Detailed Revisions of Articles coexisting with Automated Description Articles
-
Hello all,
think per instance in a comparator of cars, motorbikes, etc, where you have dozens of brands, types of cars and motorbikes like diesel or oil, 4x4 vs sport, etc
So, in one part of your site you are reviewing them in detail, explaining everything.
You also have a database with hundreds of models with several specs like top speed, length, engine, etc so you can automatically create an info page for these hundreds of models.
How would you make both of them live together in your website?
If you add the review to the automatted articles, then you would have an unconsistency as you cannot manually review all the products. On the other hand, doing it separetly will lead to a very, very similar title posts and urls (revision vs automated versions).
In my particular case, I just had the revisions until now and my site is developed in Wordpress. I had all the url posts below the home (mysite.com/review-of-car-x-of-brand-y) and now I am going to add the automatted ones and am thinking on place the automatted ones like WP Custom Posts and the url would be mysite.com/cars/description-of-car-x-of-brand-y. But still have the problem with categories, tags, etc, etc
Well, it is long question but what do you think about this?
-
Ok. I had always wondered how the index,noindes affects to the canonical. And also if the canonical post should be included in the sitemap or not (I think that not according to your last whiteboard friday but again not sure).
Per instance, I published the following post this morning checking what you said
http://www.comparativadebancos.com/mejores-depositos-bancarios-de-marzo-de-2011/
and with a rel=canonical to this that was published at the beginning of the month
http://www.comparativadebancos.com/depositos/marzo/
but then I have the first one in google
http://www.google.com/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=mejores+depositos+bancarios+marzo+2011
Currently I rank very well for the reviews, so dont know what will happen with the canonical.
Thanks for your answers!
-
You probably don't need to worry about the noindex tag, just the rel=canonical should be enough to get the engines recognizing the right page (and I'm not 100% sure how the noindex might interact).
-
That would been even technically easier to implement I think.
Just the last thing, I am confused with the canonical here. What should i use in the blog reviews?
1. meta=Noindex,follow and rel=canonical to the product page
2. meta=Index,follow and rel=canonical to the product page
I dont know if I have to index those posts.
Thanks!
-
Hmm... I'm not sure I like that as much as getting the product page indexed and known by the engines as the canonical version. Perhaps you could produce the RSS feed/blog with the reviews, but use rel="canonical" on those pages to point over to the product pages which include the reviews? That would be a way to potentially have your cake and eat it too
-
HI Rand and thanks for your answer and your link.
I believe that is the way to go but the point is that my site is a blog based one and then I am going to introduce a comparator with a huge product database. Therefore, I still would like to display in my home my reviews that then are automatically sent in my daily mailchimp rss newsletter and to my rss suscribers. That was my point of having two separated posts.
Thinking about it, I think this could be a solution:
1. Use a custom taxonomy as Justin Tadlock recommends http://justintadlock.com/archives/2011/01/14/rethinking-how-news-themes-work
2. Display in the home just the posts with the "Review" property and using the dhtml script you said above or a "more text" hiding the "automatted content"
What do you think about this?
Thanks a lot
Antonio
-
Hi Antonio - a lot of sites, particularly in the e-commerce field, face precisely this issue. What I've seen be most effective is what Amazon, BestBuy and many others do, which is to create a single page for any product and include editorial/user reviews and more detailed information when it's available and when it's not, leave that area open for future additions of content. This way, you have a single version of any given page and you create a positive association with the crawlers and humans that some/much/most of your content/products will eventually get a good, rich description.
You can also use Saibose's suggestion in combination if you'd prefer having this content in separate, embedded "tabs" on the page that all resolve to the same URL. Check out a code sample and example of this in action here - http://dhtmlkitchen.com/scripts/tabs/tutorial/navigation.jsp
Best of luck!
Rand -
But I will always have more automatted than custom so i think that "vice versa" is not an option.
Anyhow, I don't really see how to do it in WP? Do you have any idea?
Are there any other suggestions in the room?
Thanks saibose for your advice
-
put the reviews in # for now till you have a good content base and then carefully do the flip to vice versa.
sorry, my bad, I meant, noindex for tags and categories.
-
What is exactly your proposal? To just have the automatted ones and in # the review or the opposite?
Anyhow, the point is that I might have 1000 automated posts and 100 custom posts. If I use the # the users wouldn't know how to reach those posts with the custom review.
The reviews can be up to seven or eight paragraphs so it would really make a difference between those which do have it and don't. Therefore, I had thought on doing it separetly, like two different kind of posts.
Finally, for categories and tags, did you want to say "noindex" instead of "nofollow"?
Thanks
-
what about adding a # in the URL? Have you thought about that? That will drive all the authority to the page you want to rank higher in search.
I dont recall the video, but there was a talk that search engines disregard the part of URL after #, but crawls them.(correct me if i mis interpreted the video, or didnt recall it correctly).
But, that should be a solution to your problem.
Further you can add nofollow to your category and tag pages, if you want faceted navigation and content duplication issues to be solved.
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
-
Does Google ignore duplicate meta descriptions?
Hi there SEO mozzers, I am dealing with a website that has duplicate meta descriptions (we know is bad).As a punishment, Google totally ignores the meta descriptions and picks content from the website and displays it in SERP. I already read the https://moz.com/blog/why-wont-google-use-my-meta-description but I was wondering if there is more information/knowledge out there. Any tips are appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Europarl_SEO_Team0 -
How Important is Meta Description on Non-Entry Pages?
If a page is never used as an entry page to your website -- in other words it's an obscure, relatively unimportant page that never ranks high enough in the search engines to be in the first few pages of the search results for any significant number of searches -- does editing the META Description really have any significant benefit? I guess the question could also be phrased as, does the Google Search Algo factor in the META Description tag, or is it only used for display purposes on the search results and doesn't affect ranking?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SeoJaz0 -
Descriptions appearing for review star Rich Snippets
Hello, We recently added the review star markup to our website: If you search Esplendido hotel in Google, you'll see us appear: https://www.i-escape.com/esplendido-hotel Google appears to be picking up the actual review and using it as the description in SERPs. Is there a way we can revert this back to the old description? Happy to keep as is but it is too long as it is according to Google? Thanks all, Clair
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | iescape0 -
Capitalization of first letter of each word in meta description. Catches more attention, but may this lead to google ignoring the meta description then more frequently?
Capitalization of first letter of each word in meta description. Catches more attention, but may this lead to google ignoring the meta description then more frequently? Same for an occasional capitalized FREE in meta description. Anybody had experience with this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lcourse1 -
SEO value of article title content?
I work for an online theater news publisher. Our article page titles include various pieces of data: the title, publication date, article category, and our domain name (theatermania.com). Are all of these valuable from an SEO standpoint? My sense it'd be cleaner to just show the title (and nothing more) on a SERP. But we'll certainly keep whatever helps us with rankings.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
Low Page Authority in existing article in blog Any Ideas to improve it?
Im managing a blog that has a lot of articles with Page Authority 1.I have already checked with On-page Grader that these articles are Grade A, so they have the SEO structure perfect and would like to know any ideas to get this Page Authority rise in existing articles that are already written, like changes that can effectively be made this page authority get higher. Thanks in advance and regards, Jorge Pascual
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | goperformancelabs0 -
Should I literally delete all the articles I published in 2010/2011?
We became a charity in December and redirected everything from resistattack.com to resistattack.org. Both sites weren't up at the same time, we just switched over. However, GWT still shows the .com as a major backlinker to the .org. Why? More importantly, our site just got hit for the first time by an "unnatural link" penalty according to GWT. Our traffic dropped 70% overnight. This appeared shortly after a friend posted a sidewide link from his site that suddenly sent 10,000 links to us. I figured that was the problem, so I asked him to remove the links (he has) and submitted a reconsideration request. Two weeks later, Google refused, saying.. "We've reviewed your site and we still see links to your site that violate our quality guidelines. Specifically, look for possibly artificial or unnatural links pointing to your site that could be intended to manipulate PageRank. Examples of unnatural linking could include buying links to pass PageRank or participating in link schemes." We haven't done any "SEO link building" for two years now, but we used to publish a lot of articles to ezinearticles and isnare back in 2010/2011. They were picked up and linked from hundreds of spammy sites of course, none of which we had anything to do with. They are still being taken and new backlinks created. I just downloaded GWT latest backlinks and it's a nightmare of crappy article sites. Should I delete everything from EZA/isnare and close my account? Or just wait longer for the 10,000 links to be crawled and removed from my friends site? What do I need to do about the spammy article sites? Disavow tool or just ignore them? Any other tips/tricks?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TellThemEverything0 -
Syndicating duplicate content descriptions - Can these be canonicalised?
Hi there, I have a site that contains descriptions of accommodation and we also use this content to syndicate to our partner sites. They then use this content to fill their descriptions on the same accommodation locations. I have looked at copyscape and Google and this does appear as duplicate content across these partnered sites. I do understand as well that certain kinds of content will not impact Google's duplication issue such as locations, addresses, opening times those kind of things, but would actual descriptions of a location around 250 words long be seen and penalised as duplicate content? Also is there a possible way to canonicalise this content so that Google can see it relates back to our original site? The only other way I can think of getting round a duplicate content issue like this is ordering the external sites to use tags like blockquotes and cite tags around the content.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MalcolmGibb0