Did Local Directories Get Hit By Google’s Doorway Page Algo?

May 15th, 2015

Perhaps SEMRush is still updating but if its organic search traffic graphs are even close to accurate it looks like May is the month that Google took care of all Local family business:

YellowPages.com SEO

SuperPages.com SEO

Foursquare SEO

DexKnows SEO

CitySearch SEO

InsiderPages SEO

 Merchant Circle
Merchant Circle SEO

Manta SEO

Barry Schwartz noted a Google Webmaster Forums thread on the subject where Google’s Eric Kuan from the search quality team highlighted a post that included the following:

An example of doorways is when you have a website with 200 pages on it, all of which have the same basic text but with place names switched out on each page (“Find a taxi in London”/”Find a taxi in New York City”). The pages are designed to rank separately, catch keyword searches, but funnel all the traffic to one destination.

Jennifer Slegg at TheSEMPost reported last week that Google’s Doorway Page Update is live and is continuously updating. If this data is correct (that’s not always the case with these tools) then there’s a good chance these sites have been Doorwayed.

And Google didn’t even offer these guys a drink first…

→ 21 CommentsTags: CitySearch · DexKnows · Foursquare · Google · Local Search · Superpages · Yellow Pages · Yellowpages.com
Posted by Andrew Shotland

Virtual Canonical Loops = SEO Death

May 5th, 2015

Part 6 in the SEO Death Series

While we love Local SEO, a good portion of our clients are large non-local sites with a lot of technical SEO challenges. Today I’d like to talk about the dreaded Virtual Canonical Loop, an obscure technical issue that will absolutely kill your organic traffic, regardless of how big/small your site is. Here’s how it works.

You have a URL that canonicalizes to another, say https://www.site.com canonicalizes to http:www.site.com. So in the source of https://www.site.com you see:

<link rel=”canonical” href=”http://www.site.com”>

No big deal. Pretty standard.

Unfortunately, http://www.site.com 301 redirects to https://www.site.com. That in and of itself is no big deal. Canonicalizing http to https or vice-versa is a best practice to ward off duplication problems.

The problem is that when you canonicalize to a URL that 301 redirects back to the URL that is canonicalizing to it, Googlebot and Bingbot act like kid on a tilt-a-whirl after eating a giant corn dog, a slushee and some deep-fried oreos. That’s SEO blogger for “pukes all over you”. So you experience something like:

Dad Pukes

Besides getting covered with amusement park vomit, other maladies that Virtual Canonical Loops can cause include:

  • deindexation
  • inability to rank for brand queries
  • massive reduction in organic rankings
  • a royal reaming out by your boss
  • loss of job

The fix is to either remove the canonical tag or turn off the redirect. I prefer removing the canonical.

If you experience a Virtual Canonical Loop for more than four hours, please consult your SEO consultant. Individual results may vary. Void where prohibited.

More SEO Death Favorites:
Dev Server Indexed = SEO Death
Faceted Search = SEO Death
GeoTargeting By Location = SEO Death
Robots.txt File Disallowing Entire Site = SEO Death
Too Many URLs = SEO Death



→ 4 CommentsTags: Technical SEO
Posted by Andrew Shotland

Does Google Really Understand Mobile Friendly?

April 23rd, 2015

MobileGeddon: The MobileTastrophy is upon us and so far nothing has really happened. This is good news since I’m not quite sure Google understands what mobile friendly actually means.

Remember this is an algo update that is supposed to run at the page, not site level. Here is an example of a page that I would not consider mobile friendly:

Mobile-Unfriendly Page

It’s a ~5mb page that takes 11+ seconds to load when tested using Chrome on a Nexus 5. No way this would qualify as mobile friendly right?

Wrong, it's mobile friendly!


According to Google’s Mobile-Friendly Testing Tool, huge pages that take forever to load ARE mobile friendly! This raises a couple of issues:

1) Google’s Mobile Testing Tool is Wrong/Incomplete – If this is true, it means that page speed, and other factors not accounted for by the tool, are factored into the mobile-friendly tag or mobile algo update.

2) Google Doesn’t Really Understand Mobile – Honestly, if a 5mb page that takes 12+ seconds to load is mobile friendly, then Flying Spaghetti Monster help us all, and our data plans. I feel like this deck by Jonathan Coleman offers a fantastic explanation about why site speed is critical for both SEO and user experience. Having improperly sized touch targets is frustrating, but not as frustrating as sitting around and waiting for a page to load when I need quick answers.

Have you run into any similar issues with the mobile testing tool? Let us know in the comments!

→ 1 CommentTags: Google · Mobile Search
Posted by Dan Leibson

Why Google’s Mobile Friendly Ranking Signal Most Likely WILL Affect Local Pack Listings

April 10th, 2015

Release the Kraken!

Update 4/11/15: According to a little birdie who spoke with Gary Iyles at the BrightonSEO conference, Gary “guaranteed” pack rankings won’t be affected. Guess we shall see…

Google’s pending Mobile-Friendly algo update has become the Apple Watch of SEO – I can’t look at my Twitter feed without a blur of “How to get ready for Mobilegeddon” posts streaming by, so I might as well jump on in. Jennifer Slegg over at the SEMPost reports that Gary Iyles, a Google Webmaster Trends Analyst, said at the Brighton SEO conference that Google’s Mobile Friendly Ranking Signal Will Not Affect Local Pack Listings: According to Illyes, if a local business is appearing in the Google Pack results, but does not have a mobile friendly site, their listing in the Pack results will NOT be impacted.  Those Google My Business listings will remain. Now I have no clue how this mobile update will affect anything and I am generally wary of Google’s ability to know how an update will affect anything, particularly Local rankings, until it actually pushes the button and releases the Kraken. But Iyles’ statement strikes me as potentially a very Googley version of Truthiness. Here’s my tin-foil hat translation:

  1. The Local Pack algorithm will not be changed. We are not touching it. Any time we touch that thing, all hell breaks loose.
  2. Your GMB “listing” will not be impacted! It’s mobile-friendly after all. Pay no attention to the fact that I didn’t say anything about your GMB listing’s rankings in the Google Pack results. Those Google My Business listings will remain in our index – all your GMB dupes will too.
  3. Don’t worry about the fact that 2014’s Pigeon update supposedly increased the influence of “Web Ranking Signals” on the Local Pack algorithm and that we said “we will be expanding our use of mobile-friendliness as a ranking signal”.
  4. Even though we may be changing our “Web Ranking” algorithm, as I said, we are not touching the Local Pack algorithm. It’s still going to rely on “Web Ranking Signals” in the same way it has since Pigeon came out.


Update 4/11: Dr. Pete had the following interesting observation:

& Gary Ilyes, Jennifer & I had a clarifying conversation on Twitter (note Storify could not capture all of the tweets. You can follow the whole conversation here.)

→ 4 CommentsTags: Google · Local Search · Mobile Search
Posted by Andrew Shotland

Google’s About To Close Your Local Doorway Pages

March 16th, 2015

Please Do Not Slam The Door

Today Google published “An update on doorway pages”. The post implies that Google will soon be updating its algorithm to weed out offending doorway pages from the SERPs:

Sites with large and well-established doorway campaigns might see a broad impact from this change.

While sites with spammy set ups such as multiple exact match domains that link to the same landing page are likely the targets (get ready for more Lawyer leads SEOs!), Google’s well-intended algorithm updates often go too far so brace yourselves for collateral damage, even if you think you have a good set up. Some potential issues:

  • Local directory sites with geo-SERPs that have the same content. For example, when one gas station serves two rural towns a site will have two pages – Gas Stations in City A & Gas Stations in City B – that have substantially the same content and lead to the same gas station profile. If these get hit, these sites will likely have to choose to only display results that are actually in the searched geo, which could have huge implications as to how data is displayed across the entire site.
  • Service area pages that don’t have unique content. We have long seen issues with sites that use cookie cutter text to create multiple service area pages. While plenty of sites still get by with it, I imagine this algorithm could finally snuff out this tactic. Get your content writers ready.
  • Franchise businesses – they have all of these issues in spades – particularly those who have microsites for every location. While cookie-cutter implementations make sense to easily create a lot of local sites, it’s possible Google will throw these local babies out with the bathwater.

I don’t want to be too alarmist. This update may be no big deal, but when I see Google use the phrase “broad impact”, I tend to get a bit paranoid.

And then there’s this:

For example, searchers might get a list of results that all go to the same site. So if a user clicks on one result, doesn’t like it, and then tries the next result in the search results page and is taken to that same site that they didn’t like, that’s a really frustrating experience.

Might be a good time to short Yelp:

Pleasanton Nail Salons Yelp

→ 13 CommentsTags: Google
Posted by Andrew Shotland