Google Penalize?
-
Hello,
I read an statement somewhere which stated: "2 identical URLs linked to 2 different popular key phrases next to each other (on the same website/domain) will lead to a Google penalize. Google knows, that both terms are popular. This means, Google will ignore the links to your site (you'll not have any benefit) and the site you have your links on loses authority."
What are your thoughts on this statement?
Thank you.
-
We ran a test linking a new domain (lets say it was asdfdfhfgj.com) and found out that the second anchor text to the same url bears a lot less weight than the first one.
We linked asdfdfhfgj.com from a respected domain/page. Two links, different anchor texts. Both anchor texts where random strings that previously returned no results on Google. For the first months the page only ranked for the first random string, not the second. This is obviously just one data point but it does suggest something about the way Google treats links to identical urls from a single page.
However, this effect is far from a penalty and I doubt Google would ever penalize for having two links to an identical url on one page.
-
Would you mind sharing the source of this information?
I would like to read it in full context, and also check the date. I don't believe that statement has ever been true but I haven't been involved with SEO long enough to be certain.
The statement is inaccurate.
-
In most cases there's certainly less value for the second link (even more so to the target page since it's going to the exact same destination and the source page would have less link juice after the first link anyways). And yes, Google can measure several aspects of a keyword: popularity, commercial intent, search frequency, buzz/trend, etc. But I don't think one instance of this on a site would penalize an entire domain. A high instance of it would dilute a site in the hub/authority sense: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HITS_algorithm as it's only pointing to one resource.
-
What are your thoughts on this statement?
It hits really high on my BS meter.
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
-
What could cause Google to not honor canonical URLs?
I have a strange situation on a website, when I do a Google query of site:example.com all the top indexed results appear to be queries that users can perform on the website. So any random term the user searches for on the website for some reason is causing the search result page to get indexed - like example.com/search/query/random-keywords However, the search results page has a canonical tag on it that points to example.com/search, but that doesn't seem to be doing anything. Any thoughts or ideas why this could be happening?
Technical SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Google UK and the slog of Link building
Background:
Technical SEO | | Brinley
I have a number of sites built using the open eCommerce software zen cart. One of these sites was penalised by the original Penguin algorithm back in April 24, 2012. The reason for the panalty was that two ecommerce sites in Hong kong had a link to the above site in the footer of their 2000 & 4000 product website. I have no idea why the site had these links and even though I did contact them a few months before the Penguin massacre asking them to remove the footer link I was technically unaware of the ticking time bomb that they presented. The result, as is now engrained in SEO history, was that the site was moved to sit alongside Googles equivalent of the restaurant at the end of the universe and stayed there for 2 years until April 2014.
As I had never indulged in link building for the simple reason that I found it laborious I was obviously infuriated with the resulting loss of revenue but that was balanced with an understanding that I had not kept pace with the changing landscape of SEO according to Google. The quest I am now on is to increase my 3 sites profile on the web without getting another spanking from Google in the near future. The problem I have is that white hat today may well be black hat tomorrow. (I can recall the days when Google said links are good and everyone went out and asked other websites to link with them and look where that led.) So do I ignore actively cultivating links as some suggest and look to produce good content (which is quite difficult when you make mugs and candles by the way.) or do you go out and look to intentionally build links by studying competitors links, reviewing link opportunity or get bloggers to review products. For a small lifestyle entrepreneur like myself, the ever changing seo landscape and the amount of time & effort it requires is slowly and inevitably pushing us back out to that restaurant mentioned earlier. If only Google had a little brother that was designed purely for small businesses - like it was in the good old days before the dinosaur that is big business grunt and thought hmmm! whats that?
And if there were such a thing I would add a caveat that it would be illegal to generate pointless amount of cyber content because the web is becoming something akin to a landfill. Which leaves me nowhere really - but I think I am okay with that. Waiter !!0 -
Google Search Results Display URL
Our urls show as www.domain.com/getproduct.aspx?productid=48376 (url #1) in Google search results. When you click on the link and go to the site the URL is www.domain.com/product-name.aspx (url #2) I checked in Google Webmaster Tools (Fetch as Google) and there is a 302 redirect from url #1 to url #2. It also shows a Set-Cookie value, ASP.NET_SessionID= If we make it a 301 redirect instead, will the url displayed in Google search results be the url #2? We need to get rid of the Set-Cookie for crawlers correct?
Technical SEO | | Guy_Huyett0 -
Duplicate Homepage In Google
Hi Just found through my SEO dashboard, Google has two versions of the same homepage, the root page, plus the index.html page, causing duplicate content from both the pages. what is the best option to ensure google only have 1 version of the homepage listed?
Technical SEO | | rfksolutionsltd0 -
How a google bot sees your site
So I have stumbled across various websites like this: http://www.smart-it-consulting.com/internet/google/googlebot-spoofer/ The concept here is to be able to view your site as a googlebot sees it. However, the results are a little puzzling. Google is reading the text on my page but not the title tags according to the results. Are websites like this accurate OR does Google not read title tags and H1 tags anymore? Also on a slighly related note. I noticed the results show the navigation bar is being read first by google, is this bad and should the navigation bar be optimized for keywords as well? If it did, it would read a bit funny and the "humans" would be confused.
Technical SEO | | StreetwiseReports0 -
Google Places - need to update
I've got a client who verified their Google Places listing years ago, and noone knows who so I can't access it. The business is now moving and I need to update the address. What should I do? thanks
Technical SEO | | garymeld0 -
Google Webmaster Tools: Keywords
Hi SEOmozzers! I'm the Dr./owner/in-house SEO for my eye care practice. The URL is www.ofallonfamilyeyecare.com. Our practice is in O'Fallon, MO. Since I'm an optometrist, my main keywords are "optometrist o'fallon" and "o'fallon optometrist". As I get more familiarity with SEO, Google Analytics and Webmaster Tools, I've discovered the Keywords that Google feels best represent my website. About a week ago I noted Google counted 21 instances of "optometrist" on the 28-30 pages of my website, which ranks as #32 in the most common keywords. #1 is "eye" with 506 instances. Even though 21 occurrences seemed low, I went though every page adding "optometrist" a couple times in the body where it would naturally be appropriate. I also added it to the address shown on the footer of every page. I changed the top navigation option of "meet Dr. Hegyi" to "our optometrist". I must have added at least 4 occurrences to every page on my site, and submitted for a re-crawl. I even tried to scale back the "eye" occurrences on a few pages. Today I see that Google has re-crawled the site and the keywords have been updated. "Optometrist has DROPPED from #32 to #33. Does anyone have any ideas or suggestions why I'm not seeing increased occurrence in Googles eyes? I realize this may not be a big factor in SERPs, but every bit of on-page optimization helps. Or is this too minor of an issue to sweat? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | JosephHegyi0 -
Google & Separators
This is not a question but something to share. If you click on all of these links and compare the results you will see why _ is not a good thing to have in your URLs. http://www.google.com/search?q=blue http://www.google.com/search?q=b.l.u.e http://www.google.com/search?q=b-l-u-e http://www.google.com/search?q=b_l_u_e http://www.google.com/search?q=b%20l%20u%20e If you have any other examples of working separators please comment.
Technical SEO | | Dan-Petrovic3