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
-
Google keeps marking different pages as duplicates
My website has many pages like this: mywebsite/company1/valuation mywebsite/company2/valuation mywebsite/company3/valuation mywebsite/company4/valuation ... These pages describe the valuation of each company. These pages were never identical but initially, I included a few generic paragraphs like what is valuation, what is a valuation model, etc... in all the pages so some parts of these pages' content were identical. Google marked many of these pages as duplicated (in Google Search Console) so I modified the content of these pages: I removed those generic paragraphs and added other information that is unique to each company. As a result, these pages are extremely different from each other now and have little similarities. Although it has been more than 1 month since I made the modification, Google still marks the majority of these pages as duplicates, even though Google has already crawled their new modified version. I wonder whether there is anything else I can do in this situation? Thanks
Technical SEO | | TuanDo96270 -
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 having a sub-domain on a different server affect SEO?
I'm working with a company that has a hard-coded website on the root domain, and then a WordPress blog on a subdomain on a separate server. We're planning on implementing a hub and spoke model for their content, hosting the main hubs on the root domain and the linked articles on the blog. Is having the blog on a different server going to hinder our SEO efforts?
Technical SEO | | KaraParlin0 -
Indexing Issue of Dynamic Pages
Hi All, I have a query for which i am struggling to find out the answer. I unable to retrieve URL using "site:" query on Google SERP. However, when i enter the direct URL or with "info:" query then a snippet appears. I am not able to understand why google is not showing URL with "site:" query. Whether the page is indexed or not? Or it's soon going to be deindexed. Secondly, I would like to mention that this is a dynamic URL. The index file which we are using to generate this URL is not available to Google Bot. For instance, There are two different URL's. http://www.abc.com/browse/ --- It's a parent page.
Technical SEO | | SameerBhatia
http://www.abc.com/browse/?q=123 --- This is the URL, generated at run time using browse index file. Google unable to crawl index file of browse page as it is unable to run independently until some value will get passed in the parameter and is not indexed by Google. Earlier the dynamic URL's were indexed and was showing up in Google for "site:" query but now it is not showing up. Can anyone help me what is happening here? Please advise. Thanks0 -
Redirect and ranking issue
Hi there - was wondering whether someone might be able to help. For a period of a day and a half, all the traffic to our website's blog articles were mistakenly being redirected to our homepage. A number of these articles ranked in the top 5 in Google worldwide for their targeted keywords, so this was a considerable amount of organic traffic that was instantly being redirected. It was a strange site glitch and our web team rectified the error, but now all these articles have disappeared from Google rankings (not visible anywhere in the first five pages). I'm presuming this must be linked to this redirect issue - we've been advised to wait and see whether Google restores these rankings, but I'm still concerned as to whether this represents a more serious problem? We have re-indexed the pages we are most concerned about, but am not sure whether there is anything else obvious we should think to do. If anyone has any thoughts, I'd be happy to hear them!
Technical SEO | | rwat0 -
Duplicate Content Issues with Pagination
Hi Moz Community, We're an eCommerce site so we have a lot of pagination issues but we were able to fix them using the rel=next and rel=prev tags. However, our pages have an option to view 60 items or 180 items at a time. This is now causing duplicate content problems when for example page 2 of the 180 item view is the same as page 4 of the 60 item view. (URL examples below) Wondering if we should just add a canonical tag going to the the main view all page to every page in the paginated series to get ride of this issue. https://www.example.com/gifts/for-the-couple?view=all&n=180&p=2 https://www.example.com/gifts/for-the-couple?view=all&n=60&p=4 Thoughts, ideas or suggestions are welcome. Thanks
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Duplicate Content Issues on Product Pages
Hi guys Just keen to gauge your opinion on a quandary that has been bugging me for a while now. I work on an ecommerce website that sells around 20,000 products. A lot of the product SKUs are exactly the same in terms of how they work and what they offer the customer. Often it is 1 variable that changes. For example, the product may be available in 200 different sizes and 2 colours (therefore 400 SKUs available to purchase). Theese SKUs have been uploaded to the website as individual entires so that the customer can purchase them, with the only difference between the listings likely to be key signifiers such as colour, size, price, part number etc. Moz has flagged these pages up as duplicate content. Now I have worked on websites long enough now to know that duplicate content is never good from an SEO perspective, but I am struggling to work out an effective way in which I can display such a large number of almost identical products without falling foul of the duplicate content issue. If you wouldnt mind sharing any ideas or approaches that have been taken by you guys that would be great!
Technical SEO | | DHS_SH0 -
Duplicate Content issue
I have been asked to review an old website to an identify opportunities for increasing search engine traffic. Whilst reviewing the site I came across a strange loop. On each page there is a link to printer friendly version: http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes That page also has a link to a printer friendly version http://www.websitename.co.uk/index.php?pageid=7&printfriendly=yes&printfriendly=yes and so on and so on....... Some of these pages are being included in Google's index. I appreciate that this can't be a good thing, however, I am not 100% sure as to the extent to which it is a bad thing and the priority that should be given to getting it sorted. Just wandering what views people have on the issues this may cause?
Technical SEO | | CPLDistribution0