SEO revamp - titles, meta data, URLs, Google ranking

pburns

I run a website that needs a thorough SEO revamp. It is a non-commercial site and whilst optimisation is not quite as critical as it would be for a business site, I recognise there are a number of areas we need to improve.

The site has a few advantages - we have a large amount of high quality content (over 4500 results return when site entered in Google). There are a large number of links to the site (over 4800 external, followed links according to the OSE comparison tool). Also, the top pages have a fairly good ranking (according to http://www.prchecker.info/ - home page is '8').

However, with the growth of the site and integration of a CMS last year, there are a number of issues where pages are just not optimised as well as they could be.

- page title missing from some pages
- some non-friendly URLs or inaccurate aliases that need to be changed
- meta keywords the same for every page across the site (I know Google ignores)
- meta description the same across much of the site. This means that the description that comes up in Google results is often taken from the content (or elsewhere and inaccurate)

I believe I need to rectify all these issues before doing anything else about SEO.
However is there anything else I should consider?
Would changing the URLs lead to problems for example? How long before Google re-trawls the site and picks up such changes?
Should I delete keywods that are irrelevant for the page content but relevant for the website as a whole?
If I put in accurate meta descriptions, how long before these appear in the results?
What is the relevance of Google Ranking? Is it based only on the number of external links or is it an overall ranking of each page?

Many questions, but despite reading up on the subject there seems no definitive answer in many cases!

mneylon

You've run into the same problem most people do.
There are plenty of wonderful theories about SEO, but very few hard facts...

If you change URLs then you should use 301 redirects, so that Google picks up on the changes. Depending on how often the site is crawled that can be "seen" quite quickly (I recently changed my personal blog's domain and there were no issues - all the old links switched over to the new ones fairly quickly, as I'd set a 301 redirect)

I wouldn't worry about keywords too much, though I would tweak the descriptions more if possible.

Google pagerank is only an indicator - it doesn't really "mean" anything

tomED

Even the least optimised website can rank. So if I was you I'd take a step back and look at what you want to be ranked for.

Check if you are ranked already and make changes where necessary.

You should definitely handle the changed URLs asap as Blacknight suggests.

Why not post a link to the site and let us have a look and make suggestions?

pburns

Blacknight wrote: »

If you change URLs then you should use 301 redirects, so that Google picks up on the changes. Depending on how often the site is crawled that can be "seen" quite quickly (I recently changed my personal blog's domain and there were no issues - all the old links switched over to the new ones fairly quickly, as I'd set a 301 redirect)

Google pagerank is only an indicator - it doesn't really "mean" anything

Is it easy to do 301 redirects en mass for different pages across the site? Most IIS instructions online seem to be about re-directing an individual page. (TBH, looking at changes I’ve done previously I think Google picks up on new URL after a few weeks anyway).

I realise Google Rank is only an indicator but on what criteria does it base it's ranking? Does it take page titling, content, inward links etc. etc. into account OR...just inward links as I read somewhere... Or does anyone outside Google know? The fuzziness of this area confuses the hell out of me!

tomED wrote: »

Why not post a link to the site and let us have a look and make suggestions?

Mmmm...would like to but can't really, wouldn't be appreciated:o.

TBH, one of my main issues at the moment is not so much the rankings on Google which seem to be OK. It's the sometimes crap page descriptions that come up because the meta descs are not as good as they could be for some pages...

Shzm

Google won't always use the meta descriptions that you've set. If a keyword is searched for that's not in your desc, but in the text on page somewhere, then Google will just show a snippet of the text and surrounding.

tomED

pburns wrote: »

Is it easy to do 301 redirects en mass for different pages across the site? Most IIS instructions online seem to be about re-directing an individual page. (TBH, looking at changes I’ve done previously I think Google picks up on new URL after a few weeks anyway).

The short answer is no, but it depends on your URL structure. It will be work that is worthwhile in the end though.

pburns wrote: »

I realise Google Rank is only an indicator but on what criteria does it base it's ranking? Does it take page titling, content, inward links etc. etc. into account OR...just inward links as I read somewhere... Or does anyone outside Google know? The fuzziness of this area confuses the hell out of me!

http://www.webworkshop.net/pagerank.html

pburns wrote: »

Mmmm...would like to but can't really, wouldn't be appreciated:o.

Well it's very hard to help you so.

PaulPinnacle

- page title missing from some pages
< Certainly worth tackling. Has relatively major impacts on users (and SEO), so one that could have a significant impact on those pages.

- some non-friendly URLs or inaccurate aliases that need to be changed
< Changing the URLs is a fairly big change, so one to be tackled with care (and worth putting the effort into doing it correctly as Tom said).

If you've got a large number of links to these pages, the benefits of a more 'friendly' URL could be greatly offset by the impact of a redirect (while link juice will flow through a 301, there is a deterioration caused by the redirect). If you're doing it to improve the user experience, fair enough, if it's purely for the SEO benefits it's potentially (it all depends on the specifics) the wrong move. (I'm not saying it is the wrong move, just that it's one to give some consideration to before jumping into)

While the pages will eventually be indexed regardless of the 301, you really should follow Blacknight's advice there. A 301 is as much to ensure the user experience (not landing on a 404) and retaining the benefits of backlinks as it is about simple 'indexing'.

- meta keywords the same for every page across the site (I know Google ignores)
< As do all the major search engines. One that's certainly towards the bottom of any 'to do' list. I wouldn't worry about it.

- meta description the same across much of the site. This means that the description that comes up in Google results is often taken from the content (or elsewhere and inaccurate)
< Even with a 'word perfect' description, search engines can choose to ignore them and replace with what they believe is the most relevant description (often it proves not to be the case to the dismay of webmasters).

It's another one where making improvements can help users (and your click through rates), so if you've the time to address it you should.

However is there anything else I should consider?
If there are existing problems with duplicate content or poor site architecture, addressing these would have far more impact than the factors you've mentioned. It's pretty difficult to suggest what should be addressed as a priority without seeing the site.

Would changing the URLs lead to problems for example? How long before Google re-trawls the site and picks up such changes?
Potentially, yes. As addressed above, this is a very significant change that could have relatively serious impacts on the site. If done correctly the impacts can be relatively small, but something that needs to be considered on a site by site basis.

The speed at which the SE's pick up the changes will be specific to the site. If you check your GWT stats you'll see how often Google crawl the site for changes, giving an idea of how important they view the site.

As some of the changes will be on deeper links, these might not get crawled as frequently and it could take longer for SE's to pick up the changes. It's one of those 'how long is a piece of string' questions and all depends on the site (and the individual pages).

Should I delete keywods that are irrelevant for the page content but relevant for the website as a whole?
In theory, yes. In practice, I wouldn't spend too much time or effort on meta keywords (see above).

If I put in accurate meta descriptions, how long before these appear in the results?
They might not appear. Just having a 'good description' doesn't mean it will always be used.

If the SE's believe the description to be relevant for the search and will use it, the change will be picked up the next time that page is crawled (so again, depends on the site and the specific page).

What is the relevance of Google Ranking? Is it based only on the number of external links or is it an overall ranking of each page?
The external links is only one (albeit a highly weighted one) of many many factors that determine rankings. All search engines try to return the most 'relevant' and beneficial page for a given search (though they commonly fail and despite all efforts continue to be gamed too easily). They look at various factors, which continue to change and evolve on a continual basis (check out the recent inclusion of 'page speed' by google or the recent comments by bing that click through rates are a ranking factor).

Many questions, but despite reading up on the subject there seems no definitive answer in many cases!
That's (sadly) always going to be the case. Search engines go to great lengths to 'protect' their secrets to limit how much the system can be gamed. As a result, SEO's must work on a limited amount of information given by the SE's (they do give plenty of advice and information themselves - do check out the google webmasterhelp channel on youtube or the forum they provide) and the rest is mainly opinion (even when it's based on extensive testing, it's opinion that these factors haven't changed).

I realise Google Rank is only an indicator but on what criteria does it base it's ranking? Does it take page titling, content, inward links etc. etc. into account OR...just inward links as I read somewhere... Or does anyone outside Google know? The fuzziness of this area confuses the hell out of me!
There is commonly a huge amount of confusion between PageRank (named after the creator Larry Page - which is where it is based on the linking of a page so probably where you're getting the differing information) and on how a page ranks (which is based on hundreds of factors, including the link profile).

PageRank is relatively confusing due both to the name and the way in which people view it. The toolbar PR, which we can see, is a very crude snapshot (one that many claim google toy with to avoid manipulation) of PR at a given time (updated a handful of times a year). In reality, google use an updated PR for searches (so the TPR is pretty irrelevant shortly after it has been released).

If you do a search (in pretty much any vertical) you'll see plenty of low PR sites ahead of high PR sites. Factors like freshness, page speed, relevance, authority, trust, etc. etc. all merge together to produce the final rankings.

RedCardinal

Make sure you understand exactly what is involved in changing your URL structure. It's quite often the case that getting it wrong will leave you floundering for a long time.

301s are fine, but avoiding the need for them is even better.

link8r

I couldn't agree more with RedCardinal. So many people give advice about 301's as if it's guaranteed. It's not. is discretional, its not worth the risk imho.

Edit: about authority/rank passing from a 301 to an intended destination