Jump to content

xyZed

Members
  • Content count

    155
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

xyZed last won the day on October 30

xyZed had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

5 Neutral

About xyZed

  • Rank
    Gravity Master Member

Contact Methods

  1. Just out of possible interest here is a graph of my stats in Wordpress (by JetPack). I installed the certificate in January which had 430,000 "page views" and immediately the following month they had dropped dramatically.
  2. Many thanks for your reply EGOL. I no longer own the xyxed domain. The site in question is Whitegoodshelp. As far as I know my redirects are working OK as I put in the appropriate code in my htaccess file. If I type any old url with http: it now redirects to the https: version. Interesting thought about the manual review. I would hope my site would be seen as a great unique content site on any manual review although obviously nothing is perfect. It's still a mystery. Another example of how you can loose a lot of traffic moving to HTPS: despite Google encouraging the change. Fortunately I didn't do it for traffic, I did it because it looked like it was the inevitable future, and I didn't like the idea of my site being flagged as insecure. However, it is a massive issue to have lost so much traffic with no idea why
  3. Hello In January I installed HTTPS certificates on my site. I'd read that Google was really pushing it and it seemed like the inevitable future so I decided to do it. Since then, every one of the next 9 months my "page views" according to Jetpack have dropped by between 100,000 and 200,000 each month. Not good. But is this sort of normal? Could I have done something wrong?
  4. I'm just amazed that they haven't been challenged in court about it. It's one thing to have a symbiotic relationship with content providers, but another to use their content and cut them out altogether. I appreciate they still put a link to the source (which is possibly how it's "legal?) but there are many millions of searches that don't require a user to click through to the site once they see that snippet. How many of these sites that don't need visiting have Google Ads that won't be seen? Very weird.
  5. Hello. I'm trying to find the backlash about featured snippets but I'm stunned to find nothing. If anything people seem to be wanting to know how to become one? Basically Google are giving users the answers to a substantial percentage of searches in such a way that you no longer need to visit the web site. I would say at least 30% of every search I make on Google now results in me not visiting any pages. I can't possibly be alone in this. A perfect example is just now. I searched for - how to correctly measure fridge temperature - Google presented a page of results with this at the top - How to measure refrigerator temperature? To measure the temperature in the refrigerator: Put the thermometer in a glass of water and place in the middle of the refrigerator. Wait 5 to 8 hours. If thetemperature is not 38 to 40 °F, adjust the refrigerator temperature control. So I had the answer. No need to visit the page that the answer came from. I have no idea what site it was. I got the answer thanks very much. Over the last several months I've noticed I've been asking Google more and more questions where the featured snippet gave me the answer. I appreciate that I might visit the site the answer came from for more in depth detail. Or I may check out other results on the page. I also appreciate many searches are too complex to be answered with the snippet alone. But at the end of the day there are a substantial percentage of searches that Google is passing answers from hard working web site owners directly to its users and the web site gets no click, no recognition. How has this been thought of as a good idea for anyone but Google and their users?
  6. My current line of thinking is that it's bad to try and hide the date from Google and likely to back fire, but if I put (Updated "date") in the Meta description then hopefully it will be seen under my link in SERPs.
  7. I'm pretty much behind on SEO these days. I just get on with running my site. I've only just noticed that Google is showing the date of my original article in its results. On one search I'm number 2, and the first thing written on the snippet is the date (2013). I've just spent a week totally rewriting this article so the date is misleading. I have used some code to display the date my articles were last updated right under the title, which is presumably good. So this is fine, people can see when it was originally written and when last updated. But I've noticed there are lots of articles and plugins around to hide the date from Google. I instinctively think that's not a good idea. But at the same time I can also see that if searchers see my article written in 2013 next to one with a 2017 date I might lose out? What's the thinking about this please?
  8. Thanks, it seems I've been erroneously using h3 - h6 tags when I could have been using h2's which presumably carry more weight.
  9. Thanks, that's what I mean though, apart from I don't use further headers under each section. So here's a very rough example of a category page I would want to use <h1>My Page About Apples</h1> This is a page about apples. Apples are grown in a variety of places. I have 30 years of experience with apples etc. etc <h2>British Apples</h2> <ul> <li>History</li> <li>Where to buy British Apples</li> <li>Reviews</li> <li>Recipes</li> </ul> <h2>Spanish Apples</h2> <ul> <li>History</li> <li>Where to buy Spanish Apples</li> <li>Reviews</li> <li>Recipes</li> </ul> <h2>American Apples</h2> <ul> <li>History</li> <li>Where to buy American apples</li> <li>Reviews</li> <li>Recipes</li> </ul> But on an individual page I would use <h1>British apples</h1> Introductory description of contents <h2>History of British apples</h2> Content <h3>Where to buy</h3> Content <h4>Recipees</h4> Content etc. My dissatisfaction is that on such a page I don't see that any of the headings after the title H1 are any less important as the page goes down but apparently each following header should decrease in importance. It's not a perfect example because my individual pages are all on the same topic and not as the example I've used which would actually require separate pages for many of the different sections.
  10. That sounds good, my intention is to leave the title of the category pages H1, and have several H2s titling each different section. On a normal page I usually make the first headline after the title H2 and then subsequent headlines H3, H4 down to H6. I sometimes get a page where I run out of H's so I then repeat H5's or H6's. Ideally I'd like all Headers on a page after the title to be H2 but I try to stick with the convention. As long as you don't get penalised if you happen to have 2 H2s on a page I should be OK
  11. Hi Guys, I've tried to adhere to the rule that all pages should have a H1 header for the title, then each subsequent header should be H2, H3 - H6. It's been annoying but that's the rules and doing different might be seen as trying to manipulate page rank etc. Is this rule still valid? I have category pages that list and link to various sections. Usually displayed in separate unordered lists the different sections have an appropriate header but all sections have equal importance. I don't want the headers to decrease in size and importance down the page. I could ensure all headers are the same size using css but I like the fact that they decrease in size when appropriate. So is it still a no no to have mutiple H1s or H2s on a page even if they are all genuinely equally important? Andy
  12. Thanks for that, I think the following text on that link probably answers my question "This is an advanced feature and should only be used with caution. If used incorrectly, this feature can potentially harm your site’s performance in Google’s search results. We recommend that you disavow backlinks only if you believe you have a considerable number of spammy, artificial, or low-quality links pointing to your site, and if you are confident that the links are causing issues for you. In most cases, Google can assess which links to trust without additional guidance, so most normal or typical sites will not need to use this tool." I've definitely never paid for a single link, nor ever exchanged links or added links to any remotely dodgy site, so "presumably" I should let Google work it out?
  13. Hello guys. I'm becoming increasingly concerned and puzzled about all this disavowing links stuff. I've only ever solicited about a dozen links nearly 10 years back and all were from good sites. Since then all my "success" has been derived simply by just writing and maintaining good quality content and making sure I use headers and good titles properly. But I keep hearing about people cleaning up backlinks etc (for a price) or software you can buy and use. I always thought Google said they would never punish a site for bad links because they are totally out of our control and any competitor could easily add loads maliciously to damage a site. But if this is the case how come there's a new industry dealing with backlinks? I get pingback notifications all the time of people linking to me and when I check them out they look like meaningless scraped pages (eg, this one this morning (URL removed as it eventually got redirected to a very naughty site) which just looks like a nonsense site with 3 links to my Whitegoodshelp site. But how does Google know this isn't my doing? Is there a consensus about this stuff? I've always ignored them before, and in the past had reassurance this is OK, but do I really need to check my backlinks and disown dodgy ones and if so how? Many thanks as always Andy
  14. On the one hand I understand perfectly why Google would be doing this. As a user I hate finding a website that isn't mobile friendly. They are a great nuisance to try and use, having to zoom in on everything, turn the phone landscape and painstakingly scroll constantly trying to read content. But on the other hand Google should surely be focussed on content? As a searcher I want the most relevant web site, if the first 3 most relevant web sites with the best content are not mobile friendly that may be inconvenient, annoying, but not half as inconvenient and annoying as Google not even showing me them and instead offering up inferior sites that look nice on my mobile? Google should be doing all they can to encourage mobile friendly sites, and should flag up to users whether a site is friendly or not - but dropping rankings so that their search results are inferior? That's either a bluff to scare people into getting mobile friendly or shooting themselves in the foot.I suspect they may be more likely to drop a site lower if it has 2 results of roughly equal ranking but one is not mobile friendly rather than deliberately soiling their results by automatically downgrading sites which are better but not mobile friendly?
  15. I hadn't heard of this until I received your newsletter. I had a quick look at this thread, and then continued to open my emails only to find one of the said emails from Google about one of my sites. So my curiosity has now become a genuine interest. I do think it makes sense for Google to warn about this as any website not designed to accommodate mobile phones is almost unusable. I would assume that rankings should only drop for mobile searches though? Therefore if anyone isn't interested in mobile traffic for any reason it shouldn't be a concern? I have a couple of old websites which fall into this category and would appreciate a bit of advice on this topic because rather than convert them I would prefer to divert them to my newer and much better site which of course is totally mobile friendly. I would like to completely redirect the entire site to a relevant section of my new site. What is the best way to redirect an entire domain to a single index page on a different domain? The site that Google has advised me is not mobile friendly only had three or four pages, so I would prefer to just create a situation where mydomain.co.uk and mydomain.co.uk/page1 / and mydomain.co.uk/page2 all just went to mymaindomain.co.uk/SubindexPage/ in an SEO friendly manner?
×