Someone asked on Twitter why their articles aren’t ranking well and Google SearchLiaison surprised everyone with a mini site audit of things that need to be fixed.
A person (@iambrandonsalt) tweeted at X (formerly Twitter) asking if anyone could offer an explanation as to why some pages on their site were having trouble ranking.
he he tweeted:
“Does anyone have an explanation as to why some of our articles are not appearing in the SERPs… at all?
I will update the article with new information, it comes back up and ranks well and then disappears again.
This is happening to a lot of our great content, it’s very frustrating :(“
That person later shared the URL of the site in question, and that’s when SearchLiaison tweeted a response.
Google Search Liason Mini Site Audit
SearchLiaison’s mini-audit found three issues that may be causing the site to underperform in search engine results pages (SERPs).
Overview of why a web page is underperforming in the SERPs
Below is an outline of four things that SearchLiaison drew attention to. I wouldn’t take what they say as an indicator of actual ranking factors.
But I would encourage you to take his advice seriously. SearchLiaison/Danny Sullivan, has been involved in search for almost 28 years and now works from the inside at Google.
So he understands what it’s like to be on the outside, which makes him a unique and valuable resource to listen to.
Four outstanding content issues
1. The original content is not apparent
2. Lack of content that demonstrates expertise
3. Unsatisfactory content
4. Outdated Content Not Offered
The above are the three main reasons why SearchLiaison thought the webpage was having trouble ranking in the SERPs.
1. Originality front and center
Here’s their post that gives the specifics:
Here’s the part where he said the apparent lack of original content:
“Checked it out. Will share some things that might be useful in general. At first glance, it wasn’t clear to me that there was a lot of original content here.
At first glance, it looks and feels like a typical “here are a bunch of product pages”.
I really had to dig deeper to understand that there was original stuff.”
It’s great to have original content and it should be readily apparent. I think what SearchLiaison meant when he said the page looked like “a bunch of product pages” is that the content was a list of features.
You can rewrite what the product’s features are, but that doesn’t make it original. The words may be original and even unique, but what they communicate is not original.
Going further than what SearchLiaison said, I would add that what is missing is any sign that the person writing the content has actually handled the product, which relates to the experience.
2. Does the content demonstrate expertise?
What if! SearchLiaison also spoke about the experience.
He wrote:
“Covers 1, 4 and 9 have long video reviews, it looks like… so cool, you’ve used them, you have experiences to share. That’s great. Maybe make it a little clearer for the reader? But… also it could be me.”
What SearchLiaison can mean is that reading the content does not mention the physical properties of the product. Is it light? Does it fit well in your hand? Does it feel cheap? Content is largely a list of product features, a way of writing that doesn’t communicate expertise.
3. Unsatisfactory content
One important thing about content is that it should satisfy the reader.
Reader satisfaction is so important Google Search Quality Evaluators Guide highlight this for the main content (MC):
“Consider how well the MC is satisfying and helps the page achieve its purpose.”
Here’s what SearchLiaison said:
Here’s what SearchLiaison said:
“But most of the other devices … don’t exist yet.
Are you promising the reader that these are the best alternatives for 2024. And maybe some of these will be, but if they don’t exist yet, that might be a bummer and unsatisfying for the people who come to this page?
Maybe these upcoming devices belong on a page about upcoming devices?
4. Outdated Content Not Offered
One problem that SearchLiaison has found is content that is out of date and therefore not delivering what it promises.
The problem with some of the content is exactly what SearchLiaison says – it’s out of date.
SearchLiaison observed:
“You also mentioned updating the page and… it feels outdated so what is updating?
“As of today (April 22nd) the Rog Ally is still not out, and was just announced on April 1st” is in the article dated today, January 29th, and you said january 27th this page was also updated, so what significant change is actually happening to warrant a new subscription date?
“At the time of writing, the Lenovo Legion Go is not currently available, but all signs point to an October 2023 release date” – same, confusingly out of date on a page that claims that it’s new as of today.
“The IndieGoGo pages go live on September 5th, so bookmark them and get ready to make a great purchase!” – Once again, out of date.
Tips are not ranking factors
SearchLiaison ended his review by stating that nothing he said should be taken as examples of ranking factors, but rather things that tend to align with what Google is looking for.
“You’ve clearly worked on some of the video reviews.
Perhaps this needs to be more apparent with some of the writing. And mixing outdated information into a page that claims to be fresh is not a great experience.
Not that any or all of these things are direct ranking factors, and changing them won’t guarantee you a boost.
But systems in general are designed to reward reliable, useful content aimed at people, so the more that page aligns with that goal, the more success you’ll potentially have.”
Self-assessment in the site audit
Sometimes it’s hard to criticize the site itself. Therefore, it is useful to seek an outside opinion. One doesn’t necessarily need a full site audit, sometimes critiquing a single page can provide a wealth of useful information.
Featured image by Shutterstock/Mix and Match Studio
[ad_2]
Source link
