Although we all know that moz and the higher ups specifically have a very loose grip on what online marketing is really about, this does ring true. Calling out the fact that that the misdirection throughout the industry has been there from the beginning. Creating an us vs. them mentality that truly doesn’t have to be there.
Well, there’s actually been a bunch of discussion about this, because the evidence is on the totally other side, that if you have a website with a bunch of redirects that are not 301s, 302s, 307s, and you change them to 301s, which is the permanent redirect status code, it sure looks like Google organic search traffic sends more visits to those redirected pages or to the target of the redirected pages. Why would that be if it didn’t matter in the first place? Is it just a bunch of correlation but not causation results because it looks way too consistent? Or is there something else going on here?
But then you might get statements like this one, which are real tough. “External links to other sites isn’t specifically a ranking factor, but it can bring value to your content, and that in turn can be relevant for us in search. Whether or not they are followed doesn’t really matter.” That is a hard, hard statement to interpret. The first sentence says, “External links. We don’t use them. They’re not a ranking factor.” The second sentence says, “But those links might bring value to your content, and that in turn can be relevant for us in search,” which almost seems to contradict the first sentence. Those two things don’t go together.
I think this statement was not from Garry. This is John Mueller I think said this one. “Whether or not they are followed doesn’t really matter.” Okay, so if you are using them, followed or not followed doesn’t matter. Tough statement to interpret. I’m not sure what to take away from that. The only thing I think I might be able to do is to say, “I should probably test it. I should figure it out for myself.” When and How to Listen to Google’s Public Statements About SEO – Whiteboard Friday
We have seen this update come and go and most of soon realized that are fears were in fact true. We finally allowed ourselves to trust in the “Goog” to follow through on their stern promise to reject and remove all the non mobile-friendly sites throughout the serps. When in fact the movement was only delegated to a few which were short lived. The loss of rankings and were quickly regained without any change what so ever…
Google announced that is dropping the “mobile friendly” label in search results. The company says that now 85 percent of pages in mobile results are in fact mobile-friendly. Google also said today in a blog post that it will impose a ranking penalty on “intrusive interstitials” that impede user access to content.
Pages that show intrusive interstitials provide a poorer experience to users than other pages where content is immediately accessible. This can be problematic on mobile devices where screens are often smaller. To improve the mobile search experience, after January 10, 2017, pages where content is not easily accessible to a user on the transition from the mobile search results may not rank as highly.
Google would likely dismiss such claims, pointing to the fact that it will not penalize app-install banners. However one question here is why Google will allow near-full page interstitials for cookies and age verification (below) but not app-install units? Via marketingland.com
Images via moz.com, marketingland.com