Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
How Good or Bad is having a blog feed(s) on the homepage?
-
Hello everyone,
I was wondering if I can get some different opinion about having a blog feed on the homepage.
Image, title, excerpt
I have several feeds on mine which I do not believe it hurts and has helped my rankings but I wanted some superior SEO brains to weigh in.
Is it good for SEO?
When would it be bad?
How many posts would be considered too much?
On my blog, have the most recent posts which have some of the same feeds. Which is making me question the duplicated content.
https://www.brightvessel.com/blog/
Thanks!
Judd
-
Hey Judd, I also agree with Martin.
I would suggest reducing the number of articles on your homepage. The homepage is more of a gateway to introduce further primary content, services and products of your site. A space to sell and entice your audience. I think by having so many articles you are potentially causing more distractions that necessary.
More content about your business and services would also be more beneficial than the blog content.
Maybe just have a single row for your blog, featuring a single article from each of your categories. That way hopefully you will enable your services to shine a little more whilst still retaining some peripheral related content seo value.
If people are searching for your blog content and you rank well, the articles themselves will predominately be the landing pages rather than your home page.
Hope that is of some use.
Cheers
Tim
-
Hey Judd,
In my opinion, there're too many links pointing to the articles in the feed.
I'd reduce the amount of articles on homepage by half which means to hide the second row for each category. Because now, the feed takes more than a half of the page. Try to add more static optimized text which will be unique.
As long as it's the discussion, I'm really excited about some other's opinions.
Cheers, Martin
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
-
Issues with Multiple H1 tags on homepage?
Hi folks, My homepage has 3 identical H1 tags due to the fact that I have had to create individual hero images (with headings) for desktop, tablet and mobile. I couldn't get my theme to display the layout in exactly the way I wanted on each device without doing a specific hero image and tag for each device type. Does this have a major impact on my SEO? Thanks,
On-Page Optimization | | Veevlimike
Mike.0 -
Are the prepositions and separate letters in URL bad for website optimization?
Is it ok for website optimization to use prepositions and separate letters in URL ? Examples: -i-series ; -salad-with-avocado etc.
On-Page Optimization | | adrecom0 -
Does Rel=canonical affect google shopping feed?
I have a client who gets a good portion of their sales (~40%) from Google Product Feeds, and for those they want each (Product X Quantity) to have it’s own SKU, as they often get 3 listings in a given Google shopping query, i.e. 2,4,8 units of a given product. However, we are worried about this creating duplicate content on the search side. Do you know if we could rel=canonical on the site without messing with their google shopping results? The crux of the issue is that they want the products to appear distinct for the product feed, and unified for the web so as not to dilute. Thoughts?
On-Page Optimization | | VISISEEKINC0 -
How to Structure URL's for Multiple Locations
We are currently undergoing a site redesign and are trying to figure out the best way to structure the URL's and breadcrumbs for our many locations. We currently have 60 locations nationwide and our URL structure is as follows: www.mydomain.com/locations/{location} Where {location} is the specific street the location is on or the neighborhood the location is in. (i.e. www.mydomain.com/locations/waterford-lakes) The issue is, {location} is usually too specific and is not a broad enough keyword. The location "Waterford-Lakes" is in Orlando and "Orlando" is the important keyword, not " Waterford Lakes". To address this, we want to introduce state and city pages. Each state and city page would link to each location within that state or city (i.e. an Orlando page with links to "Waterford Lakes", "Lake Nona", "South Orlando", etc.). The question is how to structure this. Option 1 Use the our existing URL and breadcrumb structure (www.mydomain.com/locations/{location}) and add state and city pages outside the URL path: www.mydomain.com/{area} www.mydomain.com/{state} Option 2 Build the city and state pages into the URL and breadcrumb path: www.mydomain.com/locations/{state}/{area}/{location} (i.e www.mydomain.com/locations/fl/orlando/waterford-lakes) Any insight is much appreciated. Thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | uBreakiFix0 -
Duplicate Content for Men's and Women's Version of Site
So, we're a service where you can book different hairdressing services from a number of different salons (site being worked on). We're doing both a male and female version of the site on the same domain which users are can select between on the homepage. The differences are largely cosmetic (allowing the designers to be more creative and have a bit of fun and to also have dedicated male grooming landing pages), but I was wondering about duplicate pages. While most of the pages on each version of the site will be unique (i.e. [male service] in [location] vs [female service] in [location] with the female taking precedent when there are duplicates), what should we do about the likes of the "About" page? Pages like this would both be unique in wording but essentially offer the same information and does it make sense to to index two different "About" pages, even if the titles vary? My question is whether, for these duplicate pages, you would set the more popular one as the preferred version canonically, leave them both to be indexed or noindex the lesser version entirely? Hope this makes sense, thanks!
On-Page Optimization | | LeahHutcheon0 -
Is it good to have a subdomain with keyword?
Hi, I want to ask do you thing that it is good and necessary to have a subdomain with a keyword in it when the domain doesn't include it? f.e. you have a website named domain.com but there is no keyword in it. And if you add subdomain keyword.domain.com will this bring any benefit?
On-Page Optimization | | vladokan0 -
Leather goods manufacturer: mention leather everywhere?
This may be a very basic question, but with all this talk about overoptimization I just want to make sure we get this right. We run a webshop for a manufacturer of leather products. Billfolds, iPhone sleeves, briefcases etc. Their company name (also the domain name at which the webshop is active) does not include 'leather'. Obviously, leather is an important keyword for these products, but having a category page with 'leather X', 'leather Y', 'leather Z' not only looks weird, it might even look spammy. The same, though to a lesser extent, is true for the category names. Do we really want to have 'leather billfolds', 'leather ipad sleeves' etc. at the top of every category? Can anyone give some tips, pointers, best practices perhaps for when an important keyword is basically true for every category/product/page of your site? How do you include it without overoptimizing?
On-Page Optimization | | DocdataCommerce0 -
Does a page's url have any weight in Google rankings?
I'm sure this question must have been asked before but I can't find it. I'm assuming that the title tag is far more important than the page's url. Is that correct? Does the url have any relevance to Google?
On-Page Optimization | | rdreich490