Round 3 & still no indexing for varicose veins :-(
-
Greetings from 11 degrees C partly suuny Wetherby
Every so oftem you hit an SEO mission that just consistently hits a brick wall. For the third time i'm investigating why this page:
http://www.collegeofphlebology.com/varicose-veins/what-are-they/ fails to even reach the bottom of page 3.Ive gone back to basic and ran an SEO audit of sorts in an attempt to see if I'd missed anything. Here is the audit:
http://i216.photobucket.com/albums/cc53/zymurgy_bucket/audit-for-moz.jpg
So my question is please:
From a technical SEO perspective is there anything wrong with this page http://www.collegeofphlebology.com/varicose-veins/what-are-they/ to explain why it does not rank for target term "Varicose Veins"
Thanks in advance,
David -
Morning Nick,
A big thank you for taking time out to look at this. You've confirmed a vague hunch that the site architecture is inherently jinxed and morre importantly given me hope i can get the dismal ranking sitution out of the mire
Have a great weekend & thank you again
-
Hi there David
From looking at the site, some past experience and Matt's responses, my view would be there are a few challenges facing you:
On a prior project, I came to understand that 'phlebology' is one of those highly spammed and abused areas of search that has all sorts of people trying to gain high ranking positions with poor quality sites, so there's probably a higher-than-normal barrier to entry for anyone new or new-ish into the market. Given the potential volumes of traffic out there, neither the spamming nor barrier to entry are that much of a surprise, so you have your work cut out for you!
I don't think the scrolling widget at the footer of your site will be doing you any favours as it links out to separate domains that are immediately redirected, which might look very suspect to search engines, and it's obviously there to create a number of links out. I'd strip them off.
I think you'd be far better to adjust the overall navigation of the site so that users and search engines can clearly flow from the top-level navigation down to the VV page (and others). At the moment the architecture seems somewhat awkwardly arranged and I would recommend re-organising it so there's a flow from the top down that follows the advancing detail of the content e.g.
Home
- Veins
-- Varicose Veins
--- Varicose Veins Sub-Topic
(repeat for all other topics!)
At the least better links in the main content on the Home Page, the For Patients Page and the Veins page down to the VV page would help a great deal. The VV page is presumably one of the most important on the site so the internal link structure should reflect that.
There is nothing on the 'For Patients' or For Specialists pages (http://www.collegeofphlebology.com/for-patients/ & http://www.collegeofphlebology.com/for-specialists-outer/) which will act as a red flag to Google. Those pages should act as high-level content resources, providing links down to lower pages.
Content-wise you're competing against some very high quality pages and I think you'd be best to review those and have a serious conversation with your client to show that (being blunt about it) a relatively short page summarising VV isn't going to have a great chance of really competing with a very high quality page from Patient.co.uk that goes into great detail on the condition, provides simple diagrams and is written by someone with a pretty high profile. I would encourage you to read into what Google is saying - if they are returning long, detailed high-quality pages at the top of the search results, that's what you need to provide to compete.
Link-wise there's a lot to do as you're competing with some of the most authoritative sites on the web - Wikipedia, NHS…without the great quality content you're going to struggle to gain links…chicken and egg as so much of SEO is, but that's where the fun is.
You could do a lot more on the Authorship and 'News' side and I'd recommend: pulling all the news into a 'News' or 'Blog' section that sits right at the top-level of the site architecture; the articles could have better pseudo-meta data e.g. a better by-line, a better date of publication and some categorisation.
On the authorship side, creating a Google+ profile for Mr Mark Whitely and linking the content he has published up to the profile will do you no harm at all. The same would go for anyone else publishing on the site.
Technically (and this might be a temporary blip with our connection) the site seems a bit slow to load, perhaps worth looking into.
In short, there are some navigational issues, there are some content issues, but you have what is the ultimate source of content - surgeons, so with effort there's no reason the site can't do well.
Hope that helps.
-
Ah I see - I personally think having it as a footer link will not help in the way it would as part of your main navigation which for a start would put it above the fold so search engines would give it more weight and also the fact that it will carry across your sites navigation..
Did you see the addition I made to the response above re your homepage?
-
Hi Matt, yes we put a scrolling link nav in the footer of the homepage routing thru to the varicose page.
-
Looking at opensiteexplorer.org your page only has a page authority of 13 and inbound links to your page look few and far between - have you thought about trying to build on this to help with your page ranking?
Have you thought about giving a direct link to varicose veins using this anchor text from your homepage http://www.collegeofphlebology.com because from what I can see getting to the page you are trying to rank for a competitive term it would appear that is several levels down the navigation structure of your site - unless I have missed it at a quick glance?
I would also say that your homepage appears to have a title that is targeting varicose veins and treatments but you don't appear to mention varicose veins in your body text and it isn't a specific link in your navigation which would help...
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
-
How preproduction website is getting indexed in Google.
Hi team, Can anybody please help me to find how my preproduction website and urls are getting indexed in Google.
Technical SEO | | nlogix0 -
Existing content & 301 redirects
Hi All, I will try to keep this to the point. One of our websites was hit by penguin for unnatural linking. We are building a new site (same business, different domain), but we would like to take some of the pages/content off the old website and use it on our new site. Is it just a case of copying each page onto our new site and 301 redirect the old URL? Or should I just be completely rewording/recreating the old content so it is unique? Any help on this would be great, but I am also open to alternate methods too. Thanks Lewis
Technical SEO | | SO_UK0 -
Staging & Development areas should be not indexable (i.e. no followed/no index in meta robots etc)
Hi I take it if theres a staging or development area on a subdomain for a site, who's content is hence usually duplicate then this should not be indexable i.e. (no-indexed & nofollowed in metarobots) ? In order to prevent dupe content probs as well as non project related people seeing work in progress or finding accidentally in search engine listings ? Also if theres no such info in meta robots is there any other way it may have been made non-indexable, or at least dupe content prob removed by canonicalising the page to the equivalent page on the live site ? In the case in question i am finding it listed in serps when i search for the staging/dev area url, so i presume this needs urgent attention ? Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Removing indexed website
I had a .in TLD version of my .com website floated for about 15 days, which was a duplicate copy of .com website. I did not wish to use the .in further for SEO duplication reasons and had let the .in domain expire on 26th April. But still now when I search from my website the .in version also shows up in results and even in google webmaster it shows the the website with maximum (190) number of links to my .com website. I am sure this is hurting the ranking of my .com website. How can the .in website be removed from googles indexing and search results. Given that is has expired also. thanks
Technical SEO | | geekwik0 -
How do you know what version of your site of Google is in their index?
This is going to sound like a strange question, but I am trying to understand which version of our site is in the index. You might think this is an obvious question, but here is why I am asking: 1. Today I searched for a specific keyword and found the listing. 2. I liked on the right arrow next to the listing and checked the cache date. It says 6/28 and shows the site as of 6/28. 3. I expected to see that we were just indexed as we jumped several pages since yesterday and I had just checked two days ago and we hadn't moved at all. It seems like Google may have taken the changes we made on 7/2 but since it is showing 6/28, I am note sure. Since this is confusing, here is the chronology: 1. Made changes 6/20. 2. Site appeared to be indexed on 6/28. 3. Made changes on 7/2. 4. Checked the site on 7/2 and we were in position 60. Checked the site on 7/4 and we were in position 61. 5.. Checked the site today (7/6) and see we are in position 8. The cache date shows as 6/28. I suspect that Google just indexed us yesterday and is reflecting the changes I made on 7/2. But the fact that it says it was cached on 6/28 seems to sugges otherwise. I want to be sure I know which version got us the good rankings - is there any way to be sure? Thanks!!
Technical SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards0 -
Name Servers & SEO
We have decided to create a few blogs and will eventually be linking to some of our clients. I have domain privacy and different class C addresses for each of my domains. But the name servers area all the same. Ex: If we create an article for one client on all 5 blogs, will the name servers be a problem?
Technical SEO | | waqid0 -
Domain restructure, sitemaps and indexing
I've got a handcoded site with around 1500 unique articles and a handcoded sitemap. Very old school. The url structure is a bit of a mess, so to make things easier for a developer who'll be making the site database-driven, I thought I'd recategorise the content. Same content, but with new url structure (I thought I'd juice up the urls for SEO purposes while I was at it) To this end, I took categories like: /body/amazing-big-shoes/
Technical SEO | | magdaknight
/style/red-boots/
/technology/cyber-boots/ And rehoused all the content like so, doing it all manually with ftp: /boots/amazing-boots/
/boots/red-boots/
/boots/cyber-boots/ I placed 301 redirects in the .htaccess file like so: redirect 301 /body/amazing-boots/ http://www.site.co.uk/boots/amazing-boots/ (not doing redirects for each article, just for categories which seemed to make the articles redirect nicely.) Then I went into sitemap.xml and manually overwrote all the entries to reflect the new url structure, but keeping the old dates of the original entries, like so: <url><loc>http://www.site.co.uk/boots/amazing-boots/index.php</loc>
<lastmod>2008-07-08</lastmod>
<changefreq>monthly</changefreq>
<priority>0.5</priority></url> And resubmitted the sitemap to Google Webmasters. This was done 4 days ago. Webmaster said that the 1400 of 1500 articles indexed had dropped to 860, and today it's climbed to 939. Did I adopt correct procedure? Am I going about things the right way? Given a little time, can I expect Google to re-index the new pages nicely? I appreciate I've made a lot of changes in one fell swoop which could be a bit of a no-no... ? PS Apologies if this question appears twice on Q&A - hopefully I haven't double-posted0 -
How do I redirect index.html to the root / ?
The site I've inherited had operated on index.html at one point, and now uses index.php for the home page, which goes to the / page. The index.html was lost in migrating server hosts. How do I redirect the index.html to the / page? I've tried different options that keep giving ending up with the same 404 error. I tried a redirect from index.html to index.php which ended in an infinite loop. Because the index.html no longer exists in the root, should I created it and then add a redirect to it? Can I avoid this by editing the .htaccess? Any help is appreciated, thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | NetPicks0