Google AMP or CDN?
-
Hello. I'm running a CMS that cannot currently support both CDN and Google AMP. I would have to choose one or the other.
Does anyone have any insight on which may be the better choice until I can figure out how to have both? I installed CDN first to reduce the time it took for my pages/images to load.
I'd like to have AMP because it can do the same, and perhaps be a little more Google friendly (their product).
I would appreciate any thoughts.
Thanks!
Steve
-
Hi Donald,
I'm using Drupal 7.
I publish a lot of events for my geo-domain but I'm not really publishing "news" per se.
I think I'll keep using CDN until I can somehow get AMP working with it and Drupal 7. At times, I really wish I had gone down the WordPress path.
Thanks for posting your experience. I'm grateful.
Steve
-
What CMS are you using?
Amp seems to only be big impact for news publishing and current events at the moment. Are you publishing articles that are news worthy or current even based? Clients of mine that I have instituted amp are not getting serious SEO bumps to their rankings due to having AMP enabled. These are WordPress sites and they are running both AMP and CDN. Depending on your needs I would suggest using the CDN for site speed over amp if you are not publishing news worthy or current events type posts.
This is just my personal experience.
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
-
Google ranking content for phrases that don't exist on-page
I am experiencing an issue with negative keywords, but the “negative” keyword in question isn’t truly negative and is required within the content – the problem is that Google is ranking pages for inaccurate phrases that don’t exist on the page. To explain, this product page (as one of many examples) - https://www.scamblermusic.com/albums/royalty-free-rock-music/ - is optimised for “Royalty free rock music” and it gets a Moz grade of 100. “Royalty free” is the most accurate description of the music (I optimised for “royalty free” instead of “royalty-free” (including a hyphen) because of improved search volume), and there is just one reference to the term “copyrighted” towards the foot of the page – this term is relevant because I need to make the point that the music is licensed, not sold, and the licensee pays for the right to use the music but does not own it (as it remains copyrighted). It turns out however that I appear to need to treat “copyrighted” almost as a negative term because Google isn’t accurately ranking the content. Despite excellent optimisation for “Royalty free rock music” and only one single reference of “copyrighted” within the copy, I am seeing this page (and other album genres) wrongly rank for the following search terms: “free rock music”
On-Page Optimization | | JCN-SBWD
“Copyright free rock music"
“Uncopyrighted rock music”
“Non copyrighted rock music” I understand that pages might rank for “free rock music” because it is part of the “Royalty free rock music” optimisation, what I can’t get my head around is why the page (and similar product pages) are ranking for “Copyright free”, “Uncopyrighted music” and “Non copyrighted music”. “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted” don’t exist anywhere within the copy or source code – why would Google consider it helpful to rank a page for a search term that doesn’t exist as a complete phrase within the content? By the same logic the page should also wrongly rank for “Skylark rock music” or “Pretzel rock music” as the words “Skylark” and “Pretzel” also feature just once within the content and therefore should generate completely inaccurate results too. To me this demonstrates just how poor Google is when it comes to understanding relevant content and optimization - it's taking part of an optimized term and combining it with just one other single-use word and then inappropriately ranking the page for that completely made up phrase. It’s one thing to misinterpret one reference of the term “copyrighted” and something else entirely to rank a page for completely made up terms such as “Uncopyrighted” and “Non copyrighted”. It almost makes me think that I’ve got a better chance of accurately ranking content if I buy a goat, shove a cigar up its backside, and sacrifice it in the name of the great god Google! Any advice (about wrongly attributed negative keywords, not goat sacrifice ) would be most welcome.0 -
Frustrated by Google Search Result
We have a page on our website for our review of the "Voltage" shisha flavor by "Social Smoke" (Social Smoke is the brand). Voltage is one of their hookah tobacco flavors. https://www.hookah.org/social-smoke-voltage-flavored-hookh-tobacco/. When I search for "Social Smoke Voltage Review", our page is at the bottom of the first page result. We have a video, decent content on the page, and a review function. We've implemented correct Schema code too: https://goo.gl/iwCP7E. When I use the page grade tool on Moz. Our page ranks B for that keyword but the results number 1 and 2 and 3 on Google all rank C or D. Our video and review schemas don't show up on Google search result either. We have a good community online. Our social media pages are popular. We share the blog posts on the social media accounts fairly regularly too. We have an old and established website. From what I understand we are following all of Google's standards and rules too. What does a website owner gotta do?
On-Page Optimization | | Heydarian0 -
Q& A section - SEO perspective
We have a software in our website where customers can ask questions and it will send questions to people who already bought it to get answers. The answers are there in each item page. So each item page has item description , reviews, and Q&A sections. We get lot of questions and answers and software is great but we don't know if it really is helping us for the huge price we are paying them. In an SEO perspective will it help due to content or will it dilute main keywords due to the Q&A content? Thanks RB
On-Page Optimization | | rbai2 -
How does user behaviour signalled at Google affect rankings?
Hi, Just a quick question. How important are the signals received by Google on a websites user behaviour? For example: Bounce Rate, Avg Time on site, # of pages viewed, Geo of user etc Thanks.
On-Page Optimization | | followuk0 -
Will google put logo's in as author snippets?
Are they smart enough to tell it is not a mug shot and then not show it? Has anyone ever seen a logo as a snippet? What are some of the factors to with whether they show them or not?
On-Page Optimization | | Adsau0 -
Google cache tool help
This link is for the Ebay Google cache - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:www.ebay.com&strip=1 I wanted to do the same for my homepage so I switched out the urls and it worked. When I try to get a different link in there such as mysite.com/category it wont work. I know my pages are indexed. Any ideas why it wont work for other pages?
On-Page Optimization | | EcommerceSite0 -
Google images hits distorting my results. What to do.
Hit from google images seem to be distroting my results. I sell airport taxis so want rid of any hots that came through google images as there no buying intent Aanlytics shows (when i click in) Traffic Sources > Search Engine Optimisation > Quires 250 clicks All of which came from quires related to generic taxi terms which I do (unfortunately) rank for in search. I imagine these generated because I have a taxi cab image in page one of google images. So when people search for a picture of a taxi they click mine. However in SEO MOZ the traffic data tab shows: google = 219 clicks images.google = 3 clicks This should be the other way round shouldn't it?
On-Page Optimization | | smashseo0 -
Site: command and intitle: command in Google changed?
Hi Mozzers, I'm seeing some changes in Google when using certain commands I've used for ages. I'm trying to spot cananical issues by using this search site:www.mysite.com intitle:"keyword" This used to list all pages in the index on a certain site with the keyword in the title. Now I'm getting weird results and sometimes results from other sites - not the one specified in the site: command. Anyone else seeing this? Thanks B
On-Page Optimization | | Bush_JSM0