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
-
No index tag robots.txt
Hi Mozzers, A client's website has a lot of internal directories defined as /node/*. I already added the rule 'Disallow: /node/*' to the robots.txt file to prevents bots from crawling these pages. However, the pages are already indexed and appear in the search results. In an article of Deepcrawl, they say you can simply add the rule 'Noindex: /node/*' to the robots.txt file, but other sources claim the only way is to add a noindex directive in the meta robots tag of every page. Can someone tell me which is the best way to prevent these pages from getting indexed? Small note: there are more than 100 pages. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | WeAreDigital_BE
Jens0 -
Site architecture & breadcrumbs
Hi A client hasn't structured site architecture in a silo type format so breadcrumbs are not predicating in a topical hierarchy as one would desire (or at least i think one would prefer) For example: say the site is called www.fruit.com and it has a category called 'types of fruit' and then sub/content pages called things like 'apples' and 'pears'. So in terms of architecture that should be: www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit/apples and www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit/pears etc etc The client has kept it all flat so instead architecture is: www.fruit.com/types-of-fruit and www.fruit.com/apples and www.fruit.com/pears As a result breadcrumbs follow suit and hence since also not employing logical predication dont reflect the topical & sub-topical hierarchy I have seen that some seo's at least used to think this was better for seo since kept the page/s nearer the root but surely its better to structure site architecture in a logical topical hierarchy so long as dont go beyond say 3 or 4 directories/forward slashes in the url's? Also is it theoretically possible to keep url structure as is (flat) and just edit/customise the breadcrumbs to reflect a topical hierarchy in a silo structure rather than change the entire site architecture & required 301'ing etc in order to do this (or is that misleading or just not possible?) Cheers Dan
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
How to stop my webmail pages not to be indexed on Google ??
when i did a search in google for Site:mywebsite.com , for a list of pages indexed. Surprisingly the following come up " Webmail - Login " Although this is associated with the domain , this is a completely different server , this the rackspace email server browser interface I am sure that there is nothing on the website that links or points to this.
Technical SEO | | UIPL
So why is Google indexing it ? & how do I get it out of there. I tried in webmaster tool but I could not , as it seems like a sub-domain. Any ideas ? Thanks Naresh Sadasivan0 -
Which factors are effect on Google index?
Mywebsite have 455 URL submitedbut only 77 URLs are indexed. How can i improve more indexed URL?
Technical SEO | | magician0 -
Malware & Wordpress
Google has identified Malware on on eof our Wordpress sites. In webmaster tools it names the 10 pages where code has been injected. I cant' find them easily via the WP dashboard and wondered if anyone had had any experience of this and what steps they took? Plus are there any measure I can take to fight against this? The site is on the latest WP version. Thanks, Colin
Technical SEO | | NileCruises0 -
Non-Canonical Pages still Indexed. Is this normal?
I have a website that contains some products and the old structure of the URL's was definitely not optimal for SEO purposes. So I created new SEO friendly URL's on my site and decided that I would use the canonical tags to transfer all the weight of the old URL's to the New URL's and ensure that the old ones would not show up in the SERP's. Problem is this has not quite worked. I implemented the canonical tags about a month ago but I am still seeing the old URL's indexed in Google and I am noticing that the cache date of these pages was only about a week ago. This leads me to believe that the spiders have been to the pages and seen the new canonical tags but are not following them. Is this normal behavior and if so, can somebody explain to me why? I know I could have just 301 redirected these old URL's to the new ones but the process I would need to go through to have that done is much more of a battle than to just add the canonical tags and I felt that the canonical tags would have done the job. Needless to say the client is not too happy right now and insists that I should have just used the 301's. In this case the client appears to be correct but I do not quite understand why my canonical tags did not work. Examples Below- Old Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/productid.3254235 New Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name Canonical tag on both pages: rel="canonical" href="http://www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name"/> Thanks guys for the help on this.
Technical SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt0 -
Yahoo and Bing do not index all pages
Only 20% of our pages are indexed by Bing and Yahoo although we have correctly submitted the sitemap to bing webmaster tools and other search engines index all our content. Do you have any suggestions?
Technical SEO | | AEM130 -
How do https pages affect indexing?
Our site involves e-commerce transactions that we want users to be able to complete via javascript popup/overlay boxes. in order to make the credit card form secure, we need the referring page to be secure, so we are considering making the entire site secure so all of our site links wiould be https. (PayPal works this way.) Do you think this will negatively impact whether Google and other search engines are able to index our pages?
Technical SEO | | seozeelot0