Lots of city pages - How do I ensure we don't get penalized
-
We are planning on having a job posting page for each city that we are looking to hire new CFO partners in. But, the problem is, we have LOTS of locations. I was wondering what would be the best way to have similar content on each page (since the job description and requirements are the same for each job posting) without being hit by Google for having duplicate content? One of the main reasons we have decided to have location based pages is that we have noticed visitors to our site are searching for "cfo job in [location] but we notice that most of these visitors then leave. We believe it to be because the pages they land on make no mention of the location that they were looking for and is a little incongruent with what they were expecting.
We are looking to use the following URLs and TItle/Description as an example:
|
http://careers.b2bcfo.com/cfo-jobs/Alabama/Birmingham
| CFO Careers in Birmingham, AL |
| Are you looking for a CFO Career in Birmingham, Alabama ? We're looking for partners there. Apply today! |
|
Any advice you have for this would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you.
-
We would have the job description on each page mentioning the locations, then we would also have the job capture form.
You are right in that these descriptions do have unique data on them. I am thinking we are just going to have to take the time to write as much unique content as possible.
Thanks for the feedback.
-
Hey, the last sentence was based around other ways to bring in this inbound traffic but scratch that for now.
So, have you examined how these other, well ranking sites are doing what they do? Are they living off the fact they are big domains? Is the content on these pages unique as I just Googled:
CFO Careers in Birmingham, AL
And it appears they are job listings specific to that location so I am guessing that content is fairly unique and the listings is the content.
These pages that you would create, what content would they have on them? Would they all be different?
My initial understanding was that this would just be a data capture form but if we actually have unique job listings like on indeed.com, simplyhired, jobs2careers etc then these pages should be unique enough to rank.
Or am I missing something? (it is late in the day here 7pm, hitting my 12th hour of work so the old synapses may be failing me somewhat).
-
Marcus,
I am not sure I understand the last line of your post. But I have looked at the Keyword difficulty tool and these are fairly competitive phrases.
The problem we have is that we are competing against the likes of Indeed.com, Monster.com and sites such as that. While we do use these sites, they don't quite provide the flexibility we are looking for.
We used to rank quite highly for these types of phrases, but I have noticed a recent trend in Google for them to rank the job search sites ahead of us. The hope is that if we provide similar content, then Google would start pushing us up the rankings again.
-
A lot of this depends on the competitiveness of the search query and would need some testing to better determine your approach.
You can use the keyword difficulty tool here but also just google the terms and see what comes up. If the results are weak, you could try this as a stage 1 approach and see how you get on.
Maybe there is another way to think about it, what about the job listings themselves or does it not work that way?
-
I think these need to be indexed as it is through organic search that people have been getting to our site using terms such as "cfo jobs in [location]"
I have been thinking about adding new content for each city, but you are right, that is a LOT of work. I wonder if it might be worth having one page with unique, location based content for the main city in an area and just have a list of nearby cities on the page that we are also hiring in.
-
Hey Danny
A few suggestions:
1. Make each location page unique enough that you can safely have it on the site without worrying about duplication (lots of work).
2. If people are only searching or browsing to these pages internally then don't index them (robots.txt / meta noindex)
3. You could do this dynamically and use a canonical to your main enquiry page on these pages.
4. You could just create all the variations and add a canonical to your main enquiry page and they may, if it is not mega competitive rank (bit risky but easy to fix if it causes issues).
I would always try to look at this from the perspective of your users and if you don't really care about having these as organic search landing pages then simply noindexing them would seem an ideal solution.
Hope that helps!
Marcus
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
-
Why isn't our complete meta title showing up in the Google SERPS? (cut off half way)
We carry a product line, cutless bearings (for use on boats). For instance, we have one, called the Able, that has the following meta title (and searched by View Page Source to confirm): BOOT 1-3/8" x 2-3/8" x 5-1/2" Johnson Cutless Bearing | BOOT Cutlass However, if I search for it on on Google by part number or name (boot cutless bearing, boot cutlass bearing), the meta title comes back with whole first part chopped off, only showing this : "x 5-1/2" Johnson Cutless Bearing | BOOT Cutlass - Citimarine ..." Any idea why? Here's the url if it will hopefully help: https://citimarinestore.com/en/metallic-inches/156-boot-johnson-cutless-bearing-870352103.html All the products in the category are doing the same. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Citimarine0 -
Incorrect Spelling Indexed In Meta Info - Can't Change It
Hi,It would be great if a member of the community could help me to resolve this issue.Google is indexing an incorrect spelling on of our key pages and we can't identify the reason why.- The page in question: https://newbridgesilverware.com/jewelleryAs you can see from the attached image, the Meta Title is rendered to contain the keyword "jewelry" (the American spelling.) We want this to read as "jewellery" - the British-English spelling. Yet in the page source the word is given in the meta title as "jewellery". Nowhere in the page source or on the page itself does the American spelling appear - yet Google still renders it in the Meta Title.Can anyone identify why this is happening and offer any possible solutions?Much appreciatedDhqJp
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Johnny_AppleSeed1 -
Location Pages On Website vs Landing pages
We have been having a terrible time in the local search results for 20 + locations. I have Places set up and all, but we decided to create location pages on our sites for each location - brief description and content optimized for our main service. The path would be something like .com/location/example. One option that has came up in question is to create landing pages / "mini websites" that would probably be location-example.url.com. I believe that the latter option, mini sites for each location, would be a bad idea as those kinds of tactics were once spammy in the past. What are are your thoughts and and resources so I can convince my team on the best practice.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KJ-Rodgers0 -
Penguin 3.0 - Very minor drops across the board. Don't think its a penalty, any ideas?
Hey All, I just can't figure this out. My site has been ranking well for years, i've never done anything suspicious with it and since the penguin update, my rankings have dropped across the board but only by about 4 - 8 places each, some terms have went up from nowhere to page 8 etc. I don't think i've been hit with a penalty, so I don't know what the problem is or how to recover from it. Does anybody have any ideas on what could be wrong? Update: Perhaps some sites that were linking to mine have been hit with a penalty? Update 2: I just found myself somehow in some spammy link network for 600 sites that looked identical, I don't know how or why my website is in this! I have disavowed all of these links 5 days ago, no change to rankings. pY80Dzi
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul_Tovey0 -
How do I create a strategy to get rid of dupe content pages but still keep the SEO juice?
We have about 30,000 pages that are variations of "<product-type>prices/<type-of-thing>/<city><state "<="" p=""></state></city></type-of-thing></product-type> These pages are bringing us lots of free conversions because when somebody searches for this exact phrase for their city/state, they are pretty low-funnel. The problem that we are running into is that the pages are showing up as dupe content. One solution we were discussing is to 301-redirect or canonical all the city-state pages back to jus tthe "<type of="" thing="">" level, and then create really solid unique content for the few hundred pages we would have at that point.</type> My concern is this. I still want to rank for the city-state because as I look through our best-converting search-terms, they nearly always have the city-state in the search term, so the search is some variation of " <product-type><type of="" thing=""><city><state>"</state></city></type></product-type> One thing we thought about doing is dynamically changing the meta-data & headers to add the city-state info there. Are there other potential solutions to this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | editabletext0 -
Can your site be penalized for changing the url structure and if so how long till you get back?
I'm doing well on yahoo and bing and the only reason I can think of for why I'm not showing on Google is because I changed the url structure a couple of months ago. I have solid on and off page done for this site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | deciph220 -
Will this get penalized by google?
I had a thought recently, and perhaps it is a pretty bad thought, but i don't see the flaw in it, or how google would really detect it, so please correct me where I am wrong here. Say we ran some sort of marketing campeign and through that campeign we created about 100 extra pages on our domain. A lot of these pages are heavily shared on facebook, twitter, google+ etc. These pages also have several backlinks here and there. Now this campaign is over and so these pages no longer seem relevant to us. If we were to add 301 redirects to all these pages, to three different (and unrelated) internal pages (our primary targets) would this pass all the accumulated link juice on to those three target internal pages? Or would this behaviour get penalized by google?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | adriandg0 -
Is 404'ing a page enough to remove it from Google's index?
We set some pages to 404 status about 7 months ago, but they are still showing in Google's index (as 404's). Is there anything else I need to do to remove these?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0