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 -
Redirect and ranking issue
Hi there - was wondering whether someone might be able to help. For a period of a day and a half, all the traffic to our website's blog articles were mistakenly being redirected to our homepage. A number of these articles ranked in the top 5 in Google worldwide for their targeted keywords, so this was a considerable amount of organic traffic that was instantly being redirected. It was a strange site glitch and our web team rectified the error, but now all these articles have disappeared from Google rankings (not visible anywhere in the first five pages). I'm presuming this must be linked to this redirect issue - we've been advised to wait and see whether Google restores these rankings, but I'm still concerned as to whether this represents a more serious problem? We have re-indexed the pages we are most concerned about, but am not sure whether there is anything else obvious we should think to do. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd be happy to hear them!
Technical SEO | | rwat0 -
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 -
I have multiple URLs that redirect to the same website. Is this an issue?
I have multiple URLs that all lead to the same website. Years ago they were purchased and were sitting dormant. Currently they are 301 redirects and each of the URLs feed to different areas of my website. Should I be worried about losing authority? And if so, is there a better way to do this?
Technical SEO | | undrdog990 -
Canonical issues using Screaming Frog and other tools?
In the Directives tab within Screaming Frog, can anyone tell me what the difference between "canonicalised", "canonical", and "no canonical" means? They're found in the filter box. I see the data but am not sure how to interpret them. Which one of these would I check to find canonical issues within a website? Are there any other easy ways to identify canonical issues?
Technical SEO | | Flock.Media0 -
Image Indexing Issue by Google
Hello All,My URL is: www.thesalebox.comI have Submitted my image Sitemap in google webmaster tool on 10th Oct 2013,Still google could not indexing any of my web images,Please refer my sitemap - www.thesalebox.com/AppliancesHomeEntertainment.xml and www.thesalebox.com/Hardware.xmland my webmaster status and image indexing status are below,
Technical SEO | | CommercePundit
Can you please help me, why my images are not indexing in google yet? is there any issue? please give me suggestions?Thanks!
0 -
Adding multi-language sitemaps to robots.txt
I am working on a revamped multi-language site that has moved to Magento. Each language runs off the core coding so there are no sub-directories per language. The developer has created sitemaps which have been uploaded to their respective GWT accounts. They have placed the sitemaps in new directories such as: /sitemap/uk/sitemap.xml /sitemap/de/sitemap.xml I want to add the sitemaps to the robots.txt but can't figure out how to do it. Also should they have placed the sitemaps in a single location with the file identifying each language: /sitemap/uk-sitemap.xml /sitemap/de-sitemap.xml What is the cleanest way of handling these sitemaps and can/should I get them on robots.txt?
Technical SEO | | MickEdwards0