Have you used Reziew or Reevoo?
-
We are looking into companies to work with for customer reviews and ratings on our e-commerce site. We want our customers to see what others think and we want unique and fresh content on our site for Google to see and the rating star rich snippets in the SERPs.
Two companies we're looking at right now are Reziew and Reevoo. Has anyone had any experience working with them? Any advice for choosing one? Or advice in general about choosing a partner for this? Any other companies you recommend?
-
Good to know dogids. Thanks for the update. Since my response above I wrote a post comparing eCommerce review vendors, including Revoo, on SEO best practices. Here's the link if you'd like to read it, but I thought Revoo had a pretty good system overall. They're definitely not like everyone else - http://www.seoverflow.com/ecommerce-product-reviews/
-
Hi Gerard,
We did decide to go with Reevoo and have been quite happy so far. The daily response rate from review requests to recent customers is consistently close to 10% which we feel is the most important metric. Our review response rate was way below 1% prior to this with the BazaarVoice integration on our store.
-
Hi DogiDs,
Any update on whether or not Reziew or Reevoo performed to your standards? We are currently seeking out a review system for our website, as well, and I found this post by searching for info on Reziew. We're also in talks with a company called Pluck from Demand Media. Their system seems very robust, but a little higher on the price point than what we were hoping for. Reziew is priced quite modestly, which makes it a definite contender, but there's always that fear of the product being "cheap" for that same reason.
Please let me know which you decided to go with. Thanks!
-
Hello DogiDs,
I've used BazaarVoice and Power Reviews (now owned by BazaarVoice too) as well as a few others, but not the two you just mentioned. Their representative's reply below seems educated on the SEO-issues to look at when choosing a vendor. If all of the review content is only found in an indexable format on your product pages and they have good customer support, competitive pricing, agreeable contract terms... then they may be worth checking out.
Maybe some others will provide some unbiased, experienced feedback on the service so this thread will be marked as a discussion question.
-
Hi Dogids, we've got of course our own favourite (but you probably guessed that already).
When looking for a reviews and ratings provider you should think about the following:
- true reviews from true customers (look for a solution that proactively reaches out to true customers only to submit reviews).
- volume of reviews generated (higher volume; for better conversion rates, a better customer experience and higher overall ratings).
And of course look for a review vendor that follows the key SEO principles:
- Indexable content: the content is embedded on-page to make it visible to search engines.
- Relevant unique content: publishing each review in only one location to avoid diluting SEO value by duplicating content.
- Fresh content: updating pages automatically and regularly with new reviews.
Happy to continue the discussion privately and answer any questions.
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 to deal with rel=canonical when using POST parameters
Hi there,
On-Page Optimization | | mjk26
I currently have a number of URLs throughout my site of the form: https://www.concerthotels.com/venue-hotels/o2-academy-islington-hotels/256133#checkin_4-21-2024&checkout_4-22-2024&rooms_1&guests_2&artistid_15878:256133 This sends the user through to a page showing hotels near the O2 Academy Islington. Once the page loads, my code looks at the parameters specified in the # part of the URL, and uses them to fill in a form, before submitting the form as a POST. This basically reloads the page, but checks the availability of the hotels first, and therefore returns slightly different content to the "canonical" version of this page (which simply lists the hotels before any availability checks done). Until now, I've marked the page that has had availability checks as noindex,follow. But because the form was submitted with POST parameters, the URL looks exactly like the canonical one. So the two URLs are identical, but due to POST parameters, the content is slightly different. Does that make sense? My question is, should both versions of this page be marked as index,follow? Thanks
Mike0 -
What tools or tactics do you use to identify which ranking factors Google is weighting for your industry or keyword?
Google ranking factors are increasingly more complex and less universal. Google is emphasizing different ranking factors for different scenarios. What tools are available that can help identify which ranking factors Google may be weighting for a given query or industry? For example, are there any tools that provide correlative analysis of Google's rankings for a given keyword?
On-Page Optimization | | AdamThompson0 -
When, if ever, would you need to use: example.com/en
Is there any reason to have /en on your website if your website is only in English? Or is it worth having in case you are preparing to translate into other languages? And is there any advantage to being: en.example.com over example.com/en Thanks
On-Page Optimization | | CosiCrawley0 -
Use cookie-free domains
Is there anything simple i can install to reduce the Use of cookie-free domains, i have tried to used fooman extension but had major conflicts with other extensions? Kind regards
On-Page Optimization | | Mikaai0 -
Should I use bolded keywords for keywords in the content throughout the page?
If I'm trying to optimize for a specific keyword, should I bold all of the keywords that appear in the content of the page or just one or two? or none at all?
On-Page Optimization | | globalrose.com0 -
Need YouTube Tips for ranking videos using keywords
Hi, I'm working on building explination videos to had to our site. The video will be publish on a new YouTube channel I will create and the YouTube file ad to web site. How and Where to use keyword on YouTube to rank well? Is there some tips I should know to bring traffic to site using YouTube? Can anybody give some tips? Thank you, BigBlaze
On-Page Optimization | | BigBlaze2050 -
How do I avoid duplicate content and page title errors when using a single CMS for a website
I am currently hosting a client site on a CMS with both a Canadian and USA version of the website. We have the .com as the primary domain and the .ca is re-directed from the registrar to the Canadian home page. The problem I am having is that my campaign produces errors for duplicate page content and duplicate page titles. Is there a way to setup the two versions on the CMS so that these errors do not get produced? My concern is getting penalized from search engines. Appreciate any help. Mark Palmer
On-Page Optimization | | kpreneur0 -
Help with Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical
Whenever i enable Canonical URL through the 3DCart Control panel I get this Critical Factor error when running the on page report card: Appropriate Use of Rel Canonical Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Canonical URL</dt> <dd>"http://rcnitroshop.com/Nitro-Monster-Truck"</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>If the canonical tag is pointing to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. Make sure you're targeting the right page (if this isn't it, you can reset the target above) and then change the canonical tag to reference that URL.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>We check to make sure that IF you use canonical URL tags, it points to the right page. If the canonical tag points to a different URL, engines will not count this page as the reference resource and thus, it won't have an opportunity to rank. If you've not made this page the rel=canonical target, change the reference to this URL. NOTE: For pages not employing canonical URL tags, this factor does not apply.</dd> </dl> Now if I disable Canonical URL then run the on page report card again the critical error goes away but I get this Optional Factor error instead: Canonical URL Tag Usage Moderate fix <dl> <dt>Number of Canonical tags</dt> <dd>0</dd> <dt>Explanation</dt> <dd>Although the canonical URL tag is generally thought of as a way to solve duplicate content problems, it can be extremely wise to use it on every (unique) page of a site to help prevent any query strings, session IDs, scraped versions, licensing deals or future developments to potentially create a secondary version and pull link juice or other metrics away from the original. We believe the canonical URL tag is a best practice to help prevent future problems, even if nothing is specifically duplicate/problematic today.</dd> <dt>Recommendation</dt> <dd>Add a canonical URL tag referencing this URL to the header of the page.</dd> </dl> So basically I disabled it because obviously a Critical error is much worse then an optional error. Is there a way I can get rid of both errors?
On-Page Optimization | | bilsonx0