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
-
One Article, Multiple(Same Keyword) Anchors, Same Urls
Hey Folks, So I have a 1000 word articles talking about say Dubai Holiday. Is it okay to have 4-5 Dubai Holiday as anchor linked to the same page. Or it should be only be used once.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SAISEO0 -
Will link juice still be passed if you have the same links in multiple, outreach articles?
We are developing high quality, unique content and sending them out to bloggers to for guest posts. In these articles we have links to 2 to 3 sites. While the links are completely relevant, each article points to the same 2 to 3 sites. The link text varies slightly from article to article, but the linked-to site/URLs remain the same. We have read that it is best to have 2 to 3 external links, not all pointing to the same site. We have followed this rule, but the 2 to 3 external sites are the same sites on the other articles. I'm having a hard time explaining this, so I hope this makes sense. My concern is, will Google see this as a pattern and link juice won't be passed to the linked-to URLs, or worst penalize all/some of the sites being linked to or linked from? Someone I spoke to had suggest that my "link scheme" describes a "link wheel" and the site(s) will be penalized by Penguin. Is there any truth to this statement?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Cutopia0 -
Does Google penalise in the way described in this article?
In an interesting article from January on content cannibalisation: https://ninjaoutreach.com/content-cannibalization-avoid/ there is the following paragraph: "When the same keyword is used across a number of pages of a single website, Google’s spiders automatically get directed to a page with low-grade quality which in turn results in the low ranking of all the pages on the website." Is this true? The suggestion here is that they automatically get directed there as a form of penalty. This seems like quite an extraordinary claim! Can anyone verify?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ad-Rank0 -
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 -
Good or bad adding keywords in Pinterest description?
I added all keywords in description. Will this affect my website, Google takes this as negative way? I am not adding keywords on my own website, but adding keywords to third party website? https://www.pinterest.com/pin/304555993526970292/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bondhoward0 -
Automated Statistical Data Unique Enough?
I have many pages that will soon have a lot of statistical data (real estate related). Each page represents a neighborhood, and the stats will be unique for each neighborhood. However, the stats follow a pattern on all pages: Nr o Sales year-to-date, Median Sales Price etc etc. It is great value to users, but I wonder if such pattern of similar types of calculations (though unique results for each neighborhood) across many pages will potentially be seen as lacking uniqueness as it all pages follow a similar pattern and sentence structure (Nr of Sales year-to-date, Median Sales Price etc). Adding to this, these statistics will be the only stuff that is truly unique content on these pages.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
WMT Showing Duplicate Meta Description Issues Altough Posts Were Redirected
Dear Moz Community, Some time ago we've change the structure of our website and we've redirected the old URL's to the new ones. About 2,000 posts were redirected at that time. While checking Webmaster Tools a few days ago I've discovered that about 500 duplicate meta-description issues appear in the "HTML Improvements" area. To my surprise, altough the old posts were redirected to the new path, WMT sees the description of the old posts similar with the one of the new post. Moreover, after changing the structure all meta-descriptions were modified and they weren't the same used before the restructure. For example I've redirected /blog/taxi-transfer-from-merton-sw19-to-london-city-airport/ to /destinations/greater-london/merton-sw19/taxi-transfer-to-london-city-airport-from-merton/ Now they are shown as having duplicate content. I've checked the redirects and they are working. I get the same error from the redirected pages for about 150 titles. Did anyone else get this errors or can you please offer me some suggestions about how I can fix this? Thank you in advance! Tiberiu
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tiberiu0 -
Issue with Robots.txt file blocking meta description
Hi, Can you please tell me why the following error is showing up in the serps for a website that was just re-launched 7 days ago with new pages (301 redirects are built in)? A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more. Once we noticed it yesterday, we made some changed to the file and removed the amount of items in the disallow list. Here is the current Robots.txt file: # XML Sitemap & Google News Feeds version 4.2 - http://status301.net/wordpress-plugins/xml-sitemap-feed/ Sitemap: http://www.website.com/sitemap.xml Sitemap: http://www.website.com/sitemap-news.xml User-agent: * Disallow: /wp-admin/ Disallow: /wp-includes/ Other notes... the site was developed in WordPress and uses that followign plugins: WooCommerce All-in-One SEO Pack Google Analytics for WordPress XML Sitemap Google News Feeds Currently, in the SERPs, it keeps jumping back and forth between showing the meta description for the www domain and showing the error message (above). Originally, WP Super Cache was installed and has since been deactivated, removed from WP-config.php and deleted permanently. One other thing to note, we noticed yesterday that there was an old xml sitemap still on file, which we have since removed and resubmitted a new one via WMT. Also, the old pages are still showing up in the SERPs. Could it just be that this will take time, to review the new sitemap and re-index the new site? If so, what kind of timeframes are you seeing these days for the new pages to show up in SERPs? Days, weeks? Thanks, Erin ```
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HiddenPeak0