Will it upset Google if I aggregate product page reviews up into a product category page?
-
We have reviews on our product pages and we are considering averaging those reviews out and putting them on specific category pages in order for the average product ratings to be displayed in search results. Each averaged category review would be only for the products within it's category, and all reviews are from users of the site, no 3rd party reviews.
For example, averaging the reviews from all of our boxes products pages, and listing that average review on the boxes category page.
My question is, will this be doing anything wrong in the eyes of Google, and if so how so?
-Derick
-
Sorry to say that but you're kinda gaming the aggregated reviews schema.
Google states that for aggregating reviews, you're good as far as you're referring to a specific product, but you can't use schema markup to refer to a category.
I mean you can but Google won't simply be showing your markup as that's not the way aggregatedratings are supposed to work, no one will get angry but you'll be getting no rewards for your work.
Detailed info about review snippets here: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/reviews#review-snippet-guidelines
As an alternative you may want to consider other options like aggregate price.
-
Hi
I dont think that you're doing any wrongdoing here unless you're just showing average stars of reviews. However, even if you have plan to show all reviews on the categroy page just make sure to implement canonical tag.
here is complete guide for canonical tags :https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
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
-
Google ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Any idea how Google is doing this? Is it schematic? http://techcrunch.com/2014/02/28/google-adds-full-restaurant-menus-to-its-search-results-pages/
Google is now showing menus on select searches. Any idea how they are getting this information? I would like to make sure my clients get visibility this way.
On-Page Optimization | | Ron_McCabe0 -
Will google put logo's in as author snippets?
Are they smart enough to tell it is not a mug shot and then not show it? Has anyone ever seen a logo as a snippet? What are some of the factors to with whether they show them or not?
On-Page Optimization | | Adsau0 -
Is reported duplication on the pages or their canonical pages?
There are several sections getting flagged for duplication on one of our sites: http://mysite.com/section-1/?something=X&confirmed=true
On-Page Optimization | | Safelincs
http://mysite.com/section-2/?something=X&confirmed=true
http://mysite.com/section-3/?something=X&confirmed=true Each of the above are showing as having duplicates of the other sections. Indeed, these pages are exactly the same (it's just an SMS confirmation page you enter your code in), however, they all have canonical links back to the section (without the query string), i.e. section-1, section-2 and section-3 respectively. These three sections have unique content and aren't flagged up for duplications themselves, so my questions are: Are the pages with the query strings the duplicates, and if so why are the canonical links being ignored? or Are the canonical pages without the query strings the duplicates, and if so why don't they appear as URLs in their own right in the duplicate content report? I am guessing it's the former, but I can't figure out why it would ignore the canonical links. Any ideas? Thanks0 -
Jquery in top of page vs text on bottom page
Is it the best way to use jquery sliders on the top of your page to still get all your text above the fold and score in search engines? for example: http://www.wolf-howl.com/wp-conte... is much better to score high ranks in search engines than http://www.wolf-howl.com/wp-conte... ?? Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | HMK-NL0 -
Wrong sitelinks & landing pages in Google
I've recently launched a well-optimized website with good-content category landing pages and then I've added a blog to the website (as supporting content to the landing pages, the only links pointing to the blog are from the category landing pages) What happened is that Google is now using the Blog pages as the site - sitelinks and also as the landing pages for most keywords I only have inbound links to the reg. landing pages and none to the blog, how do I get Google to change that? I know I can demote sitelink URL's in webmaster tools, but would that help me with getting the right sitelinks, it sure wont help much with the landing pages Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | Plorex
-J0 -
Are blank Product Review pages bad for SEO?
Hi there, I'm running a new e-commerce site (BoatOutfitters.com) and have a question about our product review pages. On our current campaign, we have a lot of duplicate page content errors. When we export the data, it's almost all blank product review pages (since we are new, we don't have that many product reviews yet). Our product reviews aren't run through javascript, so we originally did not add them to a robots.txt file - however, I'm now wondering if it's worse to have all of these duplicate blank pages, or is it not affecting our SEO at all? Should we just wait until these products have reviews which will benefit our SEO and then they won't be considered "duplicate pages" - right? Sorry if this has been answered before - new here at SEO Moz and just looking for some help. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | BoatOutfitters0 -
Google Place Pages - Definitive Guide?
Hi good folk of SEOmoz, I've recently updated a number of place pages for my client who is an estate agent. I have to admit that they were a little keyword stuffed, but at the time my competitor; who ranks first, was filled with keywords. For example in their title it states "[company name] estate agent [location]" I thought that this was a big no-no and it should not be done? They also have keywords stuffed into categories and description. Im confused on how they are getting away with this? I have searched on the Google place page support forum and can not find a definitive guide on the exact rules. Could anybody be so kind to help me out? i.e Where to put keywords and locations in the title and categories Thankyou.
On-Page Optimization | | Lakeside0