Better to publish regular new pricelist articles or update the existing ones ?
-
Hello Moooooooooooooz !
I could not sleep yesterday because of a SEO nightmare ! So I came up with the following question:
"Is it better to release regular new articles or update the existing ones" I explain more.
Our company release regular pricelists (every month new pricelists available for a month, with the same brands. ex: January pricelist for brand A, etc.)
Right now those pricelists are ranking good on google.
So I wondered: Would it better to do:
- Make the pricelist articles stronger: Our company - Brand A pricelist (title) blog/offer/brand-A-pricelist.html (url) -> every month I update the text. So I just have one article /link to work on
- **Make more content on the pricelist: **Our company - Brand A pricelist - January 2014 (title) blog/offer/brand-A-pricelist-january.html (url) -> So google keeps indexing new fresh content
- **Work on a extra category: **Our company - Brand A pricelist - January 2014 (title) blog/offer/brand-A/pricelist-january.html (url) -> So I work on one link over the web blog/offer/brand-A where Google finds lots of new relevant contents
I know that Matt Cutts said it's good to udpate an old article but in this case it's a bit different. Has anyone experiment the same ?
Tks a lot !
-
Tks for your help ! I'll try different option to see what's the best !
-
More is not always better. If the "more" information they are able to index involves outdated price lists from months or years ago it would likely do more harm than good.
-
But in this case we'll get less information indexed into google.
In our case we release pricelist with Part Number + description + Price
This is why I'm a bit lost
-
Hello fupfac,
I would go with one evergreen piece of content in this case in order to consolidate ranking signals, develop more trust over time, allow visitors to use their bookmark of the page for more than a month, not have to update existing links, etc...
I would also 301 redirect the old price lists to the new, evergreen one.
-
Hello !
Tks I'm actually kind of using the 1) but think the 2) will be smarter. Not so easy to decide ... I do think the 2) will be the best but in this case I'll have to always update the creation date.
I'm using a joomla blog to display it actually.
-
Customer experience is a big factor here. Will it create customer service problems if you get buyers working from outdated price lists. A number of outdated price lists indexed could well cause confusion.
Options:
-
Clearly indicate the validity of the price list and give users a link from every old price list to a single location for the newest price list. This should aggregate link juice to your latest price list.
-
Going forwards, I would just publish it in one place. That means one single page to optimise and update, as well as aggregate link juice. People won't link to your price lists if they're always going out of date. If it's in a single place, more people are likely to link in to them.
Just my approach. Without knowing the actual brand, rankings, keywords etc. it's difficult to be more precise at this stage. And I'm sure other SEOs make take a different point of view as well.
Just my point of view
-
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
-
Creating two websites from one and building up traffic to the new domain quickly
A client has an existing successful website that sells niche products - they are well known in their marketplace. They have two sets of key customers, let's call them (a) and (b), that need addressing in different ways to maximise sales. (a) is the more specialist end of the market, where people have complex needs - there are fewer of them but repeat business is likely, and we can talk to them in more technical language. (b) is the layman's end of the market - there is a vast pool of potential customers but they'll be more casual buyers and need to be addressed more in layman's terms. So what they want to do is to take their existing website, and essentially split it into two different websites, one for each market. The one that will use the existing domain, with all the links that have built up over the years pointing to it, will be the site for the more specialist end of the market (a). The domain name suits it better, which is why he wants to use the existing domain with that site and not the other. (b) will be a brand new domain. The client will write new product descriptions across the board so that the two sets of product information are not duplicate. I'd rather he didn't do this at all, because of the risk involved, and the difficulty of building up the traffic to the new site, which is after all the one with the best chance of mass market sales. But given that the client has decided that this is definitely what he wants, does anyone have any thoughts on what the action plan should be?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | helga730 -
New page not topping on results
Hi, We have created a new page on our website for same keyword in slug but the page is not showing up for same keyword even combined with website name: website.com/keyword is new page and not listing on top of results for exact search query "website keyword". This page is listing as 3rd result and other pages are making on top even they don't match with page title, h1 tags and URL. This new page is indexed. How long it'll take to Google to adopt this? I don't think it'll remain same forever. Is there anything we can do from our end?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vtmoz0 -
New Alternate View Redirection
Hi, We are merging two sites, differentiated by the type of customer (consumer or corporate). Currently we have:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoeuroflorist
www.consumersite.com/product/
www.corporatesite.com/product/ When on the new site, the type of customer can be switched by clicking 'Corporate' or 'Customer' which adds ?user=Business or ?user=Private to the url which then redirects so the URL is the same but certain features have changed. We block ?user=Business and ?user=Private in URLs in robots.txt to prevent duplicating pages. Should we redirect like: www.corporatesite.com/product/ -> www.consumersite.com/product/ Or: www.corporatesite.com/product/ -> www.consumersite.com/product?user=Business (this will then redirect but the parameter is blocked by robots.) I'm concerned redirecting to a URL that is blocked from indexing is an obvious error. Any ideas are welcome. Thanks!0 -
Multiple Instances of the Same Article
Hi, I'm having a problem I cannot solve about duplicate article postings. As you will see from the attached images, I have a page with multiple variants of the same URL in google index and as well as duplicate title tag in the search console of webmasters tools. Its been several months I have been using canonical meta tags to resolve the issue, aka declare all variants to point to a single URL, however the problem remains. Its not just old articles that stay like that, even new articles show the same behaviour right when they are published even thought they are presented correctly with canonical links and sitemap as you will see from the example bellow. Example URLs of the attached Image All URLs belonging to the same article ID, have the same canonical link inside the html head. Also because I have a separate mobile site, I also include in every desktop URL an "alternate" link to the mobile site. At the Mobile Version of the Site, I have another canonical link, pointing back to the original Desktop URL. So the mobile site article version also has Now, when it comes to the xml sitemap, I pass only the canonical URL and none of the other possible variants (to avoid multiple indexing), and I also point to the mobile version of the article.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ioannisa
<url><loc>http://www.neakriti.gr/?page=newsdetail&DocID=1300357</loc>
<xhtml:link rel="alternate" media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)" href="http://mobile.neakriti.gr/fullarticle.php?docid=1300357"><lastmod>2016-02-20T21:44:05Z</lastmod>
<priority>0.6</priority>
<changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
image:imageimage:lochttp://www.neakriti.gr/NewsASSET/neakriti-news-image.aspx?Doc=1300297</image:loc>
image:titleΟΦΗ</image:title></image:image></xhtml:link></url> The above Sitemap snippet Source: http://www.neakriti.gr/WebServices/sitemap.aspx?&year=2016&month=2
The main sitemap of the website: http://www.neakriti.gr/WebServices/sitemap-index.aspx Despite my efforts you see that webmasters tools reports three variants for the desktop URL, and google search reports 4 URLs (3 different desktop variant urls and the mobile url). I get this when I type the article code to see if what is indexed in google search: site:neakriti.gr 1300297 So far I believe I have done all I could in order to resolve the issue by addressing canonical links and alternate links, as well as correct sitemap.xml entry. I don't know what else to do... This was done several months ago and there is absolutelly no improvement. Here is a more recent example of an article added 5 days ago (10-April-2016), just type
site:neakriti.gr 1300357
at google search and you will see the variants of the same article in google cache. Open the google cached page, and you will see the cached pages contain canonical link, but google doesn't obey the direction given there. Please help! duplicate-articles.jpg duplicate-articles-in-index.jpg0 -
Did I get hit with a panda update?
I have a site that is a marketplace. We don't own any items, the sellers fill everything out and then it goes up on the site. Many of our sellers also have their own sites and just send us a spreadsheet with all of their items and we bulk upload. In that case what we are putting up is very similar to what they already have up on their own site. I used the Fruition penalty checker and they seem to be suggesting that we got hit with some penalties for Panda and Quality Content. With the Google Algorithm it is hard to know for sure what we got hit with. Is it possible Google sees us as one of those crappy scraper sites? Is there anything we can do? We never see the items so I can't add to peoples description.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommerceSite0 -
Should I allow a publisher to word-for-word re-publish our article?
A small blog owner has asked if they can word-for-word republish one of our blog articles on their own blog. I'm not sure how to respond. We're don't do any outreach to submit or duplicate our articles throughout the web... so this isn't something being done in mass. And this could be a great signal to Google that somebody else is vouching for the quality of our article, right? However, I'm a bit concerned about word-for-word duplicating. Normally, if somebody is interested in re-publishing, both the re-publisher and our website would get more value out of it if they re-publisher added some form of commentary or extra value to our post when citing it, right? This small blog just started releasing a segment in which they've titled "guest blog Thursday". And given the recent concerns with guest blogging (even though I'm not sure this is the classical sense of guest blogging), I'm even more concerned. Any ideas on how I should respond?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dsbud0 -
Published Articles + Spam Links
Can you be a victim of your own success? So your write a quality article on your website. You educate your audience and hope quality trusted authority sites will link back to your article. Great, all those plus points adding to your SEO.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mark_Ch
On the down side you get poor quality sites with no real SEO value linking to your article. My Question Is This: What impact will poor quality sites have on your SEO?
What impact will changing the Anchor Text to something unrelated to the article content have on SEO?
Are there any other considerations?
Thanks Mark0 -
New, Used, Refurbished Ecommerce Products
I'm in a situation where I am trying to improve an ecommerce site that sells about 10-15 products, and a few variations of each. My main headache is coming from the fact that we sell New, used, and refurbished products that are often overlapping. I'm not really sure if I am categorizing the products/structuring the site the best possible way. Here is an example that shows the current structure of the site: New Fruits
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | heroiceric
--> Bananas
----> Banana Model 1
----> Banana Model 2
--> Apples
----> Apple Model 1
----> Apple Model 2
--> Oranges
----> Orange Model 1
----> Orange Model 2 Refurbished Fruits --> Bananas
----> Refurbished Banana
--> Apples
----> Refurbished Apple
--> Oranges
----> Refurbished Orange The business, however, specializes in the refurbished models because they make significantly more money for each one that is sold. Because of this, it's way more important to get the refurbished models ranking up for the terms. I've been struggling to get good results from my SEO efforts and I think that this strange site structure could be holding me back. Would it make sense for me to use canonical on the "New Fruits" pages, pointing toward the "Refurbished Fruits" pages? Should I be trying to build links to the category pages or the actual product pages. IE: To "Refurbished Fruits --> Bananas" rather than "Refurbished Fruits --> Bananas --> Refurbished Banana?"0