Is My Competitor Beating Me With A Better URL Structure?
-
A competitor is consistently beating my website on non-competitive, long tail keywords. His DA is 32 compared to my 46. His average PA is 23 to my 28. His average On Page Optimization Grade is a C compared to my A. His page speed score using YSlow is a 71 compared to my 78.
The only thing I can think of at this point is that he has a better URL structure. We both have the keyword in the URL, but his structure goes like this (keyword: apw wyott parts):
www.competitor.com/apw-wyott/parts
While mine goes like this (I had nothing to do with this site's architecture; this is what I'm stuck with for the time being):
http://www.etundra.com/APW_Wyott_Parts-C347.html
It should be noted that the last word in these keywords is always the same - "parts." These keywords are for parts by different manufacturers so they follow a consistent pattern: [manufacturer-name] followed by "parts."
Also, the "C347" on the end of my URL is the category number given to this particular category of products in our database.
Are his URLs beating me or should I continue to look for other factors? If so, what other factors should I consider?
-
Yeah I've used the LDA tool in the past and found it helpful as a guide. If I had to guess I would say LDA is giving their page a higher ranking because they have the line "Mfr. APW WYOTT" in every part listing on this page.
Meanwhile we have broken our parts up into subcategories to make it easier for actual users to find what they're looking for, and we therefore lose all of the relevant product content to the subcategories.
I think what I'll do is add content below the subcategories on these pages that is both useful to the visitor and keyword rich for the search engines.
-
I am sure they have the ability to tell the difference. I can't say for sure Google's feelings on this particular use. If Matt Cutts was to make a video about this method my guess of his response would be something along the lines of "I don't like it, it's not user oriented, but I can't say it's black hat".
This reasoning is why I referred to the tactic as questionable. I would love to hear discussion about this topic from other SEOs.
-
All content on the page is considered but the primary issue is the pop-up paragraph.
Step back and read that paragraph then look at your page. As a user which would you prefer to read, that paragraph or the paragraph on your page?
You can also use that LDA tool. The tool can be used as a guide, and not by any means an ultimate way to choose which is the better page. When I compared both pages, I felt your competitors page offered the better content from a pure keyword phrase ranking perspective, and the LDA tool agrees with that assessment. I used "apw wyott parts" as the phrase, which appears to be the phrase you are both targeting.
-
Thanks Ryan. The first four are known issues. I just can't believe it's content that's beating me. Is it that link with the pop-up paragraph or is there other content you're referring to?
-
Right, from a usability standpoint it's no good, but from a search engine standpoint, can Google tell the difference?
-
Yes, the keyword in the domain makes a noticeable difference. Some other issues with your site:
-
#1 take care of any outages so your site is 99.999% stable
-
you show 3 meta description tags. Delete the last two
-
you show 3 meta keyword tags. I would recommend deleting all of them
-
your copyright date is 2009. It's not a SEO issue per se but it should be udpated.
-
your competitor is clearly beating you on content. Try using the SEOmoz LDA tool and comparing your sites.
-
-
It is a lot of content buried at the bottom of the page which is most likely not seen by viewers. If you were to install tracking analytics to the page, what percentage of readers do you think would actually click on it?
I am guessing the way it is presented it would be in the very low single digits. That is a lot of content to display in that manner.
-
Why is the link to more content questionable?
-
Hi Ryan,
Even though "parts" in their root domain is only a partial match for these keywords that is making the difference??? Wow. OK. That explains why they often beat the manufacturer's website as well.
Try looking at the site again. We experience regular outages like the one you just saw. I'm sure that's not helping matters either. It's a constant battle with IT to get that resolved.
-
Greg,
While your competitor appears to have cleaner URLs, the difference is relatively minor. While URLs make a difference, they are just one of the many factors involved with your site's SEO performance. I would recommend looking at other factors.
A large factor involved is your competitors domain name. After checking Google it seems you are being outranked by partstown.com. The domain portion of the URL is given a significant amount of weight and will help your competitor on any "parts" related searches.
A tactic your competitor is using is questionable. Look at the the bottom of http://www.partstown.com/apw-wyott/parts. Notice there is a "Read more about APW Wyott" link. When you press that link a new window appears with a large paragraph of content which can substantially help their page ranking.
I tried to look at your site but received a timeout error twice. I tried from another pc and browser and received a "could not find etundra.com" message.
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
-
URL structure change and xml sitemap
At the end of April we changed the url structure of most of our pages and 301 redirected the old pages to the new ones. The xml sitemaps were also updated at that point to reflect the new url structure. Since then Google has not indexed the new urls from our xml sitemaps and I am unsure of why. We are at 4 weeks since the change, so I would have thought they would have indexed the pages by now. Any ideas on what I should check to make sure pages are indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ang0 -
What is the Good URL structure for Blog posts
Please let me know what is the goood URL structure for blog posts http://www.abc.com/postname/ or http://www.abc.com/�tegory%/%postname% If Category, Can we name it Blog like website/blog/postname or it is good to use actual categories, and How many categories we can use?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Michael.Leonard0 -
Url rewrite & 301 redirects
Hi all I am having some issues rearding url rewrites and 301 redirects with 1 and 1 hosting and am unsure of the best approach. The website is a custom made shopping cart system with categories and products. The current urls for categories are : index.php?l=product_list&c=1 The new url format required is : /banner-stands The current urls for products are : index.php?l=product_detail&c=1&p=1 The new url format required is : /banner-stands/banner-stand Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vividwebdesign0 -
Canonical URLs and Sitemaps
We are using canonical link tags for product pages in a scenario where the URLs on the site contain category names, and the canonical URL points to a URL which does not contain the category names. So, the product page on the site is like www.example.com/clothes/skirts/skater-skirt-12345, and also like www.example.com/sale/clearance/skater-skirt-12345 in another category. And on both of these pages, the canonical link tag references a 3rd URL like www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. This 3rd URL, used in the canonical link tag is a valid page, and displays the same content as the other two versions, but there are no actual links to this generic version anywhere on the site (nor external). Questions: 1. Does the generic URL referenced in the canonical link also need to be included as on-page links somewhere in the crawled navigation of the site, or is it okay to be just a valid URL not linked anywhere except for the canonical tags? 2. In our sitemap, is it okay to reference the non-canonical URLs, or does the sitemap have to reference only the canonical URL? In our case, the sitemap points to yet a 3rd variation of the URL, like www.example.com/product.jsp?productID=12345. This page retrieves the same content as the others, and includes a canonical link tag back to www.example.com/skater-skirt-12345. Is this a valid approach, or should we revise the sitemap to point to either the category-specific links or the canonical links?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 379seo0 -
Sudden increase in number of indexed URLs. How ca I know what URLs these are?
We saw a spike in the total number of indexed URLs (17,000 to 165,000)--what would be the most efficient way to find out what the newly indexed URLs are?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Canonical URL Tag Usage
Hi there, I have a .co.uk website and a .ie website, which have the exact same content on both, should I put a canonical tag on both websites, on every page? Kind Regards
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Paul780 -
URL Structure - Keywords vs. Information Architecture/Navigation
I'm creating the URL structure for an ecommerce site and was wondering if it's better to structure my URLs according to the most popular way people word their key phrases or by what makes most sense from a navigation perspective. Let's say I'm selling clothing (I'm not, just an example). I want the site to be open enough so a user can navigate by Person Type (Men's, Women's, Children's), Clothing Type (Shoes, Shirts, Hats), and Brands (Nike, Reebok, adidas). My gut and past experience say to structure the URLs from the least specific to the most specific: mysite.com/mens/shoes/nike But I know "men's Nike shoes" is searched for more than "men's shoes Nike", which would render this URL: mysite.com/mens/nike/shoes I know mysite.com/mens-nike-shoes would be best, but the folders setup is what I have to work with. So which is best for SEO? URLs that play to the structure of the most searched for key phrases? Or URLs that follow the information architecture/navigation of a site? Nate
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rball10 -
Quick URL structure question
Say you've got 5,000 articles. Each of these are from 2-3 generations of taxonomy. For example: example.com/motherboard/pc/asus39450 example.com/soundcard/pc/hp39 example.com/ethernet/software/freeware/stuffit294 None of the articles were SUPER popular as is, but they still bring in a bit of residual traffic combined. Few thousand or so a day. You're switching to a brand new platform. Awesome new structure, taxonomy, etc. The real deal. But, historically, you don't have the old taxonomy functions. The articles above, if created today, file under example.com/hardware/ This is the way it is from here on out. But what to do with the historical files? keep the original URL structure, in the new system. Readers might be confused if they try to reach example.com/motherboard, but at least you retain all SEO weight and these articles are all older anyways. Who cares? Grab some lunch. change the urls to /hardware/, and redirect everything the right way. Lose some rank maybe, but its a smooth operation, nice and neat. Grab some dinner. change the urls to /hardware/ DONT redirect, surprise Google with 5k articles about old computer hardware. Magical traffic splurge, go skydiving. Panic, cry into your pillow. Get job signing receipts at CostCo Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EricPacifico0