Mobile version improves SEO and rankings?

[surenot]

My site doesn't have a mobile version and I noticed that rankings are not the same when I check them using PC or smartphone!

Does mobile version have a positive effect on SEO?

[not2easy]

If you want mobile visitors, you need to move to responsive design because Google (and the Chrome browser) is not showing serps for desktop only sites in mobile searches. There have been many threads in several of the forums about the evolution of search and the importance of mobile friendly sites.

[RedBar]

Google (and the Chrome browser) is not showing serps for desktop only sites in mobile searches.

I just checked this on my Lumia using the native IE browser and that's not correct, the #1 result for one of my products gives my desktop site, my fully responsive site is nowhere to be found.

I don't have Chrome installed therefore no idea what that does.

[surenot]

My site ranks on the first page when checking with IE Chrome or Firefox however it's gone when checking using my smartphone!

I don't get it does mobile version good for SEO?

[EditorialGuy]

If you want mobile visitors, you need to move to responsive design because Google (and the Chrome browser) is not showing serps for desktop only sites in mobile searches.

Responsive design is just one possible approach. Another method is to have mobile-friendly pages with separate URLs. This guide from Google may be helpful:

[google.com...]

I don't get it does mobile version good for SEO?

Yes, if you want to do well in mobile search. (It shouldn't make any difference in desktop search.)

[surenot]

Thanks buddy very much. One last question!

Why do I need to have different URL for mobile and desktop version?

I see many sites that show the same content under the same URL but on different versions!

[EditorialGuy]

Why do I need to have different URL for mobile and desktop version?

You don't, unless they're separate pages (which, by definition, would have separate URLs).

If you're using responsive design, for example, you'll have only one URL for all presentations of a page, since only one page is being used.

[Robert Charlton]

This thread, which we just published here, worth noting...

Google Emailing Non-Mobile Friendly Sites
http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4729929.htm [webmasterworld.com]

As I understand from the original post, Google is indicating its preference for responsive sites. In its mobile seminars which it holds around the country, Google also is very clear that it prefers responsive.

[EditorialGuy]

As I understand from the original post, Google is indicating its preference for responsive sites. In its mobile seminars which it holds around the country, Google also is very clear that it prefers responsive.

On the other hand, Google doesn't indicate that it gives any ranking advantage to responsive pages, and (as Google's own documents state) there are different pros and cons for responsive Web design, dynamic serving, and separate URLs. Besides, aren't we supposed to design pages for users, not for search engines?

Google's stated reasons for recommending responsive include (among other things) things like improved crawling efficiency and reducing the likelihood of common mistakes or pitfalls when detecting user agents. Those may be valid reasons, but (as Google points out elsewhere) there are also valid reasons for using other approaches. Ultimately it's the site owner who has to decide what approach is most practical, most cost-effective, least likely to have a negative impact on revenue, and best for users.

ADDENDUM: We've got two evergreen information sites--one that has separate desktop and mobile URLS, and a spinoff site that's responsive. The former gets a lot more mobile traffic (from Google, and in general) than the latter does. Go figure!

[aristotle]

I have a question that I've been wondering about for some time. When Google says "mobile", does it only refer to phones, or does it also include small tablets?

I know that many owners of commercial sites are very interested in phones, but my sites are non-commercial and most of the articles on them are intended for contemplative reading, which might be hard to do on phone screens, but could be done on small tablets. In other words I don't much care if my sites rank on phone searches, but would like them to rank on small tablets searches.

In fact I designed my pages several years ago to automatically shrink down to fit on small tablets, but didn't try for a fit on phone screens.

So does anyone know exactly what devices Google refers to when using the word "mobile"?

[EditorialGuy]

When Google says "mobile", does it only refer to phones, or does it also include small tablets?

In its Mobile Guide for developers, Google states that "In this document, 'mobile' or 'mobile devices' refers to smartphones" and "We consider tablets as devices in their own class, so when we speak of mobile devices, we generally do not include tablets in the definition." Source:

[developers.google.com...]

Also, Google Analytics has treated "mobile" as a separate category from "tablets" (and from "desktop") for some time.

I know that many owners of commercial sites are very interested in phones, but my sites are non-commercial and most of the articles on them are intended for contemplative reading, which might be hard to do on phone screens, but could be done on small tablets.

Or maybe even on large phones. Google has acknowledged that the definition of "mobile" is evolving. Users of large-screen phones like the Samsung Note and the iPhone 6+ may be less tolerant of shrunken, dumbed-down mobile pages than users of small-screen phones like the iPad 4 are. (Presumably they chose phones with large screens and high resolutions because they wanted to get away from the constraints of older, smaller phones.) Will a small screen with a 320-pixel viewport still be the generally-accepted baseline for "mobile" two or three years from now?

[RedBar]

So does anyone know exactly what devices Google refers to when using the word "mobile"?

I can't find it but last year Google stated that desktop sites should be legible on tablets from 7" upwards.

I am now using html5 responsive on more than half my sites and they render perfectly on any device. Strangely at this very moment on a Saturday afternoon, I am looking at some of my older sites and wondering whether to leave them precisely as they are, they're good on 7"+ tablets and actually just usable on smartphones, and whether to build one all-encompassing html5 responsive site on a new domain.

The big decision for a lot of people/companies is how many pages are involved in converting a site, 100/200/300 pages is easy enough but when it comes to 1,000+ it's a hell of a chore and I have several sites like that.

Of course the other problem at the moment with a new domain is getting the darned thing to rank plus any major archtectural changes to an existing domain also seem to be having problems. Straight like for like changes I have not see any issue with, so far.

[EditorialGuy]

I am looking at some of my older sites and wondering whether to leave them precisely as they are, they're good on 7"+ tablets and actually just usable on smartphones

Our main site became perfectly readable and usable in landscape view, even on small-screen iPhones, once I switched from a three-column to a two-column layout. Even in portrait view, the two-column layout works pretty well on mid-size smartphones (e.g., Google's Nexus 5), which just goes to show that "mobile-friendly" is a moving target.

The big decision for a lot of people/companies is how many pages are involved in converting a site, 100/200/300 pages is easy enough but when it comes to 1,000+ it's a hell of a chore

If we were running an e-commerce site and every page was intended to sell something, it might be easy to say "What the hell, let's convert everything to responsive." Taking that step is harder to justify, in terms of time and opportunity cost, when many of our 5,000+ pages exist for the convenience of readers but don't generate much traffic or revenue.

[Kratos]

If we were running an e-commerce site and every page was intended to sell something, it might be easy to say "What the hell, let's convert everything to responsive." Taking that step is harder to justify, in terms of time and opportunity cost, when many of our 5,000+ pages exist for the convenience of readers but don't generate much traffic or revenue.

What would you say about a site that is not e-commerce but rather an informational site that has thousands of informational pages which are making a good enough income?

There's this site which brings lots of traffic and makes about 3k/month. The site is like a bulletin board with an old CMS and it has thousands of pages with useful content that has gotten some pretty incredible links that people would pay 000s for. Viewing the site with a mobile isn't very inconvenient but the site scores a measly 60% on the mobile friendly test from Google Insights.

This isn't my site (unfortunately!) but belongs to friend of mine who suddenly saw himself with a site that benefited immensely from the Google updates and which started generating enough money to take the site seriously. He is debating whether to optimize for mobile or not. I'd say go for it, but the CMS he's using is old-school and there aren't native mobile themes for it. My friend (and I) are clueless on mobile optimization, so that's another drawback as he doesn't know who to reach for this.

I'd love to hear your opinion (or anyone else's) on information sites/discussion boards that are making money but that are limited in terms of making the step towards mobile optimization (CMS, too many pages for anything to go wrong, lack of technical knowledge etc). I actually have a site which has an old-school CMS but which is still young enough to tolerate a complete re-design and change in theme, so I will take the step and risk. However I know lots of webmasters who are in the same shoes as my friend, especially those guys with sites pre-2010.

Thanks for any replies!

[EditorialGuy]

What would you say about a site that is not e-commerce but rather an informational site that has thousands of informational pages which are making a good enough income?

I'd say that, as with most things, it depends. Is the site's revenue coming mostly from AdSense ads? Then losing mobile traffic could mean losing income. Is the site's revenue coming mostly from affiliate programs? Then losing mobile traffic might or might not mean losing income, depending on how much revenue is coming from mobile users.

On our information site, we earn most of our revenue from affiliate commissions, but nearly all of those affiliate commissions are from non-mobile traffic. Also, I tried running AdSense mobile ads on our several hundred mobile pages for a month or so, and the revenue per 1,000 impressions was abysmal. I think this has a lot to do with our topic and with where our mobile users are in the research and buying cycle. But whatever the reasons, the poor revenue performance of our mobile pages (and our mobile users) suggests that turning 5,000+ pages of evergreen content into responsive pages shouldn't be at the top of my "to do" list.

[netmeg]

I'd love to hear your opinion (or anyone else's) on information sites/discussion boards that are making money but that are limited in terms of making the step towards mobile optimization (CMS, too many pages for anything to go wrong, lack of technical knowledge etc).

I guess I don't understand what kind of opinion you want. I converted all my pre-2010 (actually pre-2000) sites to responsive WordPress; they are information sites and doing very well. If you're still doing well, and you can't make your site mobile-friendly, then you just ride it out as long as you can. Google will do what Google will do. Right now I don't know for sure that they're promoting mobile sites above non-mobile, but I think they've made their preferences pretty clear on where they're going with this.

In the meantime, if you're running Analytics you can take a look and see how much of your traffic is mobile and whether or not they engage with the site. Maybe you just convert some of it and see how it goes.

[RedBar]

especially those guys with sites pre-2010.

I'm assuming you are asking for someone to kick your ass and tell you to do it?

I have a lot of sites, 50% html5 responsive, 50% about 2000 my CSS template design, these will all be converted over this year, not as fast as I wanted to but that's what happens when one is the boss/webmaster/supposed know-it-all...!

Just do it, I can tell you this, I hated html5 when I first started playing with it, I love it now, it's so much easier WHEN you begin to understand it and when you find the solutions to a problem.

For some reason I found it a very difficult learning curve however one day "KERCHING" it suddenly made sense, everything I do with those sites now is so much simpler, faster and better.

Sure, there's a helluva lot of work to do however I see every day how many people are using these sites and I reckon, possibly this year, that mobile and tablets may be 50% of my traffic and AdSense earnings.

One Question - Do you use a mobile, maybe ph/tablet, and get pi$$ed off with sites you cannot view correctly?

[EditorialGuy]

Google will do what Google will do. Right now I don't know for sure that they're promoting mobile sites above non-mobile, but I think they've made their preferences pretty clear on where they're going with this.

They've suggested pretty strongly (and quite sensibly) that mobile-friendliness will be a factor in mobile search. That doesn't mean it will or should be a factor in desktop/laptop/tablet search.

IMHO, this is just another example of how search has evolved from a fairly simple critter to a multiheaded beast with things like local search, image search, video search, news search, and so on.

As time goes by, we could see desktop/laptop/tablet and mobile algorithms diverge even more, with different assumptions about what people are looking for when they're using different types of devices (such as depth of information, visual appeal, etc. vs. readability on a small screen) or even networks (e.g., Wi-Fi, which might imply browsing at home, or cellular, which might imply browsing while on the move).

To make matters even more complicated, the definition of "mobile" keeps changing, too. Not so long ago, it meant feature phones; then it meant anything from a feature phone to a tablet, and now (in Google's eyes, anyway) it mostly means "smartphone," although Google does talk about feature phones in its Webmaster's Mobile Guide.

Personalization could come into play, too. John Doe has a small-screen iPhone; Jane Buck carries a phablet. The definition of "mobile-friendly" may be different for each, and the importance of "mobile-friendliness" may also be different for each.

Bottom line: Mobile-friendliness almost certainly will become a ranking factor in mobile searches, but how much weight will it have? Just as important, how valuable will mobile search traffic be for your site or mine? Your guess is as good as mine--and vice versa.

[incrediBILL]

On the other hand, Google doesn't indicate that it gives any ranking advantage to responsive
pages

Whether it gives you an advantage isn't the issue, not doing it definitely gives you a disadvantage on mobiles results

What cracks me up is some people say things like "I don't get (m)any mobile visitors so I don't need a mobile site".

HELLO! Of course your non-mobile site probably doesn't get mobile visitors. DUH!

So those webmasters ignore mobile while mobile is quickly overtaking the web just because they currently don't get any mobile visitors and probably never will as their traffic dries up and blows away.

Total catch-22 wrong thinking.

There will be a lot of sites only found in the Internet Archive soon, if even there, if they don't just go mobile. The time is long past to keep kicking the tires and go mobile.

I can't believe people are even debating on whether it's an SEO advantage or not, does it really matter? Having a mobile site is a must have for almost any site to survive much beyond 2015.

You either go mobile or go away, your choice.

While going mobile doesn't ensure success, ignoring it most assuredly embraces certain failure.

The handwriting is on the tablet.

[EditorialGuy]

You either go mobile or go away, your choice.

A few years ago, it was "go social, or go away." Then came "optimize for tablets, or go away." And a couple of months ago, it was "go https, or go away."

On our own site, mobile traffic has grown considerably (thanks in part to mobile-optimized versions of our most popular pages), but so has desktop traffic, and the desktop traffic brings in more revenue--by a huge margin--than the mobile traffic does. So yes, mobile may represent an opportunity, it could be quite a while before that opportunity pays off.

[EditorialGuy]

Another thought, since no one else is jumping in at the moment:

When I look at megasites, I see different strategies for attracting/capturing/monetizing mobile traffic. For example, Booking.com (one of the largest hotel reservations sites, and reportedly Google's biggest advertiser) uses separate desktop and mobile URLs. It also pushes its mobile booking apps really hard. As Google gets better at indexing content in mobile apps, maybe we'll see another thread here titled "Develop apps, or you're dead."

[RedBar]

"Develop apps, or you're dead."

Possibly and many of the big sites already do this but noticeably mostly ecommerce sites. At the moment I'm certainly not going down that route for my B2B informational sites, my mobile template is well up to the job and why download an app when a properly constructed site can deliver the the details required?

Anyway, I wouldn't know how to build an app, I've never looked and can't be bothered, yet!

[EditorialGuy]

At the moment I'm certainly not going down that route for my B2B informational sites, my mobile template is well up to the job and why download an app when a properly constructed site can deliver the the details required?

Well, quite a few information sites do publish apps (online editions of newspapers and magazines, for example), so the idea isn't completely crazy--at least for sites that attract or want to attract regular visitors, and that are large and established enough to make phone users want to dedicate storage space and screen icons to their apps. (Think NY Times or The New Yorker, as opposed to Buddy's Blog.)

I've always maintained that bigger, higher-resolution mobile screens and faster phone networks make apps less necessary and Web browsers more attractive. Still, who knows: Maybe I'm just a stick-in-the-mud who refuses to accept the reality that "without an app, you're crap."

[netmeg]

I've tossed around the idea of an app for my event sites, but I can't develop it myself and it ain't cheap.

[RedBar]

I've always maintained that bigger, higher-resolution mobile screens and faster phone networks make apps less necessary and Web browsers more attractive.

Yep, I'm a stick-in-the-mud too and I use very, very few apps whatsoever and as netmeg says, it ain't cheap and I have absolutely no idea how easy they are to update.