Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Lazy Loading of Blog Posts and Crawl Depths
-
Hi Moz Fans,
We are looking at our blog and improving the content as much as we can for SEO purposes, but we have hit a bit of a blank in terms of lazy loading implications and issues with crawl depths.
We introduced lazy loading onto the blog home page to increase site speed initially and it works well with infinite scroll, but we were wondering whether this would cause any issues regarding SEO.
A lot of the resources online seem to be conflicting and some are very outdated, so some clarification on what is best in terms of lazy loading and crawl depths for blogs, would be fantastic!
I hope someone can help and give us some up to date insights - If you need anymore information, I'll reply ASAP
-
This is fantastic - Thank you!
-
Lazy load and infinite scroll are absolutely not the same thing, as far as search crawlers are concerned.
Lazy-loaded content, if it exists in the dom of the page will be indexed but it's importance will likely be reduced (any content that requires user interaction to see is reduced in ranking value).
But because infinite scroll is unmanageable for the crawler (it's not going to stay on one page and keep crawling for hours as every blog post rolls into view) Google's John Mueller has said the crawler will simply stop at the bottom of the initial page load.
This webinar/discussion on crawl and rendering from just last week included G's John Mueller and a Google engineer and will give you exactly the info you're looking for, right from the horse's mouth, Victoria.
To consider though - the blog's index page shouldn't be the primary source for the blog's content anyway - the individual permalinked post URLs are what should be crawled and ranking for the individual post content. And the xml sitemap should be the primary source for google's discovery of those URLs. Though obviously linking from authoritative pages will help the posts, but that's going to change every time the blog index page updates anyway. Also, did you know that you can submit the blog's RSS feed as a sitemap in addition to the xml sitemap? It's the fastest way I've found of getting new blog posts crawled/indexed.
Hope that helps!
Paul
-
I'm afraid I don't have an insight into how Google crawls with lazy loading.
Which works better for your user, pagination or lazy loading? I wouldn't worry about lazy loading and Google. If you're worried about getting pages indexed then I would make sure you've got a sitemap that works correctly.
-
Great, thank you
Do you have any insight into crawl depth too?
At what point would Google stop crawling the page with lazy loading? Is it best to use pagination as opposed to infinite scroll? -
With lazy loading, the code can actually still be seen in the source code. That's what Google uses, so you should be fine with using this as it's becoming a common practice now.
-
Yes, it's similar to the BBC page and loads when it is needed by the user so to speak.
It increased the site loading, but do you know at what point Google would stop indexing the content on our site?
How do we ensure that the posts are being crawled and is pagination the best way to go?
-
I'd have to say, not too familiar with the method you are using, but I take it the idea is elements of the page load as you scroll like BBC?
If it decreases the load time of the site that is good for both direct and indirect SEO, But the key thing is can Google see the contents of the page or not? - Use Google Search Console and fetch the page to see if it contains the content.
Also, Google will not hang around on your site, if it doesn't serve the content within a reasonable amount of time it will bounce off to the next page, or the next site to crawl. It's harsh, but it's a fact.
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
-
Guest Post - What to reply when blogger ask for $$ to post a content?
Guest Post - What to reply when blogger ask for $$ to post a content? I did not want to pay $$ to post guest post.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | varunrupal0 -
Should I delete 100s of weak posts from my website?
I run this website: http://knowledgeweighsnothing.com/ It was initially built to get traffic from Facebook. The vast majority of the 1300+ posts are shorter curation style posts. Basically I would find excellent sources of information and then do a short post highlighting the information and then link to the original source (and then post to FB and hey presto 1000s of visitors going through my website). Traffic was so amazing from FB at the time, that 'really stupidly' these posts were written with no regard for search engine rankings. When Facebook reach etc dropped right off, I started writing full original content posts to gain more traffic from search engines. I am starting to get more and more traffic now from Google etc, but there's still lots to improve. I am concerned that the shortest/weakest posts on the website are holding things back to some degree. I am considering going through the website and deleting the very weakest older posts based on their quality/backlinks and PA. This will probably run into 100s of posts. Is it detrimental to delete so weak many posts from a website? Any and all advice on how to proceed would be greatly recieved.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | xpers1 -
Google crawling different content--ever ok?
Here are a couple of scenarios I'm encountering where Google will crawl different content than my users on initial visit to the site--and which I think should be ok. Of course, it is normally NOT ok, I'm here to find out if Google is flexible enough to allow these situations: 1. My mobile friendly site has users select a city, and then it displays the location options div which includes an explanation for why they may want to have the program use their gps location. The user must choose the gps, the entire city, or he can enter a zip code, or choose a suburb of the city, which then goes to the link chosen. OTOH it is programmed so that if it is a Google bot it doesn't get just a meaningless 'choose further' page, but rather the crawler sees the page of results for the entire city (as you would expect from the url), So basically the program defaults for the entire city results for google bot, but for for the user it first gives him the initial ability to choose gps. 2. A user comes to mysite.com/gps-loc/city/results The site, seeing the literal words 'gps-loc' in the url goes out and fetches the gps for his location and returns results dependent on his location. If Googlebot comes to that url then there is no way the program will return the same results because the program wouldn't be able to get the same long latitude as that user. So, what do you think? Are these scenarios a concern for getting penalized by Google? Thanks, Ted
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | friendoffood0 -
Is it worth removing date from Blog Posts / Articles
Wondering, is it worth to remove date from articles from seo perspective. Am sure, Google search algorithm would like demote a post written a year back, as against an article on the same post (unless a year old post has very strong Authoritative links) May be it can turn out a bad user experience of removing dates, but if can hide date using Javascripts so as to show it as image to user and hide it from search engines, is it a good idea !!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Modi0 -
Is Using a Question, Answer Format Appropriate for a Blog? Is a 300 Word Micro Blog An SEO Plus?
My PR agency has suggested a question answer format be incorporated in my blog. They suggest a microblog with a single sentence question and an answer of about 300 words. My blog currently has about 35 posts. I would like to ramp up blog entries to about one or two per week of these "mini blog" posts. The format of the new blog begins as a question with the responses being paragraphs that do not use headings. My concerns are as follows: 1. No headings in an answer of 300 words will fail to provide Google with context regarding the content's meaning. Everything I have read about SEO suggests text be broken up in short sections and that it be divided by headings (preferably H2s). I very much like my agency's concept for a question answer format blog. It provides very practical info for visitors. How can I use it in a manner that supports SEO best practices? 2. According to a reputable SEO firm that has been assisting me, Google does not consider a blog post of less than 600 words to be superior quality. They told me that blog posts of 300 words, from an SEO purpose will not be a great helpful, that the content will not be rich enough to generate incoming links. Is this really the case? What if this abbreviated content is very well written and engaging? If so, is 300 words sufficient? From the visitor's perspective I am not sure they would have the patience to read 600 words when 300 words is more than than enough to answer these basic questions. From a PR perspective I think the shorter content in a question answer format is superior at least for my line of business (commercial real estate brokerage). 3. If 500-600 words is the minimum word count, and headings are necessary, what is the best way to execute a question and answer blog format? The purpose of this blog is to provide very useful info to my visitors while generating incoming links to that will boast my rankings. Thanks in advance for your feedback!!! Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
What is the point of having images clickable loading to their own page?
Hello, Noticed a lot of sites, usually wordpress (seems to be the default) have the images in their posts clickable that load to their own page, showing just the image, usually a .jpg page. I know these pages seem to be easily indexed into google image search and can drive traffic to those specific pages... My questions are... 1. What is the point of driving traffic to a page that is just the image, there are no links to other pages, no ads, nothing... 2. can you redirect these .jpg pages to the actual post page? I ask because on google image search, there are 3 links to click (website, image link, image page), when you click to view the image, it loads the .jpg page, why not have that .jpg redirect to the real content page that has ads and also has other links. Is this white-hat? 3. Do these pages with just images have any negative effect on optimization since they are just images, no content? 4. Can you monetize these .jpg pages? 5. What is the best practice? I understand there is value in traffic, but what is the point of image traffic if I can't monetize those pages?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WebServiceConsulting.com0 -
Deferred javascript loading
Hi! This follows on from my last question. I'm trying to improve the page load speed for http://www.gear-zone.co.uk/. Currently, Google rate the page speed of the GZ site at 91/100 – with the javascript being the only place where points are being deducated. The only problem is, the JS relates to the trustpilot widget, and social links at the bottom of the page – neither of which work when they are deferred. Normally, we would add the defer attribute to the script tags, but by doing so it waits until the page is fully loaded before executing the scripts. As both the js I mentioned (reviews and buttons) use the document.Write command, adding this would write the code off the page and out of placement from where they should be. Anyone have any ideas?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | neooptic0 -
Number of forum posts per topic page
When optimizing a forum topic page for SEO, would it be better to have a higher number of posts per page than seperating the topic up into multiple pages? For example, out of the box a forum may display 15 posts per topic page - would there be any SEO benifit in changing that number to say 30 posts per page? I.e. more content per page and decreasing unnecessary "page 2, page 3, page 4"... etc. Your thoughts and comments are most appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640