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 -
Does using a canonical with ?utm_source=gmb cause any issues?
All of our URLs in Google My Business are tagged with ?utm_source=gmb. This way when people click on it within a Google Map listing, knowledge graph, etc we know it came from there. I'm assuming using a canonical on all ?_utm_source _pages (we have others, including some in the index) won't cause any problems with this, correct? Since they're not technically traditional organic SERPs? Dumb question I know, but better safe than sorry. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Alces1 -
Google SERPs Show Different Title
Hi Guys, Can anyone please help with my situation. My domain is www.greedybins.com.au. I had title setup in every pages differently, and it has been 2 months since I made the changes. I keep checking by using site:www.greedybins.com.au in search. So far, only 1 title that been show correctly in SERPs. I used SEO Yoast before, I changed to All In One SEO Pack plugin, the titles are changing, but still not accurate as I made it. Somehow Google altered it by itself. I have tried fetch and submit sitemap couple times from Google Search Console. Could anyone please advise?
Technical SEO | | ray.soms0 -
Issues with Magento layered navigation
Hi, We use Magento v.1.7 for our store. We have recently had an SEO audit and we have uncovered 2 major issues which can be pinpointed to our layered navigation. We use the MANAdev layered navigation module. There are numerous options available to help with SEO. All our filtered urls seem to be fine ie. https://www.tidy-books.co.uk/childrens-bookcases-shelves/colour/natural-finish-with-letters/letters/lowercase have canonical url correctly setup and the meta tags as noindex, follow but Magento is churning out tons of 404 error pages like this https://www.tidy-books.co.uk/childrens-bookcases-shelves/show/12/l/colour:24-4-9/letters:6-7 which google is indexing I'm at lost at how to solve this any help would be great. Thank you **This is from our SEO audit report ** The faceted navigation isn’t handled correctly and causes two major issues:● One of the faceted navigation filters causes 404 error. This means that the error isappended each sequence of the navigation options, multiplying the faulty URLs.● The pages created by the faceted nav are all accessible to the search engines. Thismeans that there are hundreds of duplicated category pages created by one of theparameters. The duplication issues can seriously hinder the organic visibility.The amount of 404 errors and the duplicated pages created by faceted navigation makes italmost impossible for a search engine crawler to finish the crawl. This means that the sitemight not be fully indexed and the newly introduced product pages or content won’t bediscovered for a very long time.
Technical SEO | | tidybooks0 -
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 -
Google Cache showing a different URL
Hi all, very weird things happening to us. For the 3 URLs below, Google cache is rendering content from a different URL (sister site) even though there are no redirects between the 2 & live page shows the 'right content' - see: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/tours/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/about/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/about/team/ We also have the exact same issue with another domain we owned (but not anymore), only difference is that we 301 redirected those URLs before it changed ownership: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.preferredsafaris.com/Kenya/2 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.preferredsafaris.com/accommodation/Namibia/5 I have gone ahead into the URL removal Tool and got denied for the first case above ("") and it is still pending for the second lists. We are worried that this might be a sign of duplicate content & could be penalising us. Thanks! ps: I went through most questions & the closest one I found was this one (http://outdoorsrank.com/community/q/page-disappeared-from-google-index-google-cache-shows-page-is-being-redirected) but it didn't provide a clear answer on my question above
Technical SEO | | SouthernAfricaTravel0 -
Huge ranking difference between google and bing
I am trying to rank for the keyword "trash bags" I did a lot of on-page optimization and link building. We started ranking #2 on bing and yahoo but google seems to be stubbornly fluctuating between being as high as 20 and as low as 45 and even dropped our rankings for a couple of weeks. Is there any need for concern if google is acting so different from bing/yahoo?
Technical SEO | | EcomLkwd0