Google Mobile Algorithm update
-
Hi there,
On April the 21st Google seems to going to update their Mobile algorithm. I have a few questions about this one.
- Our current mobile website is very mobile friendly.
- We block all mobile pages with a noindex, so the desktop pages have been indexed on mobile devices.
- We use a redirect from desktop page to mobile page when someone hits a result on a mobile device.
My gut tells me this is not April 21st-proof so I'm thinking about an update to make this whole thing adaptive. By making the thing adaptive, our mobile pages will be indexed instead of the desktop pages. Two questions:
- Will Google treat the mobile page as a 100% different page than the desktop page? Or will it match those two because everything will tell Google those belong together. In other words: will the mobile page start with a zero authority and will pages lose good organic positions because of authority or not?
- Which ranking factor will be stronger after April 21st for mobile pages: page authority or mobile friendliness? In other words: is it worth ignoring the 21 April update because the authority of the desktop pages is more important than making every page super mobile friendly?
Hope to get some good advice!
Marcel
-
Hi Dirk,
That sounds great. Thanks for your help, I am going for action on this solution.
Marcel
-
Marcel
with this setup Google considers your mobile site as the mobile view of your desktop site so in terms of authority it should not have an impact on authority. Most sites we have in this setup have same rankings for mobile & desktop searches.
rgds
Dirk
-
Hi DC1611 & Matt-POP,
Thank you very much for your response. This one is clear to me, I have exactly 1 month to fix this. Mobile traffic plays a big part in our daily revenue so this is serious.
@Matt-POP: your advice is to go for responsive but I rather go for a canonical/ adaptive solution because a responsive website is not really an option (causes lots of other 'challenges'). Would you also advice to go for the canonical/adaptive way? The idea to exchange links in the source between mobile and desktop. Is will look like this:
The bold parts will be filled in dynamically.
So again (@DC1611): will the mobile page receive (some of) the page authority of the desktop version this way?Tnx again.
Marcel -
Your gut is right. If you are blocking your "very mobile friendly" pages to Googlebot-mobile you will likely end up with a big mess. If your desktop site is NOT responsive and is indexed for many terms on mobile, I would think you're going to lose those terms.
If you ignore the April 21 update and have a desktop-only site indexed you are definitely going to up for a traffic drop, especially from mobile.
We have clients with 1-3% mobile (industrial services, crane hire, that stuff) and those with 50%+ mobile (a few beauty salons, ecommerce stores, etc.) and I've been telling our clients internally - if you have 3-5% mobile traffic look, it's probably not the end of the world if it takes you until June 1st to make the switch. If you have 20-30% mobile traffic, get it fixed asap. And if you're over 30% mobile traffic you absolutely cannot afford not to have a responsive site up by April 21st. So it's a priority - but how much of one may depend on your business.
-
Blocking your mobile pages for indexing is not the best strategy if you have a dedicated mobile site. Better to use canonicals to point to the main domain - full explanation on "how to" here: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/configurations/separate-urls
With this setup - Google associates both Mobile & Desktop version - so in terms of page authority this should be equal. I would not ignore the 21st April date- Google is trying to make a point here - so for mobile searches mobile friendliness will be first priority.
rgds,
Dirk
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
-
Does Google giving more important to internal pages than homepage recently? Especially after the recent Major algo update?
Hi everybody, I can see the change Google brought in the SERP. Previously website homepages will be shown for primary keywords, now it's slowly and almost switched to showing most related internal pages in a website. You can check same for keyword "SEO", Most or all the results are internal pages. I can see this change for our primary keyword from last one month. So basically Google is trying to show a page explaining about the primary keywords rather than website, that's how "what is seo" pages are ranking than homepages. If there is no such pages existed or not well written, Google is just showing the website homepage. But I noticed that websites ranking with homepages are dropped compared to the websites with dedicated page about that primary keyword. Please share your thoughts. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Does Google’s Algorithm Populate Answer Boxes with Its Own Independent Research?
If you search 'best games to play for youtube' you get an answer box with answers pulled independently from the article at hand. Here's an image: http://imgur.com/a/S0j9B Here are all the games from my article, in the order in which they appear. Google's chosen games for Answer Box are bolded: Battlefield 1 Bloodborne GTA V FiFA 16 TrackMania Turbo Garry’s Mod League of Legends Call of Duty: Black Ops III Tom Clancy’s The Division Overwatch Just Cause 3 Counter-Strike: Global Offensive Brawlhalla Rocket League Dark Souls III Unravel Firewatch GoldenEye 007 (this was put in as a joke, but coded as an H2 nonetheless) Destiny Dead by Daylight Fallout 4 Undertale No Man’s Sky Minecraft As you can see, Google is choosing which games to display to its searchers. My Crazy Egg data shows that these were not picked by click volume (each of these H2s are hyperlinked), which means Google must be using some other popularity metric, such as its own search volume data or external sales data. I wrote this up in a post on my site, for anybody who's curious.
Algorithm Updates | | Edward_Sturm1 -
Best and easiest Google Depersonalization method
Hello, Moz hasn't written anything about depersonalization for years. This article has methods, but I don't know if they are valid anymore. What's an easy, effective way to depersonalize Google search these days? I would just log out of Google, but that shows different ranking results than Moz's rank tracker for one of our main keywords, so I don't know if that method is correct. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | BobGW0 -
Google penalty for one keyword?
Is it possible to get penalized by Google for a specific keyword and essentially disappear from the SERPs for that keyword but keep position for the brand (#1) and some other keywords (#4 and #7)? And how would you find out that this is what happened if there is no GWT message?
Algorithm Updates | | gfiedel0 -
Why does Google say they have more URLs indexed for my site than they really do?
When I do a site search with Google (i.e. site:www.mysite.com), Google reports "About 7,500 results" -- but when I click through to the end of the results and choose to include omitted results, Google really has only 210 results for my site. I had an issue months back with a large # of URLs being indexed because of query strings and some other non-optimized technicalities - at that time I could see that Google really had indexed all of those URLs - but I've since implemented canonical URLs and fixed most (if not all) of my technical issues in order to get our index count down. At first I thought it would just be a matter of time for them to reconcile this, perhaps they were looking at cached data or something, but it's been months and the "About 7,500 results" just won't change even though the actual pages indexed keeps dropping! Does anyone know why Google would be still reporting a high index count, which doesn't actually reflect what is currently indexed? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | CassisGroup0 -
Is Google Rotating Good Matches?
I have a theory that Google may be trying to be fair to white-hat-seo sites that are doing the right things with blogging, linking, social media, etc. [ie that deserve equal good positioning] are being cycled to and from the first page, perhaps in a weekly or monthly basis. My theory would be that they are purposefully doing it to give those sites more equal exposure. My case: I've had top rankings for http://thedogbitelawyer.com for almost all of the important terms for dog bite lawyers for a couple of years now. When Penguin came out we lost some ground across the board, and identified that perhaps there was too much duplicate content left over from when I inherited the site. I reworked the site wording and link structure a bit and gained back positioning. Since that time we are up and down like a yo-yo on the top terms! Anybody else have this suspicion? If it's true, I don't need to stress, if we are bouncing around for other reason's I'd better keep stressing!
Algorithm Updates | | JCDenver0 -
Working in the world of Google Farmer Update
So I know have seen how my websites have taken a nose dive from the google farmer update most likely with traffic significantly hit. Example site is callcatalog.com. What recommendations are there to deal with the new world order? How can we look at optimizing, changing, modifying our process to improve rankings and traffic?
Algorithm Updates | | seo_ploom0 -
Conveying Farmer Update To Client
I work with a site that saw their super competitive top terms drop off page one with the Farmer update. So, #4 to #12.... that kinda thing. In the last year they've added a huge catalog of 500,000 item pages. The catalog has climbed to a 76% bounce rate, where as the handful of top pages is in the 20s +/-. To date, I haven't had much of anything to do with the catalog. That makes for a sitewide average bounce rate of almost 70% which has almost doubled in the past year as the catalog has ramped up. The catalog gets a ton of search traffic and sells a lot of items via that organic traffic. I'm advocating for a variety of measures, including cleaning up the catalog: 301ing out of stock pages to the homepage 301ing 100% bounce rate pages who've had hundreds/thousands of visits over time.. Improving the user experience. Offering rainchecks for out of stock items. They generally don't believe that the huge bounce rate (bad user experience stats) is hurting their top terms on their top pages. They see it as two different issues. Any thoughts on how to present evidence that the catalog is the culprit? In researching it, I found these two quotes: "In particular, it's important to note that low quality pages on one part of a site can impact the overall ranking of that site," the Google spokesman said. and... "Google spokesman told PCMag that sites that believe they have been adversely impacted should "extensively evaluate their site quality." Not only that, but the item descriptions are straight from the manufacturer, so the pages aren't that unique text-wise. Any industry standard on catalog page bounce rates? Not that it's the only possible area of SEO improvement, because it's not. I thought those quotes were pretty conclusive, but I guess not. Is there some straight-from-Google additional info to suport this? Or, am I just wrong to focus on user experience... bounce rate, pages, time on site, etc? Thanks! Mike
Algorithm Updates | | 945010