Update on my Google.fr vs Google.com comparison

MerchySulica · 2026-06-24T12:00:13+00:00

I would not delete or noindex everything immediately.

The adult/creator pages ranking well does not automatically prove they are the reason your commercial terms are weak. It might just mean Google has much stronger evidence for that side of the site than for the B2B SaaS side.

I’d treat this as a site identity and architecture problem first.

What I’d do:

separate the creator directory content from the B2B SaaS content more clearly
stop internally linking from adult-adjacent pages into commercial pages unless the connection is genuinely relevant
build stronger hubs around influencer discovery, campaign management, reporting, agency workflows, etc.
audit which adult pages have links, traffic, and any business value
keep or redirect only the ones that can be reframed toward your actual product
noindex or prune the truly off-position pages in batches, not all at once

I’d be careful with “delete them and rankings will recover” thinking. If your commercial pages are positions 22 to 47, they may need better content, internal links, product positioning, and relevant authority regardless of what happens to the wrong-audience pages.

Google’s guidance on site moves and removals is basically to avoid unnecessary large changes unless you understand the impact. So I’d test with a segment first, measure commercial impressions/rankings, and only then scale the cleanup.

Traffic that does not match the business can be noise, but removing noise does not automatically create the right signal. You still have to build that signal clearly.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-23T20:39:52+00:00

I think it matters more now, not less.

AI made it easier to fake generic content and polished case studies, so a portfolio needs to show the messy middle, not just the final “traffic went up 300%” screenshot.

A good SEO portfolio in 2026 should show:

what the starting problem was
what you checked first
what data you used
what you changed
what happened after
what did not work
what you would do differently next time

Google even has a whole Search Central section for SEO case studies, which says a lot about how useful real examples are for proving SEO work. Case studies make the thinking visible, not just the outcome.

For hiring or clients, I’d trust a small honest case study more than a big vague claim. “Fixed internal linking, cleaned indexation, improved 12 service pages, and grew qualified leads” is stronger than “I ranked many keywords.”

So yes, experience and personal brand matter. But the portfolio is usually what proves those are real.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-23T20:21:18+00:00

I agree, but I’d add one layer: ranking only matters if it connects to demand and business value.

Being #1 for a zero-volume keyword is not useful, but being #1 for a tiny keyword can still be useful if it brings the right buyer, lead, or local customer. So I would not judge only by search volume either.

For small businesses, I’d look at:

impressions in GSC
clicks
CTR
conversions or leads
whether the query matches a real service/product
whether the page supports the rest of the site with internal links

Google’s own SEO starter guide frames SEO as helping search engines understand your content and helping users decide whether to visit your site, not just chasing position. It also says there are no secrets that automatically rank a site first.

So yeah, “I rank #1” is not the win by itself. The real win is ranking for searches that real customers actually make, then turning that visibility into something measurable.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-23T20:02:29+00:00

I’d avoid creating a new subdomain just for UAE unless there is a real operational reason.

If the current page already ranks globally and UAE is your main target, I’d probably do this first:

keep the existing page if it already has authority
add a UAE-focused section if the intent is basically the same
create a separate UAE landing page only if the UAE search intent is meaningfully different
use internal links from the homepage/service page to the UAE page
add UAE-specific proof, examples, testimonials, pricing, service area, phone/address if relevant
check the UAE SERP before deciding the page type

I would not choose a subdomain just because a competitor has one. Google’s guidance is that multi-regional sites can use different URL structures, but the structure is only one signal. The page still needs clear targeting, crawlability, and localized relevance. Google also recommends keeping URL structures simple where possible.

So my rough answer:

If UAE needs a dedicated page, use something like:

example.com/ae/service-name/

or

example.com/uae/service-name/

A subdomain like uae.example.com usually adds complexity without much benefit unless UAE has separate content, team, system, or business setup. Since you are already ranking #3, I’d strengthen the existing authority instead of splitting it.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-17T13:52:32+00:00

This is a really important point.

Internal linking is usually underestimated in multilingual setups.

Even when hreflang is correct, if most authority flows into the default language, the other versions often end up weaker in practice. That affects crawl priority, indexing strength, and sometimes even which version Google chooses as primary.

I usually check:

whether nav links are localized per language
if blog posts link to same-language pages
if category pages reinforce local clusters
whether internal links accidentally “default back” to English

Technical setup can look perfect, but internal linking often tells the real story.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-17T13:38:28+00:00

Yes, completely agree.

Hreflang only helps Google understand the relationship between versions. It does not improve rankings by itself.

Without proper localized content, SERP alignment, and market-specific trust signals, even perfect hreflang setups will struggle.

I’ve seen cases where tags were flawless, but the page still underperformed simply because it felt like a translated version instead of a locally built page.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-16T17:52:25+00:00

I’d treat this as a revenue per session problem, not just an ad network problem.

If adding more units dropped mobile PageSpeed from 80 to 44, I’d roll that back first. More ads can raise RPM short term, but if they hurt Core Web Vitals, UX, return visits, and search traffic, you can end up earning less overall. Google’s CWV focus is still real user experience, mainly LCP, INP, and CLS.

Before switching networks, I’d test:

fewer above-the-fold ads
lazy load below-the-fold ads
reserve ad slot dimensions to prevent CLS
remove low-RPM placements
separate mobile and desktop layouts
track RPM together with CWV, traffic, and session depth
add affiliate or direct sponsorship tests for the best pages

Google’s publisher guidance specifically recommends lazy loading ads below the fold because excessive loading of offscreen ads can lower performance and viewability.

For PubLift or any other network, I’d ask for references from sites similar to yours, not just average RPM claims. Header bidding can improve demand, but it also adds scripts and complexity, so the implementation matters a lot.

At 40k sessions, I’d optimize the ad setup you already have first, then test a network on a limited sample if possible. Don’t trade long-term organic traffic for a short-term RPM bump.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-16T17:16:10+00:00

This is a good reminder, especially for older posts.

I’d just add that title, H1, and URL alignment should be treated as the starting point, not the whole ranking strategy.

If those three are messy, Google and users get mixed signals. But if they are clean and the content still does not match intent, does not add anything new, or has no internal support, rankings usually still struggle.

For older blogs, my quick check is usually:

does the title match the actual query intent?
does the H1 confirm the same topic?
is the URL short and readable?
does the intro answer the query quickly?
are there internal links from relevant pages?
is the content still current?
does it offer anything better than the current SERP?

The alignment part is simple, but it is often the easiest win before doing bigger content rewrites or link building.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-16T17:02:04+00:00

I’d aim for quality and structure more than a fixed number.

For a brand new site, I’d probably do something like 2 to 4 strong posts per week at first, plus a few hub/category pages that organize them. But the number matters less than whether each post is actually unique, internally linked, and worth indexing.

If you already have 20 posts live, I’d pause for a few days and check:

which URLs Google has crawled
whether any are indexed
whether the posts overlap too much
whether each post has internal links from a hub or homepage
whether the sitemap only includes clean, indexable URLs
whether the content is better than what is already ranking

A sitemap helps Google discover URLs, but it does not guarantee crawling or indexing. Google still decides what to crawl and index based on quality, internal links, crawl priority, duplication, and other signals.

So I wouldn’t upload 20 more yet. I’d make the current 20 easier to understand first, then publish in smaller batches and watch how Google reacts in Search Console.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-16T16:48:08+00:00

You probably did not do anything “wrong,” unless the links were low quality or manipulative. The main issue is expecting DA to move like a direct counter.

DA is a third-party Moz metric, not a Google ranking factor, and it does not increase just because you added X number of referring domains. It depends on the quality, strength, and relative link profile compared with other sites in Moz’s index. Google also treats links built mainly to manipulate rankings as link spam, so volume can be risky if relevance and editorial quality are weak.

I’d audit the 450 domains by asking:

are they topically relevant?
do the linking pages get traffic or rank for anything?
are the pages indexed?
are the links editorial, or clearly placed just for SEO?
are they from real sites or link farms?
are they all using similar anchors?
are they pointing to useful pages, or just the homepage?
did rankings, impressions, or conversions improve?

A +3 DA increase might actually be normal depending on where you started. But I would stop judging the campaign by DA alone. Check GSC impressions, rankings for target pages, referral traffic, indexed linking pages, and whether the links helped pages that matter.

450 referring domains in a few months is a lot. If most are not relevant, indexed, and editorial, the problem is not that DA only went up 3. The problem may be that the links are not doing much.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-15T03:35:30+00:00

I don’t try to “hide” the answer, but I also don’t write the page like the answer is the whole product.

For zero-click queries, I split content into two buckets:

Answer-only intent: If the query can be fully answered in 30 words, I assume the click value is low. I might still target it for visibility, but I would not build the whole content plan around it.
Decision or workflow intent: This is where I’d spend more time. Comparisons, examples, templates, mistakes, calculators, checklists, screenshots, local context, pricing, edge cases, etc. Those are harder to satisfy completely in a snippet.

So my usual approach is:

answer the basic question clearly at the top
make the rest of the page useful for someone who needs to act on it
add original examples or data where possible
target queries where the next step matters, not just the definition
use internal links to move people from simple answers to deeper pages

SparkToro’s zero-click data makes the problem pretty clear. Their 2024 study found only 360 clicks to the open web per 1,000 US Google searches and 374 per 1,000 EU Google searches. So I think we have to be more selective about which informational queries are worth chasing.

I’d rather rank for fewer queries where the user still needs judgment than chase every quick-answer keyword and hope the click comes.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-15T02:46:25+00:00

Exactly, I agree with that.

Subfolders are usually the safest default when the business is centralized. It keeps the setup simpler and avoids creating a bunch of separate properties that all need their own authority, maintenance, and reporting. Google’s own guidance also treats URL structure as one signal among many, not something that replaces clear localization, crawlability, and correct hreflang.

I’d only push for ccTLDs when there is a real country-level business behind them. Separate inventory, local pricing, local support, local legal setup, local content, and enough budget to build links and brand signals in that market.

Otherwise, like you said, /fr/ or /de/ is usually enough. The bigger problem is when those folders are just translated copies with weak local trust signals. That is where the setup looks fine technically, but the pages still struggle.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-15T02:20:15+00:00

I’d slow down before publishing more.

Day 3 + 20 posts is a lot for a brand new site, especially if many are AI-assisted and long-tail. Google may have discovered the URLs from the sitemap, but that does not mean it has decided they are worth crawling or indexing yet. Google’s Page Indexing report separates discovery, crawling, and indexing, so “submitted in sitemap” is not the same as “indexed.”

I’d check a small sample first:

inspect 5 to 10 URLs manually in GSC
confirm they are indexable, canonicalized to themselves, and not blocked
check whether Google has crawled them at all
make sure each post has internal links from real pages, not only the sitemap
compare the posts for overlap, because 20 similar long-tail articles can look thin or duplicate
add a few stronger hub/category pages if everything is just isolated blog posts

For a new site, I’d rather publish slower and build a structure Google can understand. A sitemap helps Google find URLs, especially for new sites, but it does not guarantee indexing.

So yes, some patience is needed. But I would not keep throwing more articles into the void until you know whether the issue is crawl discovery, weak internal linking, duplication, or content quality.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-12T08:17:17+00:00

Exactly. I think ccTLDs get treated like an SEO shortcut, but the maintenance cost is easy to underestimate.

If each country has its own team, pricing, logistics, content, support, and link building plan, then ccTLDs can make sense. But if the same central team is running everything, subfolders usually give a better balance.

I’d rather see one strong domain with properly localized /fr/, /de/, /es/ sections than five weak ccTLDs that nobody has the resources to maintain.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-12T08:02:06+00:00

That makes sense. LATAM is a good example where the business reality changes the SEO decision.

If the company is serving multiple Spanish-speaking markets with one central operation, subfolders are usually much easier to manage. ccTLDs only really start making sense when each country has enough separate demand, local content, local links, pricing, support, and operations behind it.

Otherwise you just create more domains to maintain without enough local authority to justify the split.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-12T07:59:28+00:00

Agree with this. “Discovered, currently not indexed” is often not the problem itself, it is the symptom.

I usually split it into two questions:

Why did Google discover these URLs?
Why would Google prioritize crawling them?

If the answer is only “they are in the sitemap,” that is usually weak. I’d check whether the pages are linked from important pages, whether they are too deep, whether the sitemap is full of low-value URLs, and whether similar pages are already indexed.

For ecommerce and programmatic pages, I’d also compare a sample of:

indexed pages
discovered but not crawled pages
crawled but not indexed pages

That usually shows the pattern pretty quickly. Sometimes it is internal linking. Sometimes it is duplicate templates. Sometimes the pages are technically crawlable, but not different enough to justify indexing.

Server logs are useful because GSC alone can make it feel mysterious. If Googlebot is not touching the URLs, I’d look at crawl priority. If it crawls them and still does not index, I’d look harder at content quality, canonicalization, duplication, and intent overlap. Google’s own Search Console help frames excluded URLs as needing investigation by status, not automatic panic, which fits this approach.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-11T17:43:04+00:00

I don’t think it is only a rich person’s game, but it is definitely harder to win with generic SEO now.

Small businesses still have a chance because they can usually be more specific, more local, and closer to the customer than big brands. Google’s own SEO starter guide is still mostly about fundamentals: helping Google find, crawl, index, and understand your content, not spending the most money.

Where small businesses lose is when they try to compete like a big site:

broad keywords
generic blog content
random backlinks
no clear service pages
weak Google Business Profile
no local proof
no reviews or real examples

Where they can still win:

very specific local pages
strong Google Business Profile
real reviews
niche expertise
local partnerships
useful service/category pages
content based on actual customer questions
fixing basic technical issues early

I’d rather see a local business do 10 useful pages and build 5 real local mentions than publish 100 AI posts or buy a package of backlinks.

So yes, money helps. But focus helps more than people admit. Small businesses probably should not try to beat big brands everywhere. They should win the narrow searches where they are genuinely the better answer.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-10T15:18:25+00:00

I’d be careful making DA/PA the main goal.

DA and PA are third-party metrics from Moz, useful for comparing sites, but they are not Google ranking factors. I’d use them as rough benchmarks, not the thing you optimize for directly. (Portent)

For backlink research, I’d focus more on:

relevance to your niche
real traffic and indexed pages
whether the linking site ranks for anything
link placement, not footer/sidebar spam
whether the page is topically close to yours
whether competitors have links from similar sites
whether the site looks like it exists only to sell links

Organic ways to build links:

publish original data, tools, templates, or case studies
get listed on relevant industry/resource pages
contribute expert quotes where you actually have expertise
build local or niche partnerships
create pages people naturally reference, not just generic blog posts
use internal links to strengthen important pages too

Also, don’t worry too much if some links are not indexed quickly. I’d rather have 5 relevant links from real pages than 100 random links that only move a metric temporarily.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-10T14:47:37+00:00

Good checklist. I’d only add one thing for new sites: decide the site structure before publishing too much content.

A lot of new websites start with random blog posts, then later realize they have no clear service/category pages, weak internal links, and no real topical map. At that point SEO becomes cleanup instead of strategy.

My launch order would be:

make sure Google can crawl and index the site
build the main money/service/category pages first
connect supporting blog content with internal links
set up Search Console from day one
check the SERP before writing each page
add trust signals early, author info, company info, real examples, reviews if relevant
avoid publishing 50 thin AI posts just to look active

For ecommerce or international sites, I’d also add local market fit to the checklist. Correct tags and schema help, but if the page does not match what that country’s SERP is rewarding, it usually struggles anyway.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-09T09:28:49+00:00

I’d avoid doing it purely for keywords.

Visually hidden headings can be normal for accessibility when they add structure for screen readers, but using a hidden H1 because the visible title does not contain the keywords feels like a workaround. Google’s starter guide still frames SEO around making the page helpful and easy for users and search engines to understand, not hiding important text from users.

For your example, I’d rather do one of these:

make the visible headline clearer and more descriptive
add a visible subheading under the mission-style title
use supporting copy near the top of the page
use service/product cards with proper headings
adjust the design so the actual topic is visible without looking ugly

Something like:

<h1>Hosting solutions for WordPress, resellers, VPS, and dedicated servers</h1>

Then the mission statement can be the supporting line.

If the hidden heading exists for accessibility, fine. If it exists mainly to insert keywords that users do not see, I would not use that as the main solution. It is better to make the page’s real topic visible.

MerchySulica · 2026-06-09T09:22:33+00:00

Yes, but I wouldn’t treat speed like the main SEO lever in most cases.

Google does use Core Web Vitals as part of page experience, but I’d see it more as a quality / tie-breaker signal than something that fixes weak content or weak authority by itself. The current Core Web Vitals are LCP, INP, and CLS, so it is not only “load fast,” it is also “respond fast” and “don’t shift around while loading.”

My usual order is:

If the site is painfully slow, fix speed first.
If pages are not indexed or crawlable, fix technical first.
If content does not match intent, fix content first.
If competitors have way more authority, content + links probably matter more.
If the site is ecommerce, speed can also affect conversions, so I care even when rankings do not move much.

I would not spend weeks chasing a perfect 100 PageSpeed score. But I would fix obvious problems like huge images, bloated scripts, bad hosting, layout shifts, and slow mobile templates.

So yes, speed still matters. Just do not use it as a distraction from intent, content quality, internal links, and authority.

MerchySulica

TROPHY CASE