Infinite Scrolling on Publisher Sites - is VentureBeat's implementation really SEO-friendly?
-
I've just begun a new project auditing the site of a news publisher. In order to increase pageviews and thus increase advertising revenue, at some point in the past they implemented something so that as many as 5 different articles load per article page. All articles are loaded at the same time and from looking in Google's cache and the errors flagged up in Search Console, Google treats it as one big mass of content, not separate pages. Another thing to note is that when a user scrolls down, the URL does in fact change when you get to the next article.
My initial thought was to remove this functionality and just load one article per page. However I happened to notice that VentureBeat.com uses something similar.
They use infinite scrolling so that the other articles on the page (in a 'feed' style) only load when a user scrolls to the bottom of the first article. I checked Google's cached versions of the pages and it seems that Google also only reads the first article which seems like an ideal solution. This obviously has the benefit of additionally speeding up loading time of the page too.
My question is, is VentureBeat's implementation actually that SEO-friendly or not.
VentureBeat have 'sort of' followed Google's guidelines with regards to how to implement infinite scrolling https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/02/infinite-scroll-search-friendly.html by using prev and next tags for pagination https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en. However isn't the point of pagination to list multiple pages in a series (i.e. page 2, page 3, page 4 etc.) rather than just other related articles?
Here's an example - http://venturebeat.com/2016/11/11/facebooks-cto-explains-social-networks-10-year-mission-global-connectivity-ai-vr/
Would be interesting to know if someone has dealt with this first-hand or just has an opinion.
Thanks in advance!
Daniel
-
Totally agreed, Daniel! I'd also say it's our job to set expectations and be clear about when something is a test vs when something will more than likely work. Consulting is all about setting expectations!
-
Thanks a lot for your thoughts on this John. Really appreciate you taking the time to look into it.
You make a great point about not always copying competitors without testing first. If it's rolled out on such a wide scale, it's always going to be a hard case to put to the client knowing that they're going to lose out in the short-term when it comes to advertising revenue but regardless, I think it's our job as SEOs to first and foremost propose the most SEO-friendly implementation possible.
-
This is actually a really interesting question. I looked at their category pages (eg http://venturebeat.com/tag/ar-vr-weekly/) and those seem to be set up correctly to handle infinite scroll as it sends the search engines to the next page.
I've not come across this with infinite scroll on articles, though. I'm sure they've tested it extensively to figure out the best way to send search engines to future articles, but who really knows if it's being effective. If it's still there, I'd assume that they've seen positive signs but it is definitely a non-standard implementation of rel-next/prev!
This does bring up a good point about copying/not copying a competitor's strategy. They have this implemented, but would it work for your own site/business? Maybe, but maybe not. We can't be sure until we test it ourselves (or speak with someone at VentureBeat who wants to share their learnings :-)). If you know when it was rolled out you could benchmark there and look at SEMrush or another tool to see their organic visibility and from there draw at least some correlation, if not causation.
Thanks for flagging this up! It's cool to see.
-
IT depends on application and other design aspects.
I have seen websites that implement the same thing and like morons keep a never accessible footer there as well... you have no idea how impossible it was to get to the social bar/links at the bottom.
You have to think of the user experience to be honest, while there may be good technical reasons for such a design, you must in the end consider what the user goes through and wants to get out of. A/B testing these kinds of things would not hurt either.
But honestly only "feeds" should be this way. Facebook feed, twitter feed, news feed and even then applications should be considered with care.
Disclosure: I personally hate this behavior by default... basically the only place I find it acceptable is on facebook and twitter.
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
-
My site in 2 page
my site in 2 page how can i rank with this keywords in dubai legal translation in Dubai
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | saharali150 -
Why my banklinks haven't been removed?
Hi Everyone So I had over 1500 backlinks in under month, and i found out it was coming from a directory. I asked them to delist me from the directory, but it still shows i have these links pointing to me. How do I get completely take them down? Also I contacted myseotools who I use and they said "It is most likely because you have some dynamic pages that can create thousands of various URLs. Maybe a directory? This is not an issue with our software as it comes directly from ahrefs. Try going to ahrefs.com and enter your domain to see where all the links are coming from." I proceeded to do this and its definely coming from that 1 directory. They said they have removed me from they directory, but my question is I can still see I have 1500 backlinks coming from their domain? Does this take time to clear? Or have I missed something in the process?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | edward-may0 -
Controlling crawl speed/delay through dynamic server-code and 503's
Lately i'm experiencing performance trouble caused by bot traffic. Although Googlebot is not the worst (it's mainly bingbot and ahrefsbot), they cause heavy server load from time to time. We run a lot of sites on one server, so heavy traffic on one site impacts other site's performance. Problem is that 1) I want a centrally managed solution for all sites (per site administration takes too much time), which 2) takes into account total server-load in stead of only 1 site's traffic and 3) controls overall bot-traffic in stead of controlling traffic for one bot. IMO user-traffic should always be prioritized higher than bot-traffic. I tried "Crawl-delay:" in robots.txt, but Googlebot doesn't support that. Although my custom CMS system has a solution to centrally manage Robots.txt for all sites at once, it is read by bots per site and per bot, so it doesn't solve 2) and 3). I also tried controlling crawl-speed through Google Webmaster Tools, which works, but again it only controls Googlebot (and not other bots) and is administered per site. No solution to all three of my problems. Now i came up with a custom-coded solution to dynamically serve 503 http status codes to a certain portion of the bot traffic. What traffic-portion for which bots can be dynamically (runtime) calculated from total server load at that certain moment. So if a bot makes too much requests within a certain period (or whatever other coded rule i'll invent), some requests will be answered with a 503 while others will get content and a 200. Remaining question is: Will dynamically serving 503's have a negative impact on SEO? OK, it will delay indexing speed/latency, but slow server-response-times do in fact have a negative impact on the ranking, which is even worse than indexing-latency. I'm curious about your expert's opinions...
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | internetwerkNU1 -
Bad keywords sending traffic my site, but can't find the source. Advice?
Hi! My site seems to be the target of negative SEO (or some ancient black hat work that's just now coming out of the woodwork). We're getting traffic from keywords like "myanmar girls" and "myanmar celebrities" that just started in late June and only directs to our homepage. I can't seem to find the source of the traffic, though (Analytics just shows it as "Google," "Bing," and "Yahoo" even though I can't find our site showing up for these terms in search results). Is there any way to ferret out the source besides combing through every single link that is directing to us in Webmaster Tools? I'm not even sure that GWT has picked up on it since this is fairly new, and I'd really love to nip this in the bud. Thoughts? Thanks in advance!
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | 199580 -
Subtle On-site Factors That Could Cause a Penalty
It looks like we have the same penalties on more than one ecommerce site. What subtle on-site factors can contribute to non-manual penalty, specifically rankings slowly going down for all short tail keywords? And what does it take to pull yourself out of these penalties?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | BobGW0 -
Is one of my competitors trying to get my site penalized?
Hi guys, I have been ranking #2 for a popular search term for several months now, and today I noticed a drop to #5, so I went to check my backlink profile, and I'm seeing thousands of no-follow exact keyword matched backlinks, all from spammy looking websites. I looked at some of the links and they do link to me, but I didn't generate these links, and I have never paid anybody externally to build links for me. What is the best course of action for me here? link disavow tool?
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | davegill0 -
Removing/ Redirecting bad URL's from main domain
Our users create content for which we host on a seperate URL for a web version. Originally this was hosted on our main domain. This was causing problems because Google was seeing all these different types of content on our main domain. The page content was all over the place and (we think) may have harmed our main domain reputation. About a month ago, we added a robots.txt to block those URL's in that particular folder, so that Google doesn't crawl those pages and ignores it in the SERP. We now went a step further and are now redirecting (301 redirect) all those user created URL's to a totally brand new domain (not affiliated with our brand or main domain). This should have been done from the beginning, but it wasn't. Any suggestions on how can we remove all those original URL's and make Google see them as not affiliated with main domain?? or should we just give it the good ol' time recipe for it to fix itself??
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | redcappi0 -
Site architecture change - +30,000 404's in GWT
So recently we decided to change the URL structure of our online e-commerce catalogue - to make it easier to maintain in the future. But since the change, we have (partially expected) +30K 404's in GWT - when we did the change, I was doing 301 redirects from our Apache server logs but it's just escalated. Should I be concerned of "plugging" these 404's, by either removing them via URL removal tool or carry on doing 301 redirections? It's quite labour intensive - no incoming links to most of these URL's, so is there any point? Thanks, Ben
White Hat / Black Hat SEO | | bjs20100