Switching from ranked PDF to normal page ...
-
Hi folks,
I have a project which is ranking well for specific product-keywords. The problem is, that the ranking pages are PDF files of those products (datasheets). But i do have a normal (html) pages for each product as well. Each of these pages has grade a for the specific keyword and is well crawled, etc. How can I urge Google to "switch" from these PDF files to the specific html pages. I was trying this by testing it robots.txt to disallow to index the PDF file (I tested it with one for first). I would add rel=nofollow to the link to the PDF on the specifi product html page (?) ...
Any ideas?
Seb
-
Thank you Samuel,
thats what I am afraid of from the beginning. The quality of the HTML Page need to be increased. My initial question should be mentione as a second "not so nice way"
Increasing the page quality to run out the PDFs is one of the top things on relaunching the site.
Thanks again
Seb.
-
The PDF rel=canonical question: This Moz post gives advanced directions on HTTP headers (for using rel=canonical in non-HTML files) and cited this and this information from Google.
However, I would add one other issue now that I understand more about your situation. Your PDF files are ranking over the HTML landing pages likely because the PDF "pages" contain more information and are probably better "quality." It's a real possibility that the HTML pages will not rank as highly as the PDF pages currently do even after doing all of this.
Landing pages rarely rank high in organic search results because they are thin -- such pages are usually used to convert advertising and paid traffic. Good, informational pages are what rank highly in organic search. So, if you want HTML pages to rank like the PDF files, I'd make those HTML pages as "quality" as the PDF ones. I hope that makes sense!
-
Hi Samuel,
thanx for your respond
No, its not a doubble content Problem. I just prepared landing pages for these specific product keywords - but Google finds the PDFs somehow more appropiate o.O. Yes I want the HTML pages to appear. I am wondering that Google indicates the PDF files as a very well optimized resources ...
I´ve done step 2 by using the robots.txt.
Step 3 would mean that peoples couldnt download the PDF file then - so I would not 301 redirect it.
Quick question to step 1: Do you know any way how to add a rel=canonical tag to a PDF file? Im am not that familiar with creating PDF files.
Thanx.
Seb
-
The first thing to understand is that you have a duplicate content issue. If you have a PDF and HTML page of the same content, then Google will likely show only one of them in search results -- as you are probably seeing. Therefore, you need to decide which set of pages you want to appear in the SERPs. I presume that you want the HTML pages to appear.
So, I would do all of the following:
1. Add a rel=canonical tag on each PDF page that points to the corresponding HTML page so that Google knows that the HTML page is the "main" one for indexing purposes
2. Add a "no-index" tag to each PDF page (or, you can list each PDF page in your robots.txt file) so that Google knows to remove the PDF pages from the index
3. If the PDF pages serve no purpose at all (to humans or to search engines), then you may just want to 301 redirect each PDF page to the corresponding HTML one. If you want to keep the PDF pages themselves visible on your website for any reason, this can be ignored.
Good luck! Let me know if you have any questions.
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
-
Ranking Differences for Google+ Local vs. Places Listings
I'm seeing some odd behavior with Google+ Local and Google Places listings for clients. I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing it... Here's the situation: We've recently bought on 4 new clients that all have duplicate listing issues, and, weirdly, all have both places and a Google+ local created listings. For three of those four, the Google+ local listing is outranking the Places account for a brand name search (e.g. Dr. John Doe). Weirdly, in one instance, the Google+ local account that is outranking the Places page is named in a less accurate fashion. e.g searching for "Dr. John Doe" the rankings look like this... A) John Doe Plastic Surgery, P.C. - Dr. John Doe B) Dr. John Doe, MD Anyone else seeing this sort of behavior? How are you creating local listings for clients these days - via the places dashboard, or Google+ Local?
Image & Video Optimization | | BedeFahey0 -
Google+ Places Page Showing Wrong Information
Hi There, I have a client who's runs three nuseries (pre schools) A, B and C and has three differen googe+ pages all with different addresses so no problem there. However I noticed that if I clicked on on of them in the Google places account settings listing A would show the details of listing B and not it's own. Thinking this was a glitch I deleted listing A and was about to set up another one. I entered the phone number and it brought up the details to the listing B as sharing the same phone number. Is this is what's causing the issue? Can businesses share the same phone number in the same locality and have two different listings, despite having two different addresses? Kind Regards Neil
Image & Video Optimization | | jmaycock0 -
Page Extension for SEO Post Penguin
I am setting up pages for an SEO campaign. This campaign will focus suburb/area focused keywords to the home page and an inner page talking about the local area. My keyword I am targeting is "flower delivery brisbane" The keywords pointing back to both pages will be made up of brand and variances of the keywords so that is ok What I would like to know, am I know over optimizing the inner page extension "flowers delivery brisbane" as it is an exact match of the main keyword to rank since google penguin. I did this prior to google penguin and it worked well. the site address is
Image & Video Optimization | | VivaArturo
simpleflowers.com.au inner page is:
simpleflowers.com.au/flowers-delivery-brisbane Would love to hear your thoughts0 -
Local Ranking Factors Question
Local SERPS continue to confuse me. I feel like I can tell what's going on but I'm never right. How do these two listings rank for "best bar" in the local Chicago SERPS? It's the same if you search for "best bar in chicago". http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&biw=2109&bih=1218&noj=1&gs_upl=3495l4209l0l4335l8l5l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=best+bar&fb=1&gl=us&hq=best+bar&hnear=0x880e2c3cd0f4cbed:0xafe0a6ad09c0c000,Chicago,+IL&cid=17128325649974296516 or http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&biw=2109&bih=1218&noj=1&gs_upl=3495l4209l0l4335l8l5l0l0l0l0l0l0ll0l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=best+bar&fb=1&gl=us&hq=best+bar&hnear=0x880e2c3cd0f4cbed:0xafe0a6ad09c0c000,Chicago,+IL&cid=455944883716881589&ei=aQPqTo7mN4mIgwe4oc3fCA&sa=X&oi=local_result&ct=placepage-link&resnum=5&ved=0CFgQ4gkwBA This has had me stumped for months. I've analyzed everything and there aren't any good indicators as to how this was done. The former doesn't even have a website. The latter example has some category keyword stuffing, which I don't get why they're account hasn't been suspended because of it. It also has a very small and not very powerful link profile. Any insights would be much appreciated!
Image & Video Optimization | | MichaelWeisbaum0 -
Will Google Places put ranking weight on google reviews instead of 3rd party now?
WIth the visual update to Google Places over the past 2 days do you think that Google reviews will become a higher ranking factor as compared to 3rd party reviews. The research I have done shows that 3rd party reviews seem to correlate better with higher rankings..Any thoughts on what might be coming down the road?
Image & Video Optimization | | NiftyMarketing0 -
Do search enginges prefer pages with mobile websites on the mobile phone?
Let me explain what I want to know: Somebody searches e.g. for a hotel on his mobile phone. Do the search engines rank websites with special mobile pages better than others? I am not considering the local factor here (let's say there are hotels nearby with or without mobile websites). If not, is there a trend for that? Does anyone have some datas / examples / experience about that?
Image & Video Optimization | | petrakraft1