Brand sections performing badly in SERP's but all SEO tools think we are great
-
I have had this problem for some time now and I've asked many many experts.
Search for Falke in Google.co.uk and this is what you get:
http://www.sockshop.co.uk/by_brand/falke/ 3rd Our competitor
http://www.mytights.com/gb/brand/falke.html 4th Our competitorhttp://www.uktights.com/section/73/falke 104th this is us ????? 9th for Falke tights with same section not our falke tights section?
All sites seem to link to their brand sections in the same way with links in the header and breadcrumbs, Opensite exporler only shows 2 or 3 internal links for our compertitors, 1600+ from us?
Many of our brand sections rank badly Pretty Polly and Charnos brands rank page 2 or 3 with a brand subsection with no links to them, main section dosn't rank?Great example is Kunert, a German brand no UK competition our section has been live for 8 years, the best we can do is 71st Google UK, 1st on Bing (as we should be).
I'm working on adding some quality links, but our comtetitors have a few low quality or no external links, only slightly better domain authority but rank 100+ positions better than us on some brands.
This to me would suggest there is something onpage / internal linking I'm doing wrong, but all tools say "well done, grade A" take a holiday.
Keyword denisty is similar to our competiors and I've tried reducing the number of products on the page. All pages really ranked well pre Penguin, and Bing still likes them.
This is driving me nuts and costing us money
Cheers
Jonathan
www.uktights.com -
Jonathan
First off, I would ignore the competitors to some degree. It's going to lead you in circles. It's not so simple that links relate directly to rankings. There are a ton of factors as to why competitors can be ranking better. I'd focus purely on cleaning up your site as best as possible.
You also do seem to have an issue with anchor text in your link profile - a lot the top anchors are commercial keywords ""hoisery online uk" "tights" etc. These need to be changed or cleaned up. This is going to give you a flag as being over-optimized.
I don't think number of internal linking pages would create a penalty.
How's your non-google traffic as a percentage? If it's anything less than 30% of overall traffic (and organic Google is 70% or more) I'd work on getting traffic from other sources - this will all feed back into your SEO.
-
Hi There
Bill Sebald offers a fantastic method for link cleanup, and then submitting a disavow here: http://www.greenlaneseo.com/blog/2014/01/step-by-step-disavow-process/ - if you have never submitted a disavow, I would do that. It's in Bill's post, but generally the links in Webmaster Tools are a good place to start, and use Cognitive SEO to process them and review.
-Dan
-
Thanks Andy, great advice! Just to clarify for the asker, Penguin is purely algorithmic, not a manual penalty in any way.
-Dan
-
The main consensus and I agree, is that we have penalties from Google, but looking at our competitors link profiles we are only slightly worse, and getting better by the day.
Maybe Google has algorithmic penalties on some of our brand pages, but why, as they have few or no external links?
Is it possible the number of internal linking pages is creating some sort of penalty and if so how do I sort it out as we are a big ecommerce site?
Why does open site explorer show us having 1600+ internal links but our competitors show only 2 and 12 internal links when they link to their brands sections in the same way with a massive amount of links?
I still don't know how to fix this, do the brand pages need more content?
I have new quality links going to 2 of the brand pages from a UK university that is also trying to help.
Cheers
Jonathan
-
I like SEMrush thanks
Yes I know I have try and get the profile squeaky clean. Its hard to stop these links, due what we sell,
I see our main competitor is on http://www.freeadultwebsitesdirectory.com/stockings.html and http://www.sexualallsorts.co.uk/xxxSextoyShop/Stockings-and-Hosiery-Tights/default.aspx too who rank well for everything, so maybe a few more good links and remove some more bad links
What's the best way for tracking down bad links, I'll try and clean a few more.
I still think the internal links may be causing a problem but may be they are passing bad juice.
-
According to SEMrush, your website went from 600+ KW in top 20 for US in august 2012 to 150+ nowadays.
In my mind, links like http://www.freeadultwebsitesdirectory.com/stockings.html
http://kupilandia.ru/individual-order/
http://www.sexualallsorts.co.uk/xxxSextoyShop/Stockings-and-Hosiery-Tights/default.aspx
are not helping to stay out of algo penalty.
-
Hi Andy
Its not quite as clean as my competitors, using a natural linking tool we have 21% unnatural links they have around 17%. We have a few too many directory links so constantly trying to remove them as we build in more quality, we have many links from Google as we are an AdWords success story, plus they filmed us for their YouTube channel, many links from Wikipedia, plus a nice link from the BBC news site.
I'm wondering if we have too many instances of the brand keyword on the page, as if you lengthen the keyword to include tights, i.e "falke tights" the page ranks fine.
Also according to MOZ we have 1600+ links to the brand page with falke as the anchor text, This may explain why our sub sections rank for some keywords Charnos or pretty polly as these only have 2 or 3 links to them. They are not linked to from the header or breadcrumbs.
I'm really stuck on this, as I don't know how to hide the links from the header / breadcrumbs, if Google thinks 1600+ internal falke links looks spammy. Plus how do my competitors get away with it?
Jonathan
-
Hi Jonathan,
Sorry, I misread that bit.
What does your actual backlink profile look like?
-Andy
-
Hi Andy thanks for your help
But all our links and 99% of our competitors links are all internal, our home page ranks 8th for our main keyword: tights, we have no manual action warnings.
Some brands are not bad, Pierre Mantoux, Trasparenze, Glamory.
Cheers
Jonathan
-
Hi Jonathan,
These sorts of problems can be many different things. With what you are saying, I would be leaning towards thinking that you had a penalty from Google - that would be where I would start looking.
You mention a lot more links back to you than your competitors have - perhaps it is Penguin that has performed a manual / algorithmic action on the site? When was the last time you were ranking well, or has this always been the case that the site has never ranked too well? Who built the current links to the site and how long ago was this done?
It could be so many other problems that it could be impossible to go through them all here, but the correlation between Bing and Google is something I have seen many times with penalties. Rank well in Bing, but bad in Google.
Sorry it's a little open ended, but like I said, it could be so many other things.
-Andy
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
-
Has Anyone Encountered This Old Meta Tag and Know It's Past Function?
name="url" content="http://www.mysite.com/"> I've never personally seen it used until I saw a site using it this past weekend...I cannot find any old documentation on the purpose if this tag either.Any insights or direction would truly appreciated!Many thanks, T 😎
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | talexanderyano0 -
Is it bad for SEO to have a page that is not linked to anywhere on your site?
Hi, We had a content manager request to delete a page from our site. Looking at the traffic to the page, I noticed there were a lot of inbound links from credible sites. Rather than deleting the page, we simply removed it from the navigation, so that a user could still access the page by clicking on a link to it from an external site. Questions: Is it bad for SEO to have a page that is not directly accessible from your site? If no: do we keep this page in our Sitemap, or remove it? If yes: what is a better strategy to ensure the inbound links aren't considered "broken links" and also to minimize any negative impact to our SEO? Should we delete the page and 301 redirect users to the parent page for the page we had previously hidden?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jnew9290 -
How do I prevent 404's from hurting my site?
I manage a real estate broker's site on which the individual MLS listing pages continually create 404 pages as properties are sold. So, on a site with 2200 pages indexed, roughly half are 404s at any given time. What can I do to mitigate any potential harm from this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kimmiedawn0 -
Getting out of Google's Penguin
Hi all, my site www.uniggardin.dk has lost major rankings on the searchengine google.dk. Went from rank #2-3 on important keywords to my site, and after the latest update most of my rankings have jumped to #12 - #20. This is so annoying, and I really have no idea what to do. Can it cause bad links to my site? In that case what will I have to do? Thanks in advance,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Xpeztumdk
Christoffer0 -
Google's Exact Match Algorithm Reduced Our Traffic!
Google's first Panda de-valued our Web store, www.audiobooksonline.com, and our traffic went from 2500 - 3000 (mostly organic referrals) per month to 800 - 1000. Google's under-valuing of our Web store continued to reduce our traffic to 400-500 for the past few months. From 4/5/2013 to 4/6/2013 our traffic dropped 50% more, because (I believe) of Google's "exact domain match" algorithm implementation. We were, even after Panda and up to 4/5/2013 getting a significant amount of organic traffic for search terms such as "audiobooks online," "audio books online," and "online audiobooks." We no longer get traffic for these generic keywords. What I don't understand is why a UK company, www.audiobooksonline.co.uk/, with a very similar domain name, ranks #5 for "audio books online" and #4 for "audiobooks online" while we've almost disappeared from Google rankings. By any measurement I am aware of, our site should rank higher than audiobooksonline.co.uk. Market Samurai reports for "audio books online" and "audiobooks online" shows that our Web store is significantly "stronger" than audiobooksonline.co.uk but they show up on Google's first page and we are down several pages. I also checked a few titles on audiobooksonline.co.uk and confirmed they are using the same publisher descriptions we and many other online book / audiobook merchants do = duplicate content. We have never received notice that our Web store was being penalized. Why would audiobooksonline.co.uk rank so much higher than audiobooksonline.com? Does Google treat non-USA sites different than USA sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lbohen0 -
When Google's WMT shows thousands of links from a single domain... Should they be removed?
Hi, Looking at Google's WMT "links to your site" it shows few sites that have thousands of links pointing to mine. There are actually only 1-2 links pointing to me from a site that Google shows 2000.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet
I assume that it is simply because they don't have canonical tags. Should I ask for the 2 links to be removed? Thanks0 -
Soft 404's from pages blocked by robots.txt -- cause for concern?
We're seeing soft 404 errors appear in our google webmaster tools section on pages that are blocked by robots.txt (our search result pages). Should we be concerned? Is there anything we can do about this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline4 -
Include Cross Domain Canonical URL's in Sitemap - Yes or No?
I have several sites that have cross domain canonical tags setup on similar pages. I am unsure if these pages that are canonicalized to a different domain should be included in the sitemap. My first thought is no, because I should only include pages in the sitemap that I want indexed. On the other hand, if I include ALL pages on my site in the sitemap, once Google gets to a page that has a cross domain canonical tag, I'm assuming it will just note that and determine if the canonicalized page is the better version. I have yet to see any errors in GWT about this. I have seen errors where I included a 301 redirect in my sitemap file. I suspect its ok, but to me, it seems that Google would rather not find these URL's in a sitemap, have to crawl them time and time again to determine if they are the best page, even though I'm indicating that this page has a similar page that I'd rather have indexed.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | WEB-IRS0