Welcome to the Q&A Forum

With the caveat that this is a 7-yo thread -- I'd say that it's generally more of a filter these days (vs. a Capital-P penalty). The OEM or large resellers are almost always going to win these battles, and you'll be at a disadvantage if you duplicate their product descriptions word-for-word.

Can you still rank? Sure, but you're going to have an easier time if you can add some original value. If you aren't allowed to modify the info, is there anything you can add to it -- custom reviews (not from users, but say an editorial-style review), for example? You don't have to do it for thousands of products. You could start with ten or 25 top sellers and see how things go.

Don't have an exact date, but the UI feature is relatively new. I agree with @effectdigital that this is a general capability that Google has been building/expanding for a while. It's helpful to look at that underlying logic, as it will spawn new features over time.

Unfortunately, some keyword research tools may strip that special character out, so I'd be a little wary of the results. It may not reflect what Google does in all cases.

While this is interesting (especially to me and others who like to dig into the nuances of search), I'm not sure if it helps you much practically. I don't think a typical searcher is every going to enter "¾" (or, if some do, it's incredibly low volume).

Can you provide a context? Over the past couple of years, Google has started to treat symbols differently depending on the context. I've seen weird situations with the $ sign, for example.

In some cases, Google will try to actually do the math and pull up calculator functions, for example. However, the handle a search like [3/4" wrench] pretty well and seem to understand the context (and match it to '3/4' in title tags, etc.).

Sure do

How to Write Meta Descriptions in a Constantly Changing World

Unfortunately, we don't have much guidance from Google at this point on the "Interesting Finds" section. It seems to be news-like, but as with "Top Stories," taps sites and articles beyond traditional news sites. It's very likely that AMP is a factor.

Anecdotally, the articles seem to be more of a mix of recent and evergreen than "Top Stories" do. It almost seems more connected to "In-depth Articles," which disappeared last year. When the articles aren't recent, they seem to be longer, more in-depth pieces.

I know this has been a couple of years, but just a heads up that we've written a more permanent resource about this question on the Moz blog (as it seems to come up periodically):

Can You Reverse A 301 Redirect?

The only semi-consistent story we're seeing is some minor reversals from the August 1st update, but even that's not clear. I'd say that, if you were hit by August 1st, I'd pay closer attention, but that's about as strong a statement as I'd make.

In general, unless there's something really obvious, like an error in Google Search Console, then you're looking at traffic changes and ranking changes. Both can have not only seasonal but day-of-week and even hour-by-hour variations, so it's important to track any change over time.

In this case, it did look like the March 12 core update rolled out in 1-2 days, followed by a relatively quiet period of algorithm flux, so I don't think this is a sustained roll-out. If you were hit, you'd be seeing it by now, I suspect. That said, note that ranking changes may take longer to see, depending on how often your data is updated (we're weekly in Moz Pro).

Yeah, that's the one I'm familiar with, and is the only big change I'm aware of in the past year. Haven't heard any chatter about location switching since then. There have been some changes that impact how Google handle locations for automated SERP collection, but most of those don't impact regular searches.

Someone who will not be named (it rhymes with "Bomb Itch Slow") told me to Mechanical Turk the crap out of it

We're getting a lot of questions about the upcoming Google mobile algorithm update, and so I wanted to start a discussion that covers what we know at this point (or, at least, what we think we know). If you have information that contradicts this or expands on it, please feel free to share it in the comments. This is a developing situation.

1. What is the mobile update?

On February 26th, Google announced that they would start factoring in mobile-friendliness as a ranking signal. The official announcement is here. Of note, "This change will affect mobile searches in all languages worldwide and will have a significant impact in our search results."

2. When will the update happen?

In an unprecedented move, Google announced that the algorithm update will begin on April 21st. Keep in mind that the roll-out could take days or weeks.

3. Will this affect my desktop rankings?

As best we know - no. Mobile-friendliness will only impact mobile rankings. This is important, because it suggests that desktop and mobile rankings, which are currently similar, will diverge. In other words, even though desktop and mobile SERPs look very different, if a site is #1 on desktop, it's currently likely to be #1 on mobile. After April 21st, this may no longer be the case.

4. Is this a boost or a demotion?

This isn't clear, but practically it doesn't matter that much and the difference can be very difficult to measure. If everyone gets moved to the front of the line except you, you're still at the back of the line. Google has implied that this isn't a Capital-P Penalty in the sense we usually mean it. Most likely, the mobile update is coded as a ranking boost.

5. Is this a domain- or page-based update?

At SMX West, Google's Gary Ilyes clarified that the update would operate on the page level. Any mobile-friendly page can benefit from the update, and an entire site won't be demoted simply because a few pages aren't mobile friendly.

6. Is mobile-friendly on a scale or is it all-or-none?

For now, Google seems to be suggesting that a page is either mobile-friendly or not. Either you make the cut or you don't. Over time, this may evolve, but expect the April 21st launch to be all-or-none.

7. How can I tell if my site/page is mobile-friendly?

Google has provided a mobile-friendly testing tool, and pages that are mobile-friendly should currently show the "Mobile-friendly" label on mobile searches (this does not appear on desktop searches). Some SEOs are saying that different tools/tests are showing different results, and it appears that the mobile-friendly designation has a number of moving parts.

8. How often will mobile data refresh?

Gary also suggested (and my apologies for potentially confusing people on Twitter) that this data will be updated in real-time. Hopefully, that means we won't have to worry about Penguin-style updates that take months to happen. If a page or site becomes mobile-friendly, it should benefit fairly quickly.

We're actively working to re-engineer the MozCast Project for mobile rankings and have begun collecting data. We will publish that data as soon as possible after April 21st (assuming it;s useful and that Google sticks to this date). We're also tracking the presence of the "Mobile-friendly" tag. Currently (as of 3/25), across 10,000 page-1 mobile results, about 63% of URLs are labeled as "Mobile-friendly". This is a surprisingly large number (to me, at least) - we'll see how it changes over time.

We've had a few questions about the line labeled "Update" in Google Search Console on the Search Analytics timeline graph (see attached image). Asking around the industry, there seems to be a fair amount of confusion about whether this indicates a Google algorithm update.

This is not an algorithm update - it indicates an internal update in how Google is measuring search traffic. Your numbers before and after the update may look different, but this is because Google has essentially changed how they calculate your search traffic for reporting purposes. Your actual ranking and traffic have not changed due to these updates.

The latest updated happened on April 27th and is described by Google on this page:

Data anomalies in Search Console

Given the historical connotations of "update" in reference to Google search, this is a poor choice of words and I've contacted the Webmaster Team about it.

2CsyN7Q

Thanks for sharing your story, Rick. My wife and I lost our first pregnancy due to Turner's Syndrome, so I'm painfully familiar with how random the genetic lottery can be. I'm happy to say we have a healthy, happy 17-month-old girl now. I'm glad to hear Noah is doing well, and I'm heartened to hear how proactive the doctors are being.

First off, I'd just like to say that you're doing a lot right. You have a well-designed site with great content, a good core structure, and many of the important features of a modern site/blog. The wide world of SEO can be overwhelming, but it's rare that you need to tackle it all at once.

I think it's great to be thinking proactively about categorizing your content, and it's ok to let that evolve organically as your needs are clear. Categorizing the videos certainly makes sense.

At this point, though, given that your basic structure is good and you've got a lot of content, the social and link-building aspects are probably equally or more important. You have one tremendous tool at your disposal - sincere passion that can connect you to an audience. Your own outreach efforts, interactions with other parents, discussion boards, communities, etc. will go a LONG way. As you build relationships, links will start building themselves.

One thing that wasn't clear to me until I fully read your post and dug into the site was that your wife is a pediatrician. The "Mom MD" just read like a cute category name to me (no offense intended - that was just my first impression). This fact, IMO, adds a lot of credibility to what you're doing, and makes this more than a personal blog. I'd make this clear, especially on the About page and at the top of the Mom MD section.

I have some smaller clients who have had limited luck with it, but I think it's best to just stick to one of the sites and do periodic releases (maybe every couple of months). If nothing else, it'll give you a sense of what's working, and you can take some of the popular releases and push to get them a broader market.

What I wouldn't do is go after multiple low-value PR services and plaster the same releases everywhere you can. At best, it's diminishing returns - at worst, they'll be devalued. I'm with Peter G. - the best press release opportunities come through relationships with the media. Obviously, though, that takes a lot more time.

Rand has a great post on link valuation:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/10-illustrations-on-search-engines-valuation-of-links

There's no magic to .edu links, frankly - the data over the past couple of years doesn't really support that they're inherently better than .com's, etc. It's true that many .edu sites are high-authority sites, of course, but that's just a correlation (it's not that Google prefers .edu or .gov inherently).

Within any site, though, you have to look at the Page Authority, the number of links on that page, the placement of the links, the anchor text, the relevance (to some degree), and a lot of other factors. Let's take a non-edu example - DMOZ. People kill themselves for DMOZ links, but lately I'm seeing DMOZ listings where the entire page isn't indexed because it's so deep. No indexation means ZERO link juice. So, even though it's DMOZ, the link is worthless.

The short answer is: No. They're not coming back, in the sense that anything has changed or that they carry any more weight than they did last year. All signs point to their continued decline. Google has publicly stated that it carries no positive ranking value.

Technically, Alan is correct - evidence suggest that Yahoo/Bing used Meta keywords as a ranking signal more recently than Google. Most of that evidence is 2+ years old, though, and I've seen no compelling reasons to think that it will tip the balance in any competitive situation on Bing. Even that 2009 article basically says: "Sure, use it, but don't expect much", IMO.

Here's the other problem - Meta keywords has been used as a negative ranking signal, and probably still is to some degree. In other words, you might not gain much or anything from using it, but if you spam it, you could get devalued. My gut feeling is that the negative signal is much, much stronger than the positive one, and even Google may still use it as a negative signal. I'm certain that Yahoo/Bing has used it as a negative signal (not sure if they still do).

I tend to agree that the competitive fears are overblown. Any decent site's keyword targets should be pretty clear - otherwise, it's not a very well SEO'd site.

Personally, if you want to use them, use them - but keep them short, sweet, and relevant. Once you do, get on with your life.

If you've been with Moz a while, you may have used our old Crawl Test tool. A year ago we launched an all new, campaign-based Site Crawl (with an entirely rebuild crawl engine), but Crawl Test fell into disrepair and we haven't had a solid tool for crawling non-campaign domains.

I'm happy to announce that we've just launched an all new On-Demand Crawl, built on the new Site Crawl engine, with a UI that's focused on quick insights. Moz Pro Standard tier customers can run up to 5 crawls per month at 3,000 page per crawl (crawls are saved for 90 days), with per-month limits increasing at higher levels.

Most On-Demand Crawls should run in a few minutes, making the tool perfect to get quick insights for sales meetings, vetting prospects, or analyzing competitors. We've written up a sample case study or logged-in customers can go directly to On-Demand Crawl.

Try it out -- we'd love to hear your use cases (either here or in the blog post comments).

This gets into the realm of opinion pretty fast - it can be shockingly difficult to measure the value of one link. Here are a few of my opinions:

(1) One link is one link. It's rarely the magic pill people want it to be, even from a very authoritative site. I've seen people get a link like this and then wait on their hands for a sudden change in rankings, and it almost never comes. If you're just starting out and you have little or no link profile, a strong link can kick-start you, but I wouldn't pay $750 just to get a link if your site is established (I'm not sure I'd pay it even if your site is new).

(2) DA and PA both matter, and how much each matters can really vary with the situation. Your profile on a deep page of BBB is not an authority=96 link. It will carry weight, but the weight of any given profile could vary a lot.

(3) BBB has gotten a bit more aggressive, IMO, and I suspect Google will devalue these links over time. People tell me that they haven't yet, in this case, but it is, in essence, a paid link. Any day, Google could say "These BBB links are counting too much" and just lower the volume. So, don't put all your eggs in one basket, no matter what you do.

Now, to be fair, your BBB listing does have other value, like using it as a trust signal. The business case for spending the money goes beyond SEO, and that's a decision you have to make for yourself. If 100% of your interest in the listing is for a followed link, though, I personally would spend the money elsewhere.

We don't generally condone paid links here on SEOmoz, because we feel the risks often outweigh the rewards. However, Eppie fairly notes that they do (too often) work. The problem is that, even putting ethics aside, most people just don't do it very well.

I actually think Shane makes a good point - some of these links aren't really "everlasting" in the full sense of the word. Article marketing and paid blog posts often get archived quickly, and while the links continue to exist, they get rapidly devalued simply by moving in the internal structure. These paid networks have to continue to sell new links, and selling new links often means archiving old links and diluting existing content. So, if you pay once, expect your link to be treated like a 2nd-class citizen down the road. That's just the nature of that business, IMO. With a monthly fee, they can at least afford to keep your link active.

There are "paid" options that Google tends to not view as critically, such as:

(1) Editorially-reviewed directories

(2) Sponsorships and membership organizations

(3) Paid press-release services (although not really "everlasting")

People tend to only think of the big ones for (1) and (2) and often overlook niche directories, smaller organizations, local organizations, etc. The nice thing about the smaller sites is that you may be one of a half-dozen paid listings/sponsors, as opposed to one of 10,000 articles in an article-marketing network.

I'll leave this open as a discussion in case others have constructive suggestions.

Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Dr-Pete

@Dr-Pete

Latest posts made by Dr-Pete

Best posts made by Dr-Pete

Blog Posts