• Pat Grady

    Been a few years since I bookmarked a webpage, Bravo Zulu!

  • Remi Turcotte

    Is the vary header working on ALL browsers ? I don’t think it’s a good idea to recommend the vary header…

  • BobGladstein

    When we created an m. for a site I worked on, we did the standard user-agent sniffing to redirect users to the right version, but we also added a link on mobile pages back to the desktop version, just in case they preferred it that way. However, that meant that when a mobile user-agent requested a desktop URL, we had to check to see if they were coming from our mobile page in order to avoid redirecting them back to the page they had just come from. Would that be considered a bad idea these days?

  • http://www.techmagnate.com/ Eva Rajput

    Google is taking a stronger position on mobile SEO, it will begin demoting sites in mobile search results if they are not mobile friendly or are misconfigured. Many marketers may find themselves challenged to implement these
    guidelines as they are wide-ranging and will come with associated costs,
    time and upkeep.

    As a result, mobile users could be impacted if they are not seeing relevant content because it does not meet the guidelines.
    It becomes necessary to be updated about the technicalities of mobile SEO.
    Thanks for sharing this informative post!

  • http://www.ninebyblue.com Vanessa Fox

    I don’t think there’s a great answer for that yet and it’s a similar problem as you might have with desktop pages with pagination and faceted navigation (which I describe here: http://searchengineland.com/implementing-pagination-attributes-correctly-for-google-114970).

    The solution in both cases right now is to leave them as separate pages without canonical/alternate media), although as noted in the article, they may not rank as well as they otherwise would.

    I suppose you could also noindex them as you note, as the desktop version would then rank and mobile searchers would get redirected to the right page. There’s the potential downside of lowered ranking in mobile results if a lot of other mobile pages are in play (as I imagine pages optimized for mobile would be seen as more relevant for mobile searches).

    I’m hoping that over time, Google’s algorithms get better at issues like this.

    Not sure on Bing — I can look into that for the next article! The blog post you mention is a bit confusing, since it suggests a one URL strategy, but then says it’s fine if you use mobile-only URLs (with corresponding desktop URLs), but doesn’t give recommendations for how to handle that implementation.

    And for mobile only URLs (with no corresponding desktop page), it says you can block them “or not”. But if you block the pages, they’d never rank for mobile searchers.

  • hamletbatista

    Great job, but this paragraph is incorrect.

    “One the mobile page, include following (where max-width is whatever you’ve set the page to support):

    ””

    This goes in the desktop page, not in the mobile page.

    https://developers.google.com/webmasters/smartphone-sites/details

    “On the desktop page, add:

    and on the mobile page, the required annotation should be:

  • http://www.ninebyblue.com Vanessa Fox

    Thanks — good catch. Fixed “mobile page” to be “desktop page”. :)

  • hamletbatista

    “One potential pitfall is page load time. Make sure that the page is speedy to download on mobile devices and that you aren’t loading a bunch of weighty content (like videos and ads that you end up not displaying to mobile users anyway) that hinders the mobile experience”

    An alternative approach is to use clever CSS/Javascript tricks to selectively load heavy resources depending on the viewport. One such trick is unused CSS rules containing background images http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12750872/would-a-background-image-still-load-if-its-hidden

    Another is to avoid hard coding media resources(or ads) in the HTML, and load them dynamically via Jquery/Javascript. This would have to be tested to make sure the resources load as fast as expected using this approach.

  • http://www.agriya.com/ Siva MA

    Dear Vanessa,

    Thanks for sharing this post. If i develop a website in bootsrap, Will i follow the methods what did u share in the post.

  • Eduardo Sobral Guilherme

    Thank you for this great post Vanessa! I was unsure if I should opt for Responsive Design or Dynamic Serving. You made my day!

  • lisa741

    what Stanley answered I am
    inspired that some people able to get paid $5905 in one month on the
    computer. did you see this website w­w­w.K­E­P­2.c­o­m

  • http://makethemclick.com.au/library Mark @ Make Them Click

    Great write up Vanessa.

    One of the things about responsive design that concerns me is that it adds about 1mb of extra code and a dozen extra style sheets and javascript files. While you could combine them into one each, you still end up with an awful lot of extra code.

    This page for instance is nearly 10meg containing over 300 files, two dozen style sheets and nearly a hundred javascript files.

    Doesn’t size matter anymore as a performance hindrance?

  • Peter Garety

    Great source for Mobile SEO. Thank you!

    One thing that is very interesting thing is responsive design – if that is the way to go, why YouTube, Google’s property, is using m sub-domain? Why big sites like Pinterest and Facebook does the same?

    This is one of those things – ‘don’t listen what they say, but learn from what they do’.

  • Federico Riva

    Hi Vanessa, I run 2 sites with different content (but identical subject). I’m about to develop a mobile version for each. But I’d like to have the same content for both sites. To avoid index similarity between the 2 mobile versions (which would have the same content) what can I do?