| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) || |
|Rotating / Refreshing Content On Deep Pages|
Issues with ranking, indexing, etc. Please help!
| 12:51 am on Apr 23, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I'm working on a project that provides a list of 3 results at a time for specific terms and criteria. Each time the page is refreshed, 3 different results popup. Pretend that we only have 9 entries for each category, so after a few refreshes, the same content will show up.
I have a feeling that this will be bad for SEO for the following reasons:
1. The "results" themselves are the only unique on-site content (beyond title and meta tags) which alert Google to what the page is about. If they're constantly shuffled, the page would appear "unstable" which I can't assume is very good. Google will keep indexing different results.
2. With the only on-site content being rotated with each refresh, Google might get confused on what the page is about. We have no solid, static content to describe the page or the results. While the page title will help out, if there's no static content describing the services, we're pretty thin on uniqueness. I also don't anticipate these deep pages receiving many incoming links to help describe it to the spiders.
Does anyone have any insight into this issue? I'd love to hear any advice or comments regarding this, especially experience with a similar issue.
Writing unique content for each page is not feasible or else I'd obviously do that.
Thanks a lot!
| 3:24 am on May 27, 2014 (gmt 0)|
We're showing 3 at a time (or initially) which will be based on specific criteria to make things easier on the user. Instead of having to do lots of leg work to find the best solution, our criteria has done the work for you and you're left with the 3 best for you.
"There is more benefit if all is visible than hidden (but can be found by spiders) as that is a PAGE. Just asking."
Sorry, what is the question? We're going to show 3 initially and have a button display the next 3, and the next 3, and run out the entire list like this.
The rotating content isn't ads. It was just a way to ensure that all applicable businesses receive a fair amount of impressions to users.
| 8:19 pm on May 27, 2014 (gmt 0)|
|The rotating content isn't ads. It was just a way to ensure that all applicable businesses receive a fair amount of impressions to users. |
Figured it was something like that. So the query becomes (if showing the same static three at page load to keep google happy)) will the others on that rotating list be unhappy with the presentation? And secondly how many times will the user click on the "next three" button? Will there be a countdown like "9 of 44", etc to alert the user?
The original question has morphed a bit... and that's the nature of discussion.
| 6:38 pm on May 28, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Yes, we're loading the same 3 results on each page load and featuring a "Next Three" button. We're unsure how often people will use the button as we don't have it implemented and have no stats. The first 3 results are based on what the user would prefer, so we're unconcerned with what else people choose.
There is no countdown. It's up to the user if they want to see the next 3 results or not.
Right now we're thinking of implementing 3 static results on each page load with the "Show Next 3" button. The button would replace the first 3 results within the same page. The replaced results would be visible to Google in the source code.
Any idea how Google would respond to this? Is this "worse" than loading the next 3 beneath the initial 3 in Google's eyes?
| 2:08 am on Jul 9, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Bumped/reminded via sticky there was yet another query...
In this situation I'm not sure I'd worry about G. If the concept is to provide each of the listings a "fair share" of impressions I believe I'd be more worried about my clients than G!
How many potential listings for each page? How many apply to that page? How many page subdivisions are possible? IE, break into city, county, state, north, south, east, west, by language, by rate, by experience, by whatever the heck you can think of? I'd show ALL of those on those kind of pages... not to make more pages but to more accurately define those divisions and have NO rotating "click next" etc.
This would make each page more specific/exact and I don't think that hurt with G or any other SE, and at the same time prevents any unhappiness with client listings (or whatever you call them) as all are displayed and none are ever hidden under a rotate or see next demand on site users.
| 6:30 pm on Jul 10, 2014 (gmt 0)|
That is not possible for us. We are final on having multiple businesses per category (page), but only 3 at once. I am looking for insight on whether or not G treats 3 results at a time, but all preloaded in source code the same as 3 results > button, 3 more results (below the original 3), and so forth (preloaded as well).
| 11:57 pm on Jul 10, 2014 (gmt 0)|
At this point all you can do is try it and see what G does. I don't guess about G... most times I've been wrong! ;)
| 4:24 pm on Jul 11, 2014 (gmt 0)|
Sounds good, ha! Thanks for all the help.
| 3:05 pm on Jul 15, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I am sorry, but has anybody mentioned to Shark27 that this sounds like a HORRIBLE user experience?
| 8:31 am on Aug 9, 2014 (gmt 0)|
I think it could be pretty refreshing actually. When I've found specific businesses in the past through Yelp, it took forever sifting through pages and reviews to find them. Being able to see the 3 nearest to me with the best reviews (and pre-vetted) is a lot easier. You can also request a free quote from all 3 at once, which again, helps user experience.
What do you hate about it? Thanks for the feedback, Planet!
| 5:12 am on Aug 10, 2014 (gmt 0)|
And (IIRC) this is a game changer to the commentary which has churned though this thread...
YOU are providing the BEST three? NEAREST? ... If that is what you are actually doing instead of just showing the FIRST THREE then click for more (which means the first three have more "face time" than your other client listings), then you are proving a real service. And your page info should reflect that. You need to run geo-ip processes to make sure the user does get the NEAREST THREE as the first result.
If memory serves on this thread, the original query was what would G think of this? If the above scenario is accurate, nothing. They do it all the time. :)
Which is it? Static list of XYZ in your stable of listings, cycled to the next three, or is it interactive based on visitor geo-ip and BEST results for that visitor?
| This 40 message thread spans 2 pages: < < 40 ( 1  ) |