Will amp be effective in 2022?
-
Will AMP be effective in 2022? I am thinking of using AMP on my website since Core Web Vitals has become a ranking factor. For mobile devices, I guess AMP would be a good option to align with the Core Web Vital update.
-
AMP will remain a good template and model for making fast web pages. The downside is that it's restrictive, and in principle there's nothing stopping you from making non-AMP pages just as fast. Similarly, it is possible to make AMP pages that do not pass Google's Core Web Vitals thresholds with flying colours, although probably less likely than otherwise.
What's changed recently is that AMP no longer guarantees any special treatment from Google in search results.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Unsolved SEO And Digital Marketing Training
Hi Everyone, I have a basic SEO and Digital Marketing knowledge and looking for a course /training which will teach me step by step SEO and tools need to use with hand on training. I have a website (https://gemslearninginstitute.com/) which I need bring in Google Packs and on the first page of Google. I have attended a few courses but none of them offered in depth knowledge with hands on training so whatever I do it is not producing results. Thanks
SEO Tactics | | fslpso0 -
Shopify SEO - Collection or Blog post for ecomm seo?
Hi Moz folks, would love your thoughts on benefits of Shopify collection pages v blog posts for ranking secondary shopping keywords not suitable for existing shop pages - all help gratefully received, we are going down a rabbit hole on this one and need some sanity! So, we’re updating our site which already has a reasonable seo foundation and are looking to rank better for key shopping search keywords in our space (d2c sports nutrition). My question is should we prioritise store collection pages (category pages in Shopify terms) or blog posts for some of the main keywords not already covered by our core in-store collections/categories? Priority keywords already covered are things like protein powders, protein bars, energy drinks, etc. As context, we have a small product catalogue (10 products) and for easy navigation on site have these grouped into 7 collections/categories in the main menu and available from the homepage. All are quality high volume and high intent shopping keywords for our business. The secondary terms we are now looking to add content for are things like marathon nutrition, vegan sports nutrition, etc so now need to choose if we create product collection pages for these, or use blog posts to do the work. The advantage of collections, we believe, is that Google is likely to prioritise these in search. The disadvantage from a UX point of view is that more categories in store could make our simple and clear product range (10 products only) look complex or repetitive. Conversely, a blog post removes any UX confusion with too many categories, but we have a conversion rate issue with our blog. It performs well in search, but conversions are poor. We have addressed this with a new keyword targeting strategy and blog customisation, but we have yet to test this so while in theory it should work well, we do not know for certain. In summary: we want to rank key shopping keywords beyond our core ones we have - would you advise we use blog posts or product collection pages? All help gratefully received - thanks! Warren
SEO Tactics | | WP330 -
Googles Search Intent – Plural & Singular KW’s
This is more of a ‘gripe’ than a question, but I would love to hear people’s views. Typically, when you search for a product using the singular and plural versions of the keyword Google delivers different SERPs. As an example, ‘leather handbag’ and ‘leather handbags’ return different results, but surely the search intent is exactly the same? You’d have thought Google was now clever enough to work this out. We tend to optimise our webpages for both the plural and singular variations of the KW’s, but see a mixed bag of results when analysing rankings. Is Google trying to force us to create a unique webpage for the singular version, and another unique webpage for the plural version? This would confuse the visitor, and make no sense.. the search intent is the same! How do you combat this problem? Many thanks in advance. Lee.
Algorithm Updates | | Webpresence0 -
Will this fix my bounce rate?
If I understand bounce rate correctly, what it basically means is that someone clicks on your SERP, and then clicks back to google? But, it doesn't matter if they spent 10 minutes on your page or 10 seconds...so if that's right, then can you lower you bounce rate by getting someone to click on another internal link inside the original page they visited from the SERPs? So for example, if a user clicks on the SERP result for our webpage X, then the users clicks on an internal link on our page X to another one of our webpages ,Y, will that lower the bounce rate, even if the user eventually backs out to the original SERP page? Thanks, Ruben
Algorithm Updates | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Organic listing & map listing on 1st page of Google
Hi, Back then, a company could get multiple listings in SERP, one in Google Maps area and a homepage or internal pages from organic search results. But lately, I've noticed that Google are now putting together the maps & organic listings. This observation has been confirmed by a couple of SEO people and I thought it made sense, but one day I stumble with this KWP "bmw dealership phoenix" and saw that www.bmwnorthscottsdale.com has separate listing for google places and organic results. Any idea how this company did this? Please see the attached image
Algorithm Updates | | ao5000000 -
Will we no longer need Location + Keyword? Do we even need it at all?
Prepare yourselves. This is a long question. With the rise of schema and Google Local+, do you think Google will now have enough data about where a business is located, so that when someone searches for, a keyword such as "Atlanta Hyundai dealers" a business in Atlanta that's website: has been properly marked up with schema (or microdata for business location) has claimed its Google Local+ has done enough downstream work in Local Search listings for its NAP (name, address, phone number) will no longer have to incorporate variations of "Atlanta Hyundai dealers" in the text on the website? Could they just write enough great content about how they're a Hyundai dealership without the abuse of the Atlanta portion? Or if they're in Boston and they're a dentist or lawyer, could the content be just about the services they provided without so much emphasis tied to location? I'm talking about removing the location of the business from the text in all places other than the schema markup or the contact page on the website. Maybe still keep a main location in the title tags or meta description if it would benefit the customer. I work in an industry where location + keywords has reached such a point of saturation, that it makes the text on the website read very poorly, and I'd like to learn more about alternate methods to keep the text more pure, read better and still achieve the same success when it comes to local search. Also, I haven't seen other sites penalized for all the location stuffing on their websites, which is bizarre because it reads so spammy you can't recognize where the geotargeted keywords end and where the regular text begins. I've been working gradually in this general direction (more emphasis on NAP, researching schema, and vastly improving the content on clients' websites so it's not so heavy with geo-targeted keywords). I also ask because though the niche I work in is still pretty hell-bent on using geo-targeted keywords, whenever I check Analytics, the majority of traffic is branded and geo-targeted keywords make up only a small fraction of traffic. Any thoughts? What are other people doing in this regard?
Algorithm Updates | | EEE30 -
Merging Multiple Domains into a Single Domain and Its Effect on Ranking
My client had multiple top-level-domains. Each one represented an insurance program within a specific vertical. For all the sites at these alternate domains, there was a 30/70 mix of duplicate vs. original content. Some of the alternate domains ranked very well for their target keyphrase groups, where others were absent in results pages. We advised the client to merge multiple domains into their existing main domain, for usability and SEO reasons. We recently ran the merger. Here was our process: On the main domain, transfer the content such that it matches 1-for-1 content on the various alternate domains Setup Google Webmaster tools on the main domain Push the new content on the main domain live and submit a corresponding sitemap to Google Establish 301 redirects on the alternate domains, such that each alternate domain URL points to its respective page on the main domain We did this 12 days ago, and pages (previously on the alternate domains) that had ranked well on Google have now plummeted or are entirely non-existent. Did we do the right thing by merging multiple top-level domains into a single domain? Is this initial dip in rankings normal? How soon should we expect to see it return to its normal rankings?
Algorithm Updates | | PinckneyHugoGroup0