Keyword Targeting / Cannibalisation
-
Hi Guys
We're about to launch a very large website for a flooring company and would like to find out more about _key word _cannibalisation - to put my mind at rest. I know Rand posted a Whiteboard Friday early last year about this topic and mentioned using part of the same keyword was ok to use.
All our keywords are specifically geared for "user intent" meaning each keyword has relevance and the content to back up the keyword. We've ensured the keywords are located within each url, placed at the start of the page title, h1 etc.
-
Hi Steve
Having unique content for each product page is a must! I guess sofa beds are individually unique to a degree in terms of brand, size, functionality, design etc.
If you could elaborate about what it is exactly you are trying to do, I'll try to help?
Gary
-
Hi there
I am an Ecommerce manager and I find the whole keyword cannibalisation topic fascinating.
We sell furniture - beds, sofa beds, dining tables, chairs etc.
I am trying to add value to each product description - as much important and factual information as possible - as opposed to superlatives etc
We have about 12 sofa beds and I am working at each sofa bed targeting specific keywords so that they don't compete for the same keywords.
In regards to the keyword "sofa beds", I am working at this keyword being more dominant within the category page.
In the modern SEO context, I would love to know if this is the right approach?
Steve
-
Hi Gary, Samuel has raised some good questions. Did you see his response? Let us know, thanks!
Christy
-
Gary, thanks for the question. Based on the little that I've seen here, I would worry more about a Panda penalty than keyword cannibalization.
Here's the history in a basic nutshell. Years ago, webmasters would aim to have one page target one keyword. There would be one page for "red t-shirts," one for "green t-shirts," and so on. All of the text on those pages would be exactly the same -- except that "red or "green" may change based on the page. In such a context, webmasters did not want to have keyword cannibalization -- if the word "green" was used on the page for "red t-shirts," then Google might not know which page to rank for each desired term.
However, this created bloated websites with many more pages than were actually needed. Does a t-shirt website really need 50 pages (one for each color) when only one would be enough (and then the visitor could choose which color to buy)? In Google's eyes, such websites created bad user experiences -- and Google wants to eliminate bad user experiences.
So, in case you don't know, Google's Panda penalty targets websites that -- among other issues -- have a lot of "thin" or "duplicated" content such as in the t-shirt example above. (You can see more information in this Moz post by Cyrus.)
Before going further, I would have to ask you some questions: Does you website really need a separate page for each and every single one of those topics? Are the products really that entirely different? Are the text and images on each page completely different and unique -- in other words, does each page offer true value to the visitor, or are you just trying to rank highly in Google straight away as in the t-shirt example?
If many of those pages above are on similar topics, then you may want to have one page per topic (rather than per keyword) where by each topic consists of a group of related keyword phrases -- see this Whiteboard Friday on modern, semantic SEO for more information.
Please let me know your thoughts, and I'd be happy to respond further!
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
-
Keyword rank drop, any advice?
Screen Shot 2021-08-26 at 19.02.18.png My search visibility dropped from around 13% a few weeks ago to 8.29%. I know that Google launched a bunch of updates in this past few weeks to ignore spam links, and I'm pretty sure that was the reason for the drop - some of the links to my site date back over 10 years and those links were garbage. Confusingly, at the same time, my Domain Authority went up by 1 to 32, then back down a week later. How can I restore my previous rank in the short term? We're designing a new site at the moment with vastly improved page speed, but I'm not sure what effect that will have yet (thespacecollective.com).
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | moon-boots0 -
Two sites targeting same keywords (but with different owners)
Hi Guys So we manage a client website doing their seo and ppc The site has become a success so the client has now asked if we would like to create our own site and become an affiliate of theirs The idea is target the same set of keywords etc. My question is - in the world of google is this ok? I know about google penalising same business owners for having two websites targeting the same keyword.... But in this case - the websites are owned by different owners, different hosting, different domain ownership, different analytics code, different code development, different about us Everything is different but I am just a little paranoid that google knows we SEO the clients website Does anyone have any advice? Thanks Duncan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CayenneRed890 -
Multiple times same keyword or Lsi / synonym.
Hello, I have a page with multiple bike tours on tour and under my image as anchor text linking to the different destination I have written the region + bike tour. Is it ok to write bike tour that many times bike tours or would it be better to write variations of it such as "Bordeaux biking, Strasbourg to Colmar by bike for (Alsace bike tour) or doesn't it matter ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics1 -
Domain.com/postname vs. Domain.com/blog/postname
I am wondering what is the best practice regarding blogs? I read that it would be best to structure a website like a pyramide instead of a flat panckage But I have seen many blogs where the post shows right after the domain name. Domain.com/postname instead of Domains/blog/postname My point is that if a website has many post then the structure will get very flat and this will maybe make your most optimized and important pages less important to google domain.com/page a) What do you think about this, which one of the two blog solutions do you prefer and why? b) in context to blog If for instance you had a keyword like Copenhagen property would you then consider renaming your blog to realetateagent.com/Copenhagen-property-news/post-name c) Would write a little intro like 200 words for the page 1 of your blog and add in some keywords.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nm19770 -
SEO Question re: Keyword Cannibalization
I know about Keyword Cannibalization, so I understand why it's generally a problem. If you have multiple versions of the same page, Google has to "guess" which one to display (as I understand it, unless you have a SUPER influential page you won't get both pages showing up on the SERP). To explain why I'm not sure if this applies to our page, we have a blog that we write about employment law issues on. So we might have 20 blog posts over the past year that all talk about recent pregnancy discrimination lawsuits employers might be interested in. Now, searching the Google Keyword tools, there aren't even close to 20 different focus keywords that would make any sense. "Pregnancy Discrimination lawsuit" is niche enough for us to be competitive, but anything more specific than that simply has very little search activity. My suggestion is to just optimize all of them for "pregnancy discrimination lawsuit". My understand of how Panda works is that if the content is different on each page (and it is!) then it will only display what it guesses is the most relevant "NLRB" post, but any link juice sent to the other 19 "NLRB" posts would still boost the relevancy for whatever post Google chooses. And it wouldn't get dinged as keyword stuffing because it's clearly not just the same page repeated over and over. I've found quite a few articles on Keyword Cannibalization but many are pre-Panda. I was CERTAIN I'd seen a post that explained my idea is a totally viable and good one, but of course now I can't find it. So before I go full steam ahead with this strategy I just want to make sure there's nothing I'm missing. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | CEDRSolutions0 -
What's with the Keyword Apocalypse?
Hi, 9 of my tracked keywords have dropped by over 20 ranks since last week. The nastiest drops in ranking are by 36, 38, and 46 places. For the last month I have been chipping away at the duplicate content with 301 redirects and was expecting my keyword rankings to improve slightly as a result of this; not the opposite. I don't have any manual actions logged against my site and am at a bit of a loss to explain this sudden drop. Any suggestions would be most welcome.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McCaldin1 -
Indexing/Sitemap - I must be wrong
Hi All, I would guess that a great number of us new to SEO (or not) share some simple beliefs in relation to Google indexing and Sitemaps, and as such get confused by what Web master tools shows us. It would be great if somone with experience/knowledge could clear this up for once and all 🙂 Common beliefs: Google will crawl your site from the top down, following each link and recursively repeating the process until it bottoms out/becomes cyclic. A Sitemap can be provided that outlines the definitive structure of the site, and is especially useful for links that may not be easily discovered via crawling. In Google’s webmaster tools in the sitemap section the number of pages indexed shows the number of pages in your sitemap that Google considers to be worthwhile indexing. If you place a rel="canonical" tag on every page pointing to the definitive version you will avoid duplicate content and aid Google in its indexing endeavour. These preconceptions seem fair, but must be flawed. Our site has 1,417 pages as listed in our Sitemap. Google’s tools tell us there are no issues with this sitemap but a mere 44 are indexed! We submit 2,716 images (because we create all our own images for products) and a disappointing zero are indexed. Under Health->Index status in WM tools, we apparently have 4,169 pages indexed. I tend to assume these are old pages that now yield a 404 if they are visited. It could be that Google’s Indexed quotient of 44 could mean “Pages indexed by virtue of your sitemap, i.e. we didn’t find them by crawling – so thanks for that”, but despite trawling through Google’s help, I don’t really get that feeling. This is basic stuff, but I suspect a great number of us struggle to understand the disparity between our expectations and what WM Tools yields, and we go on to either ignore an important problem, or waste time on non-issues. Can anyone shine a light on this for once and all? If you are interested, our map looks like this : http://www.1010direct.com/Sitemap.xml Many thanks Paul
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fretts0 -
Question about 301 redirect for trailing / ?
I am cleaning up a fairly large site. Some pages have a trailing slash on the end some don't. Some of the existing backlinks built used a trailing slash in the url and some didn't. We aren't concerned with picking a particular one but just want to get one set and stick to it from now on. I am wondering, would I clean this up within the same redirect in the htaccess file that takes care of the www and non www? example RewriteEngine On
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PEnterprises
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.domain.com/ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [L,R=301] I currently use that to redirect the www. to the non www as you can see. However here is what I was confused about. Would this code be enough to redirect ALL pages with a / to the ones without? or would I also need to add another code (so there is 2) to my htaccess like below? RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com/ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [L,R=301] RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.domain.com/ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://domain.com$1 [L,R=301] That way, now, even the non www pages with a trailing slash will redirect to the non www without the trailing slash. Hopefully you understand what I am getting at. I just want to redirect EVERYTHING to the non www WITHOUT a / Thank you Jake0