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.
Sitelinks Issue - Different Languages
-
Hey folks,
We run different ccTLD's for revolveclothing.com (revolveclothing.es, revolveclothing.com.br, etc. etc.) and they all have their own WMT/Google Console with their own href lang tags etc.
The problem is this.
https://www.google.fr/#q=revolve+clothing
When you look at the sitelinks, you'll see that one of them (sales page) happens to be in Portuguese on the French site. Can anyone investigate and see why?
-
The Dirk answer points to some potential answers.
Said that, when I click on your SERP's link, I see others sitelinks (just two):
- the first >>> Robes
- the second >>> Вся распродажа.
As Dirk pointed out, your site has detected my IP (quite surely, but maybe it is user agent), and when I click on the second sitelink I see this url: http://www.revolveclothing.es/r/Brands.jsp?aliasURL=sale/all-sale-items/br/54cc7b&&n=s&s=d&c=All+Sale+Items.
The biggest problem, when it comes to IP redirections, is that they are a big problem in terms both of SEO and usability:
- SEO, because googlebot (and others bots) will mostly be redirected to the USA version due to their IPs, even though Google crawls site also from datacenters present in other country (but much less);
- Users, because you are making impossible, for instance, to a Spanish user to see the Spanish site whenever they are not in Spain. And that really sucks and pisses off users.
There's a solution:
-
making the IP redirection just the first time someone click on a link to your site and if that link is not corresponding to the version of the country from were users and bots are clicking;
-
presenting the links to the others country versions of your site, so that:
-
bots will follow those links and discover those versions (but not being redirected again);
-
users are free to go to the version of your site they really need (but not being redirected again if coming from those country selector links).
Said that, it would be better using a system like the one Amazon uses, which consists not forcing a redirection because of IP, but detecting it and launching an alert on-screen, something like: "We see that you are visiting us from [Country X]. Maybe you will prefer visiting [url to user's country site]".
Then, i just checked the hreflang implementation, and it seems it was implemented correctly (at least after a very fast review with Flang).
I tried to search for "Resolve clothing" in Spain incognito and not personalized search, and it shows me the Spanish website and Spanish sitelinks correctly;
I tried the same search from Spain but letting Google consider my user-agent (setup for English in search), and I saw the .com version and English sitelinks (which is fine).
Remember, sitelinks are decided by Goggle and we can only demote them.
To conclude, I think the real reason has to be searched not in a real international SEO issue (but check out the IP redirection), but to a possible and more general indexation problem.
-
If you look at the results on Google fr - I find it more surprising that apart from the first result - all the other results that are shown are coming from the .com version rather than the .fr version. If I search for Revolve cloathing on google.pt - I only get the US results & instagram.
You seem to use a system of ip detection - if you visit the French site from an American ip address you are redirect to the .com version (at least for the desktop version) - check this screenshot from the French site taken with a American ip address: http://www.webpagetest.org/screen_shot.php?test=150930_BN_1DSQ&run=1&cached=0 => this is clearly the US version. Remember that the main googlebot is surfing from a Californian ip - so he will mainly see the US version - there are bots that visit with other ip's but they don't guarantee that these visit with the same frequency & same depth (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6144055?hl=en). This could be the reason of your problem.
On top of that - your HTML is huge - the example page you mention has 13038 lines of HTML code and takes ages to load ( 16sec - http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150930_VJ_1KRP/ ). Size is a whopping 6000KB. Speed score for Google : 39%. You might want to look to that.
Hope this helps,
Dirk
-
Hey Jarred, Which one? http://take.ms/xTPyo My Portugese is terrible these days.
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
-
Any crawl issues with TLS 1.3?
Not a techie here...maybe this is to be expected, but ever since one of my client sites has switched to TLS 1.3, I've had a couple of crawl issues and other hiccups. First, I noticed that I can't use HTTPSTATUS.io any more...it renders an error message for URLs on the site in question. I wrote to their support desk and they said they haven't updated to 1.3 yet. Bummer, because I loved httpstatus.io's functionality, esp. getting bulk reports. Also, my Moz campaign crawls were failing. We are setting up a robots.txt directive to allow rogerbot (and the other bot), and will see if that works. These fails are consistent with the date we switched to 1.3, and some testing confirmed it. Anyone else seeing these types of issues, and can suggest any workarounds, solves, hacks to make my life easier? (including an alternative to httpstatus.io...I have and use screaming frog...not as slick, I'm afraid!) Do you think there was a configuration error with the client's TLS 1.3 upgrade, or maybe they're using a problematic/older version of 1.3?? Thanks -
Technical SEO | | TimDickey0 -
Robots.txt in subfolders and hreflang issues
A client recently rolled out their UK business to the US. They decided to deploy with 2 WordPress installations: UK site - https://www.clientname.com/uk/ - robots.txt location: UK site - https://www.clientname.com/uk/robots.txt
Technical SEO | | lauralou82
US site - https://www.clientname.com/us/ - robots.txt location: UK site - https://www.clientname.com/us/robots.txt We've had various issues with /us/ pages being indexed in Google UK, and /uk/ pages being indexed in Google US. They have the following hreflang tags across all pages: We changed the x-default page to .com 2 weeks ago (we've tried both /uk/ and /us/ previously). Search Console says there are no hreflang tags at all. Additionally, we have a robots.txt file on each site which has a link to the corresponding sitemap files, but when viewing the robots.txt tester on Search Console, each property shows the robots.txt file for https://www.clientname.com only, even though when you actually navigate to this URL (https://www.clientname.com/robots.txt) you’ll get redirected to either https://www.clientname.com/uk/robots.txt or https://www.clientname.com/us/robots.txt depending on your location. Any suggestions how we can remove UK listings from Google US and vice versa?0 -
Google serp pagination issue
We are a local real estate company and have landing pages for different communities and cities around our area that display the most recent listings. For example: www.mysite.com/wa/tumwater is our landing page for the city of Tumwater homes for sale. Google has indexed most of our landing pages, but for whatever reason they are displaying either page 2, 3, 4 etc... instead of page 1. Our Roy, WA landing page is another example. www.mysite.com/wa/roy has recently been showing up on page 1 of Google for "Roy WA homes for sale", but now we are much further down and www.mysite.com/wa/roy?start=80 (page 5) is the only page in the serps. (coincidentally we no longer have 5 pages worth of listings for this city, so this link now redirects to www.mysite.com/wa/roy.) We haven't made any major recent changes to the site. Any help would be much appreciated! *You can see what my site is in the attached image... I just don't want this post to show up when someone google's the actual name of the business 🙂 nTTrSMx.jpg C4mhfgh.jpg
Technical SEO | | summithomes0 -
If you use canonicals do the meta descriptions need to be different?
For example, we have 3 different subsites with the same pages. We will put canonicals so they reference the main pages. Do the meta descriptions have to be different for each of the three pages? How does Google handle meta data when using canonicals?
Technical SEO | | Shirley.Fenlason0 -
Duplicate Content Issues on Product Pages
Hi guys Just keen to gauge your opinion on a quandary that has been bugging me for a while now. I work on an ecommerce website that sells around 20,000 products. A lot of the product SKUs are exactly the same in terms of how they work and what they offer the customer. Often it is 1 variable that changes. For example, the product may be available in 200 different sizes and 2 colours (therefore 400 SKUs available to purchase). Theese SKUs have been uploaded to the website as individual entires so that the customer can purchase them, with the only difference between the listings likely to be key signifiers such as colour, size, price, part number etc. Moz has flagged these pages up as duplicate content. Now I have worked on websites long enough now to know that duplicate content is never good from an SEO perspective, but I am struggling to work out an effective way in which I can display such a large number of almost identical products without falling foul of the duplicate content issue. If you wouldnt mind sharing any ideas or approaches that have been taken by you guys that would be great!
Technical SEO | | DHS_SH0 -
ALT attribute keyword on the same image but different pages
Hi there, As i'm sure you're probably aware, moz advises to use a keyword within the ALT attribute on pages... On a new website I am launching, I have the ability to add an alt keyword to image headers. On multiple pages we have the exact same image but with different keywords associated them inside the alt attribute. The image itself is a collage of different images and so the keywords used can, quite sneakily, match the image. My question is therefore, will using different keywords on the same image on different pages have a negative effect on SEO? Thanks, Stuart
Technical SEO | | Stuart260 -
Difference between search volume in KWT and Impressions in GWT
Hi there, Sorry I've been a bit quiet of late, we're going through a huge rebranding exercise as well as staying on top of client work. Anyway. I've got an issue with keyword research phase of a client remarketing. Trying to decide which keywords to target (aren't we all?) The client has 3 months of back data in Google Webmaster Tools, which helps us to see Impressions, CTR and actual click-throughs etc. Now, they rank #1 on Google.com for a certain keyword (logged out, of course). According to Google Keyword tool (Logged in) there are 2.7million searches per month for this keyword. With the average CTR being 18% for a #1 keyword that should be bringing in 400k visits. However, take the same keyword in Google Webmaster Tools and the impressions are actually around 1,600 per month with a CTR of 9%. Different CTR's for different sectors I can accept. What I don't get is the vast difference between the impressions in GWT compared to the alleged search volume coming from the Keyword tool. Really need to understand this so we can better select keywords and judge approximate traffic expected if ranking #1 for a keyword. Any help would be really useful. Thank you!
Technical SEO | | Nobody15609869897230 -
Duplicate Content issue
I have been asked to review an old website to an identify opportunities for increasing search engine traffic. Whilst reviewing the site I came across a strange loop. On each page there is a link to printer friendly version: http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes That page also has a link to a printer friendly version http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes&printfriendly=yes and so on and so on....... Some of these pages are being included in Google's index. I appreciate that this can't be a good thing, however, I am not 100% sure as to the extent to which it is a bad thing and the priority that should be given to getting it sorted. Just wandering what views people have on the issues this may cause?
Technical SEO | | CPLDistribution0