Undertanding Google's PMD (Partial Matching Domain) policy...
-
Hi,
If your business name contains keywords, is that an issue? Some companies, have keyword based brand names...
So what is Google's policy regarding EMD or PMD? What happens when the company name has a keyword in it?
If anyone could help clarify, I would appreciate it.
Thanks,
Ben
-
Just to add a bit to the discussion if you did not see this already:
http://moz.com/blog/early-look-at-googles-june-25-algo-update
-
Whoa Tom! I am glad to have similar thoughts as yours in this regard.
-
Hi Ben,
Just because you have an exact match domain name or keyword in your domain name, Google will not penalize. Google penalizes or intends to penalize such websites if they don't have credible content or don't provide any value add or do not justify a visit to them or do not serve the purpose or intent behind the visit to them. For example, thin affiliate sites that have any or all of the above qualities.
In an attempt to pull down or weed out such thin affiliate websites from top positions in the SERPs, search engines like Google may sometime seem to do injustice to some legit websites but this is very rare and soon such websites may crawl back to their deserving ranking positions. The point here is, Google wants to stop websites that do not have quality content from leveraging the advantages of an exact match domain name. If your website has quality content, does not rely on shady techniques to rank high along with other SEO goodies like fast loading pages, clear navigational hierarchy, useful and informative content, provides good user experience etc., then Google will not have any problem with the exact match domain name.
Google will definitely frown upon websites that have exact match domain names, which are very young and do not provide a value add to its visitors with little to no credible or unique content. The intent behind coming up with exact match domain names should be clean and I think Google wants to discourage or change the perspective of webmasters who want to enjoy the undue advantages that an exact name domain name brings along.
Hope it helps and am sure other Mozers will add their valuable views in this regard.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Hi Ben
Google doesn't have a problem with partial match domains, or even exact match domains, provided that the websites offer real user value.
Now, it can be said that an EMD might fall under Google's microscope quicker than other domains, because of its keyword nature. Not too sure PMDs would, though. However, if the domain offers real information for the user, has rich useful content and looks like a genuine authority site, then there will be no problem with using it.
Shockwaves were put through the SEO industry when Google appeared to target EMDs with an update specifically geared at them. However, the intent was always to penalise those websites that were ranking purely on the strength of the domain alone. In short, Google wanted to penalise poor quality sites.
That's the recurring theme here. So, if you can create a website that offers great, unique value to the user, doesn't attempt to manipulate the algorithm and can be recognised as an authority in its circles, then it won't matter one bit if you use a PMD, or even an EMD.
Hope this helps.
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
-
Canonicals from sub-domain to main domain: How much content relevancy matters? Any back-links impact?
Hi Moz community, I have this different scenario of using canonicals to solve the duplicate content issue in our site. Our subdomain and main domain have similar landing pages of same topics with content relevancy about 50% to 70%. Both pages will be in SERP and confusing users; possibly search engine too. We would like solve this by using canonicals on subdomain pointing to main domain pages. Even our intention is to only to show main domain pages in SERP. I wonder how Google handles it? Will the canonicals will be respected with this content relevancy? What happens if they don't respect? Just ignore or penalise for trying to do this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Do more internal links from sub-domains to domain (website) hurt rankings?
Hi, We have nearly 10 sub-domains. Couple of our website top pages including homepage have been linked from every page of these sub-domains; from footer or top menu. Is this kind of linking is bad as per Google? What is the right way of linking between website and sub-domains?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google not crawling click to expand content - suggestions?
It seems like Google confirmed this week in a G+ hangout that content in click to expand content e.g. 'read more' dropdown and tabbed content scenarios will be discounted. The suggestion was if you have content it needs to be visible on page load. Here's more on it https://www.seroundtable.com/google-index-click-to-expand-19449.html and the actual hangout, circa 11 mins in https://plus.google.com/events/cjcubhctfdmckph433d00cro9as. From a UX and usability point of view having a lot of content that was otherwise tabbed or in click to expand divs can be terrible, especially on mobile. Does anyone have workable solutions or can think of examples of really great landing pages (i'm mostly thinking ecommerce) that also has a lot of visible content? Thanks Andy
Algorithm Updates | | AndyMacLean0 -
Is it possible that Google may have erroneous indexing dates?
I am consulting someone for a problem related to copied content. Both sites in question are WordPress (self hosted) sites. The "good" site publishes a post. The "bad" site copies the post (without even removing all internal links to the "good" site) a few days after. On both websites it is obvious the publishing date of the posts, and it is clear that the "bad" site publishes the posts days later. The content thief doesn't even bother to fake the publishing date. The owner of the "good" site wants to have all the proofs needed before acting against the content thief. So I suggested him to also check in Google the dates the various pages were indexed using Search Tools -> Custom Range in order to have the indexing date displayed next to the search results. For all of the copied pages the indexing dates also prove the "bad" site published the content days after the "good" site, but there are 2 exceptions for the very 2 first posts copied. First post:
Algorithm Updates | | SorinaDascalu
On the "good" website it was published on 30 January 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 26 February 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 30 January 2013! Second post:
On the "good" website it was published on 20 March 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 10 May 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 20 March 2013! Is it possible to be an error in the date shown in Google search results? I also asked for help on Google Webmaster forums but there the discussion shifted to "who copied the content" and "file a DMCA complain". So I want to be sure my question is better understood here.
It is not about who published the content first or how to take down the copied content, I am just asking if anybody else noticed this strange thing with Google indexing dates. How is it possible for Google search results to display an indexing date previous to the date the article copy was published and exactly the same date that the original article was published and indexed?0 -
Number of Items As a Google Ranking Factor??
If I search for "hiking boots" and scan down the SERPs I see the following... Google reports "483 items" for the Zappos.com page. Google reports "Results 1 - 36 of 85" for the Shoebuy.com page (and that does not appear in their code). So, Google is obviously paying attention to the depth of your information or the number of items that you are showing. If they think that is important enough to count and report in the SERPs, might they also be using that information as a ranking factor?? PRACTICAL APPLICATION FOR SEO: If google is using this information, perhaps people should list all of their color, size, etc variants on a single page. For example if you sell widgets in five colors, instead of making one page for each color, list all five on the same page.
Algorithm Updates | | EGOL1 -
Why are Google Webmaster Tools' Google rankings different to actual Google rankings?
Dear Moz, We have noticed that according to Google Webmaster Tools one of our client sites is ranking very prominently for some of the major key phrases that we are trying to rank them for. However, when we perform a Google search for these queries, our client's content is nowhere to be seen, not even on the 5th page (we logged out of the Google account before performing the test). A long-term manual spam action on our client's site was recently lifted by Google - is it possible that Google Webmaster Tools is providing data about our client's estimated Google rankings, without taking into consideration the penalty of the manual spam action which was taken? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | BoomDialogue690 -
Do search engines penalize for too many domain aliases?
I have a main domain name and 20+ related alias domains pointing to it. Is there a danger, penalty or concern that I should be aware of related to alias domains? I saw something on Google "Apps Administration" under "What is a domain alias" saying "you can add up to 20 domian aliases" but I don't use Google Apps. Please advise... Thank you, Chris
Algorithm Updates | | caliboyz0 -
Google UK search volumes
If a user searches using Google.com but is based in the UK, is it classed as a Google UK search or a Google US search in terms of monthly search volumes? Most of my clients are targeting UK consumers and often rank well on Google UK but outside the top fifty for Google US. I have mentioned that that is fine unless a client happens to use google.com. Am I talking rubbish?
Algorithm Updates | | Switch_Digital0