Google Webmaster Warning for Non-mobile Optimized Pages
-
I just received a warning in Webmaster Tools that my site pages are not optimized for mobile devices and the search results for pages will be decreased in mobile searches. Just got it yesterday and I see no drop yet, but anyone else seen this????
The notice states that the site is not optimized for viewport, text size and proper space for clickable elements. All of that is true since we have not yet completed our responsive design conversion.
Any idea if Google will give us a little time to get this resolved, or do my rankings start dropping right away?
Just when you think you are moving forward with Google, they pull the rug out again...
-
I just hope they give us some more time to get things resolved and roll this out slowly so that it is not like a major penalty.
-
Lots of great responses from the Moz community. Thank you. I got pretty concerned about this because we see alot of our organic traffic as coming from mobile. I'm taking this pretty seriously and have already hired a programmer to get the site fully responsive. My deadline for getting it completed is 10-14 days, so I hope that Google gives us some more time to implement changes.
At first I was a bit disheartened, but this is actually pushing me to get changes done that I have been procrastinating on, so maybe it is a good thing.
I just hope that the criteria Google uses for mobile compatibility is fairly loose, so it is obvious what needs to be fixed to be considered mobile friendly.
Best Regards,
-
We got the same warning here at Moz in WMT. While responsive isn't affecting rankings yet, it's coming and Google's letting us know ahead of time. Additionally, if your competitors aren't mobile-optimized, this may be a great way to get a leg up on them.
-
I got the same warning for one off our brand sites, but I don't really monitor the rankings at the moment as these are only really holding sites.
-
The shift is happening. I just did a review in Google Anayltics and noticed in 2010 we had 0.5% traffic from mobile devices today it is over 13%. This trend is likely not going to change. Google is trying to be pro-active here.
-
Hi Lawrence,
I agree with Ryan. As search is shifting more and more towards mobile, Google is starting to let webmasters know if their website is mobile friendly. I have noticed more warnings on some of our old websites and a few on our new. We are just going back to each one and making sure they are mobile friendly. The good news is that there are plenty of tools and resources to get this done pretty fast.
-
Hi Lawrence. You're actually ahead of the curve on this one--think of all the sites that aren't even setup with Google Webmaster Tools accounts--so you'll have some time before seeing a harsh change in the rankings. That said, MANY people are seeing this warning, and it is a stated position from Google that they want site owners to use more mobile friendly layouts. It sounds like you have the redesign in the works, so a little extra motivation to get it done soon... Cheers!
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
-
Solved Should I consolidate my "www" and "non-www" pages?
My page rank for www and non-www is the same. In one keyword instance, my www version performs SO much better. Wanting to consolidate to one or the other. My question is as to whether all these issues would ultimately resolve to my chosen consolidated domain (i.e. www or non-www) regardless of which one I choose. OR, would it be smart to choose the one where I am already ranking high for this significant keyword phrase? Thank you in advance for your help.
Technical SEO | | meditationbunny0 -
Tough SEO problem, Google not caching page correctly
My web site is http://www.mercimamanboutique.com/ Cached version of French version is, cache:www.mercimamanboutique.com/fr-fr/ showing incorrectly The German version: cache:www.mercimamanboutique.com/de-de/ is showing correctly. I have resubmitted site links, and asked Google re-index the web site many times. The German version always gets cached properly, but the French version never does. This is frustrating me, any idea why? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | ss20160 -
Duplicate Page Content for www and non-www. Help!
Hi guys, having a bit of a tough time here... MOZ is reporting duplicate content for 21 pages on eagleplumbing.co.nz, however the reported duplicate is the www version of the page. For example: http://eagleplumbing.co.nz and http://www.eagleplumbing.co.nz are considered duplicates (see screenshot attached) Currently in search console I have just updated the non-www version to be set as the preferred version (I changed this back and forth twice today because I am confused!!!). Does anyone know what the correct course of action should be in this case? Things I have considered doing include: changing the preferred version to the www version in webmaster tools, setting up 301 redirects using a wordpress plugin called Eggplant 301 redirects. I have been doing some really awesome content creation and have created some good quality citations, so I think this is only thing that is eaffecting my rank. Any help would be greatly appreciated. view?usp=sharing
Technical SEO | | QRate0 -
How to know how much pages are indexed on Google?
I have a big site, there are a way to know what page are not indexed? I know that you can use site: but with a big site is a mess to check page by page. This is a tool or a system to check a entire site and automatically find non-indexed pages?
Technical SEO | | markovald0 -
Why are my 301 redirects and duplicate pages (with canonicals) still showing up as duplicates in Webmaster Tools?
My guess is that in time Google will realize that my duplicate content is not actually duplicate content, but in the meantime I'd like to get your guys feedback. The reporting in Webmaster Tools looks something like this. Duplicates /url1.html /url2.html /url3.html /category/product/url.html /category2/product/url.html url3.html is the true canonical page in the list above._ url1.html,_ and url2.html are old URLs that 301 to url3.html. So, it seems my bases are covered there. _/category/product/url.html _and _/category2/product/url.html _ do not redirect. They are the same page as url3.html. Each of the category URLs has a canonical URL of url3.html in the header. So, it seems my bases are covered there as well. Can I expect Google to pick up on this? Why wouldn't it understand this already?
Technical SEO | | bearpaw0 -
Google sees 2 home pages while I only have 1
How to solve the problem of google seeing both domain.com and domain.com/index.htm when I only have one file? Will the cannonical work? If so which? Or any other solutions for a novice? I learned from previous blogs that it needs to be done by hosting service, but Yahoo has no solution.
Technical SEO | | Kurtyj0 -
Websites not being included on google from mobiles?
Hi, Just had a call from a guy saying that google have made a statement saying that it will be stopping people finding websites from mobule devices if they dont have a mobile domain name. Doesn anyone know anything about any Google statements or is this just rubbish?
Technical SEO | | Ant710 -
How can I tell Google, that a page has not changed?
Hello, we have a website with many thousands of pages. Some of them change frequently, some never. Our problem is, that googlebot is generating way too much traffic. Half of our page views are generated by googlebot. We would like to tell googlebot, to stop crawling pages that never change. This one for instance: http://www.prinz.de/party/partybilder/bilder-party-pics,412598,9545978-1,VnPartypics.html As you can see, there is almost no content on the page and the picture will never change.So I am wondering, if it makes sense to tell google that there is no need to come back. The following header fields might be relevant. Currently our webserver answers with the following headers: Cache-Control: no-cache, must-revalidate, post-check=0, pre-check=0, public
Technical SEO | | bimp
Pragma: no-cache
Expires: Thu, 19 Nov 1981 08:52:00 GMT Does Google honor these fields? Should we remove no-cache, must-revalidate, pragma: no-cache and set expires e.g. to 30 days in the future? I also read, that a webpage that has not changed, should answer with 304 instead of 200. Does it make sense to implement that? Unfortunatly that would be quite hard for us. Maybe Google would also spend more time then on pages that actually changed, instead of wasting it on unchanged pages. Do you have any other suggestions, how we can reduce the traffic of google bot on unrelevant pages? Thanks for your help Cord0