Brand sections performing badly in SERP's but all SEO tools think we are great
-
I have had this problem for some time now and I've asked many many experts.
Search for Falke in Google.co.uk and this is what you get:
http://www.sockshop.co.uk/by_brand/falke/ 3rd Our competitor
http://www.mytights.com/gb/brand/falke.html 4th Our competitorhttp://www.uktights.com/section/73/falke 104th this is us ????? 9th for Falke tights with same section not our falke tights section?
All sites seem to link to their brand sections in the same way with links in the header and breadcrumbs, Opensite exporler only shows 2 or 3 internal links for our compertitors, 1600+ from us?
Many of our brand sections rank badly Pretty Polly and Charnos brands rank page 2 or 3 with a brand subsection with no links to them, main section dosn't rank?Great example is Kunert, a German brand no UK competition our section has been live for 8 years, the best we can do is 71st Google UK, 1st on Bing (as we should be).
I'm working on adding some quality links, but our comtetitors have a few low quality or no external links, only slightly better domain authority but rank 100+ positions better than us on some brands.
This to me would suggest there is something onpage / internal linking I'm doing wrong, but all tools say "well done, grade A" take a holiday.
Keyword denisty is similar to our competiors and I've tried reducing the number of products on the page. All pages really ranked well pre Penguin, and Bing still likes them.
This is driving me nuts and costing us money
Cheers
Jonathan
www.uktights.com -
Jonathan
First off, I would ignore the competitors to some degree. It's going to lead you in circles. It's not so simple that links relate directly to rankings. There are a ton of factors as to why competitors can be ranking better. I'd focus purely on cleaning up your site as best as possible.
You also do seem to have an issue with anchor text in your link profile - a lot the top anchors are commercial keywords ""hoisery online uk" "tights" etc. These need to be changed or cleaned up. This is going to give you a flag as being over-optimized.
I don't think number of internal linking pages would create a penalty.
How's your non-google traffic as a percentage? If it's anything less than 30% of overall traffic (and organic Google is 70% or more) I'd work on getting traffic from other sources - this will all feed back into your SEO.
-
Hi There
Bill Sebald offers a fantastic method for link cleanup, and then submitting a disavow here: http://www.greenlaneseo.com/blog/2014/01/step-by-step-disavow-process/ - if you have never submitted a disavow, I would do that. It's in Bill's post, but generally the links in Webmaster Tools are a good place to start, and use Cognitive SEO to process them and review.
-Dan
-
Thanks Andy, great advice! Just to clarify for the asker, Penguin is purely algorithmic, not a manual penalty in any way.
-Dan
-
The main consensus and I agree, is that we have penalties from Google, but looking at our competitors link profiles we are only slightly worse, and getting better by the day.
Maybe Google has algorithmic penalties on some of our brand pages, but why, as they have few or no external links?
Is it possible the number of internal linking pages is creating some sort of penalty and if so how do I sort it out as we are a big ecommerce site?
Why does open site explorer show us having 1600+ internal links but our competitors show only 2 and 12 internal links when they link to their brands sections in the same way with a massive amount of links?
I still don't know how to fix this, do the brand pages need more content?
I have new quality links going to 2 of the brand pages from a UK university that is also trying to help.
Cheers
Jonathan
-
I like SEMrush thanks
Yes I know I have try and get the profile squeaky clean. Its hard to stop these links, due what we sell,
I see our main competitor is on http://www.freeadultwebsitesdirectory.com/stockings.html and http://www.sexualallsorts.co.uk/xxxSextoyShop/Stockings-and-Hosiery-Tights/default.aspx too who rank well for everything, so maybe a few more good links and remove some more bad links
What's the best way for tracking down bad links, I'll try and clean a few more.
I still think the internal links may be causing a problem but may be they are passing bad juice.
-
According to SEMrush, your website went from 600+ KW in top 20 for US in august 2012 to 150+ nowadays.
In my mind, links like http://www.freeadultwebsitesdirectory.com/stockings.html
http://kupilandia.ru/individual-order/
http://www.sexualallsorts.co.uk/xxxSextoyShop/Stockings-and-Hosiery-Tights/default.aspx
are not helping to stay out of algo penalty.
-
Hi Andy
Its not quite as clean as my competitors, using a natural linking tool we have 21% unnatural links they have around 17%. We have a few too many directory links so constantly trying to remove them as we build in more quality, we have many links from Google as we are an AdWords success story, plus they filmed us for their YouTube channel, many links from Wikipedia, plus a nice link from the BBC news site.
I'm wondering if we have too many instances of the brand keyword on the page, as if you lengthen the keyword to include tights, i.e "falke tights" the page ranks fine.
Also according to MOZ we have 1600+ links to the brand page with falke as the anchor text, This may explain why our sub sections rank for some keywords Charnos or pretty polly as these only have 2 or 3 links to them. They are not linked to from the header or breadcrumbs.
I'm really stuck on this, as I don't know how to hide the links from the header / breadcrumbs, if Google thinks 1600+ internal falke links looks spammy. Plus how do my competitors get away with it?
Jonathan
-
Hi Jonathan,
Sorry, I misread that bit.
What does your actual backlink profile look like?
-Andy
-
Hi Andy thanks for your help
But all our links and 99% of our competitors links are all internal, our home page ranks 8th for our main keyword: tights, we have no manual action warnings.
Some brands are not bad, Pierre Mantoux, Trasparenze, Glamory.
Cheers
Jonathan
-
Hi Jonathan,
These sorts of problems can be many different things. With what you are saying, I would be leaning towards thinking that you had a penalty from Google - that would be where I would start looking.
You mention a lot more links back to you than your competitors have - perhaps it is Penguin that has performed a manual / algorithmic action on the site? When was the last time you were ranking well, or has this always been the case that the site has never ranked too well? Who built the current links to the site and how long ago was this done?
It could be so many other problems that it could be impossible to go through them all here, but the correlation between Bing and Google is something I have seen many times with penalties. Rank well in Bing, but bad in Google.
Sorry it's a little open ended, but like I said, it could be so many other things.
-Andy
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
-
Over-optimizing Internal Linking: Is this real and, if so, what's the happy medium?
I have heard a lot about having a solid internal linking structure so that Google can easily discover pages and understand your page hierarchies and correlations and equity can be passed. Often, it's mentioned that it's good to have optimized anchor text, but not too optimized. You hear a lot of warnings about how over-optimization can be perceived as spammy: https://neilpatel.com/blog/avoid-over-optimizing/ But you also see posts and news like this saying that the internal link over-optimization warnings are unfounded or outdated:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SearchStan
https://www.seroundtable.com/google-no-internal-linking-overoptimization-penalty-27092.html So what's the tea? Is internal linking overoptimization a myth? If it's true, what's the tipping point? Does it have to be super invasive and keyword stuffy to negatively impact rankings? Or does simple light optimization of internal links on every page trigger this?1 -
Changing URL's During a Site Redesign
What are the effects of changing URL's during a site redesign following all of the important processes (ie: 301 redirects, reindexing in google, submitting a new sitemap) ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jennifer-garcia0 -
Ridding of taxonomies, so that articles enhance related page's value
Hello, I'm developing a website for a law firm, which offers a variety of services. The site will also feature a blog, which would have similarly-named topics. As is customary, these topics were taxonomies. But I want the articles to enhance the value of the service pages themselves and because the taxonomy url /category/divorce has no relationship to the actual service page url /practice-areas/divorce, I'm worried that if anything, a redundantly-titled taxonomy url would dilute the value of the service page it's related to. Sure, I could show some of the related posts on the service page but if I wanted to view more, I'm suddenly bounced over to a taxonomy page which is stealing thunder away from the more important service page. So I did away with these taxonomies all together, and posts are associatable with pages directly with a custom db table. And now if I visit the blog page, instead of a list of category terms, it would technically be a list of the service pages and so if a visitor clicks on a topic they are directed to /practice-areas/divorce/resources (the subpages are created dynamically) and the posts are shown there. I'll have to use custom breadcrumbs to make it all work. Just wondering if you guys had any thoughts on this. Really appreciate any you might have and thanks for reading
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | utopianwp0 -
Canonical URL's For Two Domains
We have two websites, one we use for Google PPC (website 1) and one (website 2) we use for everything else. The reason is we are in an industry that Google Adwords doesn't like, so we built a whole other website that removes the product descriptions as Google Adwords doesn't approve of many of them (nutrition). Right now we have that Google Adwords approved website (website 1) no-index/no-follow because we didn't want to run into potential duplicate content issues in free search, but the issue is we can't submit it to Google Shopping...as they require it to be indexable. Do you think removing the no-index/no-follow from that website 1 and adding canonical URL's pointing to website 2 would resolve this issue (being able to submit it to Google Shopping) and not cause any problems with duplicate content? I was thinking of adding the canonical tag to all pages of website 1 and point it to website 2. Does that make sense? Do you think that would work?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vetofunk0 -
Robots.txt - Googlebot - Allow... what's it for?
Hello - I just came across this in robots.txt for the first time, and was wondering why it is used? Why would you have to proactively tell Googlebot to crawl JS/CSS and why would you want it to? Any help would be much appreciated - thanks, Luke User-Agent: Googlebot Allow: /.js Allow: /.css
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Not alt tags but Title and description Meta: My designer's answer.
Hello! I was busy doing lots of key wording for my images which I hate and notices that when viewed in source code, the different places I inputed information translated into Title and Description meta tags but NO alt tags. As I'm a a photographer, it's really important to me that I make the most of my images to get increased traffic so I challenged the people behind my website about it. This is their response to the question: "We all know how important the alt tags are for image SEO so why does
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IoanSaid
the design allows Title, Description and Keyword image tags but not alt
tags?" Unfortunately, there is no way to add an alt tag and title tag specifically to an image display page. However, as you have pointed out here, we use other elements that essentially accomplish the same thing. Each image display page does have its own page title and meta description, as you have also noticed. For the title, we use the IPTC Headline field (if there is no headline, then we use IPTC Title, and if there is no title, then we go to file name), and for the meta description, we use both the IPTC caption as well as the keywords - so all of that information is embedded on the image display page with the image itself and search engines can index this content. Alt Text data intends to given contextual information to search engines when they crawl your site, and the IPTC metadata that shows along with your images, does this as well." What is your opinion on that answer?0 -
Ecommerce SEO - Indexed product pages are returning 404's due to product database removal. HELP!
Hi all, I recently took over an e-commerce start-up project from one of my co-workers (who left the job last week). This previous project manager had uploaded ~2000 products without setting up a robot.txt file, and as a result, all of the product pages were indexed by Google (verified via Google Webmaster Tool). The problem came about when he deleted the entire product database from our hosting service, godaddy and performed a fresh install of Prestashop on our hosting plan. All of the created product pages are now gone, and I'm left with ~2000 broken URL's returning 404's. Currently, the site does not have any products uploaded. From my knowledge, I have to either: canonicalize the broken URL's to the new corresponding product pages, or request Google to remove the broken URL's (I believe this is only a temporary solution, for Google honors URL removal request for 90 days) What is the best way to approach this situation? If I setup a canonicalization, would I have to recreate the deleted pages (to match the URL address) and have those pages redirect to the new product pages (canonicalization)? Alex
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | byoung860 -
Page HTML great for humans, but seems to be very bad for bots?
We recently switched platforms and use Joomla for our website. Our product page underwent a huge transformation and it seems to be user friendly for a human, but when you look at one of our product pages in SEOBrowser it seems that we are doing a horrible job optimizing the page and our html almost makes us look spammy. Here is an example or a product page on our site: http://urbanitystudios.com/custom-invitations-and-announcements/shop-by-event/cocktail/beer-mug And, if you take a look in something like SEObrowser, it makes us look not so good. For example, all of our footer and header links show up. Our color picker is a bunch of pngs (over 60 to be exact), our tabs are the same (except for product description and reviews) on every single product page... In thinking about the bots: 1-How do we handle all of the links from footer, header and the same content in the tabs 2-How do we signal to them that all that is important on the page is the description of the product? 3-We installed schema for price and product image, etc but can we take it further? 4-How do we handle the "attribute" section (i.e. our color picker, our text input, etc). Any clarification I need to provide, please let me know.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | UrbanityStudios0