All star rich snippets review for a listing vs a review page

The question
Suppose you have a listing page/ search results screen.
Suppose you have dozens of reviews for your products.

Should you pop those said reviews on the listing page?

After all the listing page is even more dull and less likely to change than the product, so wouldn't reviews be great in there?

The desired result
At the end of the day, the main reason for reviews and rich snippets on Google SERP is .... to get people to click through.


Facts:
The most important factor for organic traffic is SERP ranking
CTR on paid search DOES NOT impact SERP rankings.
Stars/ price rich snippets will impact CTR

So mainly if a listing page may not have rich snippets, then you won't get data structure (outside of things like site links)


Unknown Facts
It's a general hypothesis that bounce rates, time on site and conversion rates impact the best user experience. So, if users click onto a site because of compelling rich snippets and then awe sucks that's crap, back to google, this could count (ahem, lets say Google could "count") this as bad experience separately, which will impact SERP.

Summary
If your product page is awesome, leave the snippets there.
If the listing page is awesome, leave the snippets there.
If neither, then the product page is probably best.


A different type of approach would be to have a different structure to your product pages where you have better groupings of products which hold all the reviews.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

cf_sql_timestamp vs cf_sql_date vs getdate()

If there's one thing I don't like it is people confusing a date with a timestamp, and how a lazy bit of development can ruin a load of data. Here is a simple query inserting data to a timestamp I found in a system where all the created dates were truncated because of the incorrect syntax. Bad one which was in use: insert into testdate values (<cfqueryparam cfsqltype="cf_sql_date" value="#createodbcdatetime(now())#">); Result :  2015-09-29 00:00:00.000 Best One (easiest to read) insert into testdate values(getdate() ); Result : 2015-09-29 10:10:09.880 Not great (no binding) insert into testdate values(#createodbcdatetime(now())#); Result :  2015-09-29 10:14:44.000 What the bad one should have been insert into testdate values(<cfqueryparam cfsqltype=" cf_sql_timestamp " value="#createodbcdatetime(now())#">)
Read more

Global SQL Procedure, System Objects and sp_ms_marksystemobject

You may come across a need to have a database of utils full of generic procedures which work on indvidual databases (say client databases). You can't pass the database name into the procedure as a parameter and say "use @dbname" in the procedure and dynamic sql sucks. One workaround is to create the procedure in the master database and then mark it as a system object. eg use [master] create procedure sp_doThis // note the sp_ prefix is required begin // etc etc end go exec sp_ms_marksystemobject 'sp_doThis' // second note, this procedure is undocumented, so I wouldn't be relying on this for life or death. use [myotherdb] exec sp_doThis go All done!
Read more

Ghost Records, Card Recon and PCI Compliance

As part of a PCI Compliance audit, I recently ran a scan on a database using software call Card Recon. A little odd thing occurred. At a point in the past, a row of data in a column, which had been dropped from the database schema, contained a single test credit card number. However, the Card Recon software showed that the data was still there in the database file (this was a SQL Database) in the form of a SQL Ghost Record. A Ghost Record can appear when running a delete or insert command and when running delete and insert in different queries but related by the same indexed data, you can read all about it over at Ghost "Rows" Buster in  SQL Server on Technet. It's basically a record somewhere in the database file, but not directly in a database table and is living in a bit of spare fragmented space somewhere and this needs to be cleaned up. Following this procedure managed to remove the Ghost Record: Convert the database to Simple (only so the transactio
Read more