Automotive part / OEM / Manufacturer numbers
-
Hi All,
What's the best way to optimise pages for OE / Manufacturer Part numbers?
Disclaimer: All part numbers in this post are fictional. I dont want this post out ranking my client for real part numbers
Take this for Throttle Body for example:
WOODYS S-AB-Q.123.53G
This is the main part number from WOODYS (the manufacturer).
However, these are all variations of exactly the same product:
- Woodys 2.78972.11.0
- Woodys 2.78972.16.0
- Woodys 2.78972.20.0
- Woodys 2.78972.26.0
Oh, and car brands use OE numbers for these parts, such as:
-
VWA 9808e40923G
-
VWA 9808e40923L
-
VWA 9808e40923M
-
VWA 9808e40923P
-
VWA 9808e40923Q
These internal part numbers are vitally important as most of my clients customers are garages/mechanics so they're very likely to search on OE numbers.
So, would you suggest:
-
Optimising 10 different pages for the same product (using the part numbers in the URL, Title and H1). The problem is there's no unique content for these pages, only the part number varies, so this would likely get penalised for dupe content, or not enough unique content.
-
Optimising one page for all terms. If so, how do you suggest doing this to ensure all part/OE numbers rank well and part numbers are prominent in the SERPS?
Could Schema.org help here by marking up these EO numbers with the isSimilarTo property of the Product type? I'm trying to ensure these part number get equal presence in the SERP snippet when searched for, even though I can't physically include all these numbers in the Title tag, URL and H1 of one page.
3. Something else?
Thanks,
Woody
-
Thanks Tom,
I like the idea of anchoring links down to specific OE number sections using the H2 headings, my concern is what content would these sections contain?
You mention a brief description and history. The problem is there's nothing different about the product so the description/history would be exactly the same as the main product number. These number are literally alternative numbers for EXACTLY the same product.
Client did have option 1 set up and working when I came onboard and they did rank well for these OE numbers which brought in visitors/business. These pages had nothing more than a H1 Heading and one line of text on these pages containing OE number. I advised client to 301 these into main product page which also listed these OE number as alternate numbers.
In the short term I suspect this move will lose them visitors, until we build strength into main product page and in the long term protect their domain from a Panda penalty for thin content.
Would you agree?
-
This is a really, really tricky one. Here's how I see it:
I think you need to avoid running the risk of any duplicate content at all costs - this could certainly be an issue with option 1, as you have pointed out. With that in mind, I feel we have to rule that one out completely.
That leaves with optimising multiple products on a single page. How many products can be grouped together by manufacturer? For instance, is this feasible?
Page Title: Audi Exhausts, URL domain.com/audi-exhausts/ H1: Audi Exhausts
10-15 exhausts on the page with brief description and history.Page title: Mitsubishi Exhausts, URL domain.com/mistubishi-exhausts H1: Mitsubishi Exhausts
12 on the page with its own brief description and historyPage title: Audi Suspensions URL domain.com/audi-suspensions etc and so on.
That way, from a user perspective, at least they know that they've landed on a relevant page (or would click through to it via search). Products are missing from H1, titles and URLs - but those factors aren't that significant any more anyway. Provided that the products are on the page, I think you're fine.
If you can keep the page length to a reasonable size, you could have the parts listed next to each other high up the page with internal links. For instance, if you click on one part, the page moves to that part's section. You can achieve this by having something like a <a <="" span="">href="#PARTNUMBER"> href on the part number and/or image, that then links to </a>
<a <="" span=""></a><a <span="" class="webkit-html-attribute-name" data-mce-mark="1">name="PARTNUMBER"></a>Part Number
lower down the page.
With this way you're making a pretty rich content page, users are taken to a URL they will think is relevant and land on a relevant landing page, but then don't have to navigate off the page to find what they want. Plus, with the part numbers present on the page, it gives you a chance to link-build specifically for that part number. And because you might be trying to build links for a number of parts on one page, chances are that the page itself will become quite strong because of the links and social signals it will accrue over time.
That's one method, but would definitely consult others here and further afield.
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
-
Use of "/" and using fractions in titles
We are a company that sells pipe and fittings. An example of a part that someone will search for is : 3/4" PVC Socket I am not sure how best to represent the fraction in the title of the page that has such a product. I am concerned that if I use the forward slash it will be misinterpreted by search engines (although it will be interpreted properly by users). A lot of folk search for the product by the fraction size and so it would be good to be able to represent it in the title, but I don't want to get "punished" by confusing search engines. I could replace the forward slash with a hyphen or pipe symbol, but then may look a bit weird to our users... Any recommendations? Bob
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobBawden11 -
Is there a way to rel = canonical only part of a page?
Hi guys: I'm doing SEO for a boat accessories store, and for instance they have marine AC systems, many of them, and while the part number, number of BTUs, voltage, and accessories change on some models, the description stays exactly the same across the board on many of them...people often search on Google by model number, and I worry that if I put rel = canonical, then the result for that specific model they're looking for won't come up, just the one that everything is being redirected to. (and people do this much more than entering a site nowadays and searching by product model, it's easier). Excuse my ignorance on this stuff, I'm good with link building and content creation, but the behind-the-scenes aspects... not so much: Can I "rel=canonical" only part of the page of the repeat models (the long description)? so people can still search by model number, and reach the model they are looking for? Am I misunderstanding something here about rel=canonical (Interesting thing, I rank very high for these pages with tons of repeat descriptions, number one in many places... but wonder if google attributes a sort of "across the site" penalty for the repeated content... but wouldn't ranking number 1 for these pages mean nothing's wrong?. Thanks)
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DavidCiti1 -
Tough 301 redirect with a /www in it
Hi Mozzers, I'm using Eggplants 301 redirect via wordpress and for some reason I can't redirect one url. The example of it is below: www.website.com/news/www.website.com As you can see, it looks like there's 2 url's and this plugin doesn't do the trick. Does anyone have any suggestions? Maybe via .htaccess? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Shawn1240 -
Potential Pagination Issue/ Duplicate content issue
Hi All, We upgraded our framework , relaunched our site with new url structures etc and re did our site map to Google last week. However, it's now come to light that the rel=next, rel=Prev tags we had in place on many of our pages are missing. We are putting them back in now but my worry is , as they were previously missing when we submitted the , will I have duplicate content issues or will it resolve itself , as Google re-crawls the site over time ?.. Any advice would be greatly appreciated? thanks Pete
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PeteC120 -
Can Google read content/see links on subscription sites?
If an article is published on The Times (for example), can Google by-pass the subscription sign-in to read the content and index the links in the article? Example: http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/property/overseas/article4245346.ece In the above article there is a link to the resort's website but you can't see this unless you subscribe. I checked the source code of the page with the subscription prompt present and the link isn't there. Is there a way that these sites deal with search engines differently to other user agents to allow the content to be crawled and indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CustardOnlineMarketing0 -
URL Redirect: http://www.example.net/ vs. http://www.example.net
I currently have a website set up so that http://www.example.net/ redirects to http://www.example.net but **http://www.example.net/ **has more links and a higher page authority. Should I switch the redirect around? Here's the Open Site Explorer metrics for both: http://www.example.net/ Domain Authority: 38/100 Page Authority: 48/100 Linking Root Domains: 112 Total Links: 235 http://www.example.net Domain Authority: 38/100 Page Authority: 45/100 Linking Root Domains: 18 Total Links: 39
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kbrake0 -
Accidental Noindex/Mis-Canonicalisation - Please help!
Hi everybody, I was hoping somebody might be able to help as this is an issue my team and I have never come across before. A client of ours recently migrated to a new site design. 301 redirects were properly implemented and the transition was fairly smooth. However, we realised soon after that a sub-section of pages had either one or both of the following errors: They featured a canonical tag pointing to the wrong page They featured the 'meta noindex' tag After realising this, both the canonicals and the noindex tags were immediately removed. However, Google crawled the site while these were in place and the pages subsequently dropped out of Google's index. We re-submitted the affected pages to Google's index and used WMT to 'Fetch' the pages as Google. We have also since 'allowed' the pages in the robots.txt file as an extra measure. We found that the pages which just had the noindex tag were immediately re-indexed, while the pages which featured the noindex tag and which were mis-canonicalised are still not being re-indexed. Can anyone think of a reason why this might be the case? One of the pages which featured both tags was one of our most important organic landing pages, so we're eager to resolve this. Any help or advice would be appreciated. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | robmarsden0 -
Does having a high number of reciprocal links hurt you?
I know reciprocal linking isn't ideal, but does it actually hurt your site? Is there any penalty for having a high number of reciprocal links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0