Does there need to be content
Why doesn’t this work
As important as search engines like Google are to businesses these days, it kills me to see so many web design / development firms who either don’t know what they’re doing or don’t care enough to engage in SEO best practices. Even if you bill yourself as a strictly web development firm, there are certain basic things you should know about that can kill your client’s performance in the search engines.
Two things to note before we get into it:
I just saw this one recently. One of our clients, a vacation rental home company, switched from an old, completely awful looking website to a newer, much more modern one. The new site looks awesome, but we quickly noticed a big problem:
The old site had a ton of dynamically generated URLs, most of which came from the site’s search feature and changed based on certain amenities potential renters could choose from. As their rental index changed, certain pages got dropped and their URLs returned 404 errors. As a result, the old site had a little over 1,000 pages 404ing at any given time. In addition, the site had shifted from a .html extension to a .htm and finally to a .asp, creating new errors at every step of the way.
When the new site launched, the URL structure changed again, but this time it left behind nearly 9,000 404 errors. As of this writing we haven’t had a chance to do a deep dive into the root of the problem, but main thing we’re concerned about is, obviously, that no redirects were put in place when changing the URL structure of the site. And unfortunately, the site is built on a Microsoft server, which means no one on our team really knows anything about it (Microsoft servers handle much differently than Linux/Apache servers, using web.config files to handle redirects instead of .htaccess files).
Almost worse than having no redirects in place (which I suspect in the above example, but again I can’t be sure until I see it) is having the wrong types of redirects. We have another client who also just got a new site from a third party vendor, and this vendor used all 302 redirects for new URLs as opposed to 301s. What’s the problem here?
A 301 redirect is a permanent redirect. It tells the search engine crawlers that the URL they are currently crawling has been moved to a new URL, and if they go to that URL they will find the information they are supposed to index.
302 redirects, on the other hand, are temporary redirects, and tell search engines that the move is not permanent. As a result, when a crawler hits the page it has to decide whether to keep the old page or discard it and acknowledge the new one. If the crawler decides to keep the old page, and that page no longer exists or isn’t what you want visitors to see, you could end up losing traffic big time.
I’m a copywriter first, programmer second, and I see this one ALL. THE. TIME. There are usually two similar cases here:
Now my thought on duplicate content is that for many sites, especially those belonging to local businesses, is that it will neither kill you nor make you stronger. I say this based on my direct observation—I’ve seen companies all over the country rank well in their unique service areas despite having identical copy.
Now just because I don’t hate it doesn’t mean I like it. Because I don’t. At all. In fact, if I were running a web development company, I would do it like this:
The standard web package gets you four pages of copy:
Each of these would be written with a combination of stock content and specialized information I received from you directly. Any additional pages you wanted written as part of your site launch, from resources pages to specific service pages, would be billed out at a set rate per page. Ongoing work would be billed separately from there.
Obviously the point of this is not to squeeze money out of helpless business owners who don’t know their way around the web. Quite the opposite, in fact—it’s to future-proof their site against Google and other search engines coming down harder on duplicate content than they already are.
I haven’t seen any effects of this next example, good or bad, but it made me think this morning and that was enough for me to want to include it on the list. The problem is this:
Now while I said above that I don’t mind duplicate content across domains for sites in vastly different service areas, I do mind excessive duplicate content at the top of every page within a single site. My problem is as follows: search engine crawlers don’t always read whole pages—they skim, starting from the top and working their way down until they get a good idea of what the page is about. If all of your pages start the same way and have such a significant amount of content that the search engines never see the actual page content, you’re going to have to rely on your title tags to differentiate pages within the site (the crawlers might not even hit your H1s!)—not ideal, especially if you’re making a large investment in content marketing.
I add “stock” content—usually in the form of a “Why Call Client X” section—to the bottom of most pages I write. The reason I write it at the bottom is because I want to front-load my unique content. The last thing you want is to have enough duplicate content across your site’s pages that the crawler stops reading before it gets to your unique!
Like I said—this list is by no means exhaustive and is only a few things web development companies should be doing to ensure their clients’ sites don’t take a dive in Google when their new sites launch. Let me know in the comments if you’ve faced similar or different situations and be on the lookout for a follow up post as I come across more.