for a link on a page like this http://askgramps.org/9203/a-bushel-of-wheat-great-value-than-bushel-of-goldThe anchor text is "Brigham Young" and the page it's pointing to's title is Brigham Young and it goes into more detail on who he is. So it is exact match. And as we know if this page has too much exact match anchor text it is likely to be considered "over-optimized". I guess one of my questions is how much is too much exact match or partial match anchor text? I have heard ratios tossed around like for every 10 links; 7 of them should not be targeted at all while 3 out of the 10 would be okay. I know it's all about being natural and creating value but using exact match or partial match anchors can definitely create value as they are almost always highly relevant. One reason that prompted my question is I have heard that this is something Penguin 3.0 is really going look at.On the example URL I gave I want to keep that particular link as is because I think it does add value to the user experience but then I used rel="nofollow" so it doesn't pass PageRank. Anyone see a problem with doing this and/or have a different idea? An important detail is that both sites are owned by the same organization. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ThridHour0 -
Home Page or Internal Page
I have a website that deals with personalized jewelry, and our main keyword is "Name Necklace".
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tiedemann_Anselm
3 mounth ago i added new page: http://www.onecklace.com/name-necklaces/ And from then google index only this page for my main keyword, and not our home page.
Beacuase the page is new, and we didn't have a lot of link to it, our rank is not so well. I'm considering to remove this page (301 to home page), beacause i think that if google index our home page for this keyword it will be better. I'm not sure if this is a good idea, but i know that our home page have a lot of good links and maybe our rank will be higher. Another thing, because google index this internal page for this keyword, it looks like our home page have no main keyword at all. BTW, before i add this page, google index our main page with this keyword. Please advise... U5S8gyS.png j50XHl4.png0 -
Using unique content from "rel=canonical"ized page
Hey everyone, I have a question about the following scenario: Page 1: Text A, Text B, Text C Page 2 (rel=canonical to Page 1): Text A, Text B, Text C, Text D Much of the content on page 2 is "rel=canonical"ized to page 1 to signalize duplicate content. However, Page 2 also contains some unique text not found in Page 1. How safe is it to use the unique content from Page 2 on a new page (Page 3) if the intention is to rank Page 3? Does that make any sense? 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ipancake0 -
Google Filter? Drop from top first page to bottom second page?
My site has dropped from the first page top spots to the bottom second page, about 2 month ago. From time to time it reappears in the first page, is this some kind of google filter? How do I solve this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ofer230 -
Why are new pages not being indexed, and old pages (now in robots.txt) remain in the index?
I currently have a site that was recently restructured, causing much of its content to be reposted, creating new URL's for each page. To avoid duplicates, all of the existing pages were added to the robots file. That said, it has now been over a week - I know Google has recrawled the site - and when I search for term X, it is stil the old page that is ranking, with the new one nowhere to be seen. I'm assuming it's a cached version, but why are so many of the old pages still appearing in the index? Furthermore, all "tags" pages (it's a Q&A site, like this one) were also added to the robots a few months ago, yet I think they are all still appearing in the index. Anyone got any ideas about why this is happening, and how I can get my new pages indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | corp08030