Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Imaging a page with 5 links
link1 to domainA
link2 to domainA
link3 to domainA
link4 to domainB
link5 to domainB "no follow"
60% of link juice will go to domainA
20% will go to domainB
20% will be wasted (no-follow)
The link text for link1 and link4 will pass link text relevancy, the other link text will not pass any relevancy.
Its a bit more complicated than this because the first link passed a bit more then the last.
read http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials/a-simple-explanation-of-pagerank
I would not canonical it, I would maybe make sure that other pages link to the main page with good link text. sometimes it a good idea to go with what Google gives you, if a page tends to rank better then your main page, then rather then try and work out why, try to funnel from that page.
They cause duplicate content problems, I don't think people use them much, and IMO they look tacky.
They have no SEO Value I can think of.
no I don't think it is worth it. If a very well respected blog that rarely has a guest blogger that invites you then maybe. but some blog that is easy to guest blog on, I very much doubt it. It is my opinion that SE's will see it much like a directory.
any link that can be self obtained is not what search engines are looking for. they are looking for links that are awarded to you from others. I think it more likely getting a penalty for unnatural link profile either by algorithm of manually.
Think like a SE, if you see a blog that has many blog articles by guests linking back to a mismatch of sites would you think it a good way to judge the quality of those sites?
In 2013, this is my strategy.
Clean code with perfect crawlability.
Perfect internal linking, no redirects, broken links see http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials/a-simple-explanation-of-pagerank
Using html5 tags and schema.org Show the search engine exactly what you want them to see, what is layout, what is content and such.
with links, get quality links if the opportunity ever comes, but don't force them, let them grow naturally.
You are correct.
If I were a search engine, I would see this as spam. Using html5 and schema.org you can tel the search engine exactly what is what in your site. place the navigation within a
<nav>tag and remove the h3s</nav>
do the pages have any external links pointing to them? if not then you will not lose any link juice if you change. If you 301 you will lose a bit of link juice from any existing links
but IMO I would have stuck with the static site where you have full control over the html
I doubt if your guest blogging will help, links that are self obtainable are rarely if ever of any worth.
I can tell you that you have 75 broken links each one wasting link juice, you also have a canonical problem with your homepage. You can access your home page thought 3 urls http://www.antana.co.uk
http://antana.co.uk
and if I click on your logo I go to http://www.antana.co.uk/index.html
Page rank is flowing from your home page thought your internal links and most of it ends up on http://www.antana.co.uk/index.html
Change the internal links to pit to either http://www.antana.co.uk or http://antana.co.uk then 301 redirect the other 2 urls to the one you choose to go with.
OK got ya.
Most times I hear such a question it is from people that think PR sites are going to put them at #1, I should of read your question to the end.
in iis cp find the folder secure, slect ssl settings from the mail window, and tick "require https", they will now be forced to use https for that folder.
Next if you haven't already, using web platform installer, install url rewrite in IIS, best grab SEO toolkit while you are there. Restart IIS cp after install
Select the site then go to url rewrite,
click add rule
Select blank rule
fill in as per screen shots here
http://screencast.com/t/6qUxduZ7UxWz
http://screencast.com/t/cvivbdFsm
If any problems get back to me. I did this without testing.
If you installed seo toolkit also, you will see there are some ready built rules at bottom, see tutorials here if needed.http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials
Note with the rule remove append trailing slash, I always select remove as when people type out your url they never put a slash on the end.
When your done select the site again and have a play with the SEO toolkit, do a scan on your site.
let me know how you went
ok some info
Do you have any pages in your site that need https?
if so are they all in the same folder
Is your site asp.net or asp.net MVC?
do you have access to the IIS control panel?
In Microsoft IIS server you can require uses use https on a folder basis, you seem to want to force to not use https, this can be done by writing a urlrewrite rule.
If your site does not use https at all, then just remove the binging for SSL. If you have some https pages and some without then you need to do the above.
If you are using a lynix type server then you will have to look it up, if you are using
IIS I can show you how to do this.
Get your link text correct for a start and a read of this page will give you some background that will help.
http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials/a-simple-explanation-of-pagerank
You wont get a duplicate penalty, having duplicate content is not a crime unless you are doing some large scale spamming. duplicate content wont help but it wont hurt either. noindexing will hurt, even with follow you still lose some. Use canonical to fix your problem not noindex.
as for the sitemap, It is my suspicion that not al the maps are being read. I also don't know much about yoast sitemaps, I always us the xml standard.
Bing and Google have their own sitmap generation software, that you can use that lets them make your site map for you.
My advice don't do any link building let them grow organically, and grab the occasional quality opportunity.
One of my sites was hurt by penguin update, I have been too busy to do anything about it. it had a lot of footer links from clients and a lot of forum signature links. I finally removed a lot of them and my site that used to dominate and had dropped off the radar came back to life this weekend almost as well as ever so their is light at the end of the tunnel.
Google does not stop traffic, only affects your ranking, you say that your main keywords have dropped only a little, but your long tail has probably dropped a lot.
Can we see your sitemap.xml to look for any problems.
I would not be concerned, as sitemaps are not much help for sites that have good linking, a site map should not include all your links according to Duane forrester of bing, but the main pages only.
What is a concern is the noindexing of pages you mention. any links pointing to non indexed pages are wasting their link juice, there is nothing to gain by noindexing pages but a lot to lose. if you really mush noindex a page use the meta tag noindex,foloow, so the search engine follows the links and you will get some of the link juice back.
I had a quick look at your site and could not find why you would drop so much. what I suspect is that your keyword was "Roller Banners" and so was your title, but now your title is no longer an exact match as you still rank well for the new title "Roller Banners From £19.99"
try changing the title back. use schema.org to mark up your product using product and offer, that way you will get the price included in serps under the url
ñô
sorry could not resist that. I would test it on other more well know examples, if you keep coming up with 0 and you still find pages with the special spelling in results then I would suggest Google copes with it,
having said that A B C will rank better than C B A for the team "A B C" , having exact may always have a slight advantage
Dr Pete as usual is correct here, but I would ask a further question, is your page accessed from both http and https? if so I would make the page "https required" so it is not, and use a 301 if you all ready have links to http.
I work on Microsoft IIS servers this is very easy to do, not sure how you do it on lynix
I cant see a problem here, but reading this page may be a help to sorry gave wrong link
http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials/a-simple-explanation-of-pagerank
IMO none
why would a search engine give any value to a link you can obtain yourself. they want to see that other people find your page exciting, not yourself. since Penguin I have seen better results from removing links than adding them.
IMO don't do it.
I know that Matt cuts once said that linking to high authoritive sites can be beneficial, but he did not elaborate how. I really don't think it helps you rank better. I would have at least one link out as reading the original google algorithm a page with no external links is a hanging page and not included in page rank calculations, there is a line of thought that this is also true on a website level. so at leas one external link on your site.
The idea is to have news linking to you, and you not linking to it. Screenshots seems ok.
think it out in your mind and triple it. Not joking
Here is what works for me, with very few links.
Make sure your site score a perfect crawling score, I use the Bing api (you can get most of this using Bing WMT or IIS SEO Toolkit) for this. You will never get a perfect score using a CMS.
Use html5 tags and schema.org to clearly mark out your content, leave the search engine in no doubt what the page is about, and what is what in the page, once again you will never achieve perfection here with a CMS.
Use internal linking to it full potential.
Have original content, make sure it is clear and do not over optimize it, fine line here.
In short have good content clearly marked up as to what each peace is(html5 schema.org), clean code so that the search engine can easily work out what the page is about, what is content and what is layout.
I would not worry about moving the code, I would use html5 elements to tell the search engine what is what. Such as
<header>
<nav>
<menu>
<aside></aside>
</menu>
</nav>
</header>
As donna said they look at the whole url, but I would prefere the fiile name to be descriptive, I would do something like /horror/frankenstein.png
I would use rel =previous and rel next, this is what they are for. I would not noindex them, any links pointing to a noindex page waste their link juice
From my memory Google does treat urls as case sensitive.
Best to keep al urls as lower case.
I don't know that Google does ignore it. anyhow Bing does not http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-multiple-canonical-formats
I crawled your site and you have no canonical issues, Thompson is correct about the notices.
Its telling you where you have the canonicals, not that they are errors, but in case they are where you did not expect them
I did a quick crawl of your site and found a lot of crawling issues.
You have a lot of canonical issues, broken links, unnecessary redirects, these errors would be wasting your link juice for a start
Problems and counts
<colgroup><col width="348"> <col width="64"></colgroup>
| The tag does not have an ALT attribute defined. | 2,338 |
| The page contains broken hyperlinks. | 900 |
| The page was excluded by a noindex attribute. | 591 |
| The page contains multiple canonical formats. | 548 |
| The description is missing. | 541 |
| The page contains unnecessary redirects. | 263 |
| The page contains invalid markup. | 251 |
| The URL for the hyperlink is broken. | 230 |
| The title is too long. | 111 |
| The link text is not relevant. | 99 |
| The description is empty. | 32 |
| The
| 22 |
| The description is too long. | 15 |
| The URL is linked using different casing. | 14 |
| The page contains multiple title tags. | 10 |
| The title is not relevant. | 10 |
| The description is too short. | 8 |
| The page contains multiple
| 2 |
| The title is empty. | 1 |
| The page contains too many hyperlinks. | 1 |
Make sure that is a no-index, follow tag so that you get your link juice back
I would get rid of the tags, I don't think users use them, they are more like a gimmick.
Search engines are more likely to rank your primary page now, rather then the pages produced by tags
if a crawler is finding these pages, then it means you have links that are wasting link juice,
I would do something about them, make sure they point to a valid page or remove them
You are correct a canonical will take care of it, and using a canonical does not tell the search engine they are identical. It works just like a 301 except for the fact that it does not physically move the users to the canonical page.
But does the search engine take the content from all urls and give the canonical value for al the content, I an not sure it dose, I have never tested it, so I would rather do something with JavaScript or maybe use previous and next tags.
Good point, I would be looking at a ajax solution.
When your ranking 1, 2 or 3 for your main keywords, depending on how competitive your keywords are. when you don't think your efforts will get you much further. Example don't waste your time trying to beat wikipedia
Good to hear.
As for the meta noindex, you ned to use <meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow">
So that the links are followed and return link juice.
Pointing a canonical tag to itself, has no use. in fact Bing doesn't like it. See quote, the whole page is a good read
Something else you need to keep in mind when using the rel=canonical is that it was never intended to appear across large numbers of pages. We’re already seeing a lot of implementations where the command is being used incorrectly. To be clear, using the rel=canonical doesn’t really hurt you. But, it doesn’t help us trust the signal when you use it incorrectly across thousands of pages, yet correctly across a few others on your website.
A lot of websites have rel=canonicals in place as placeholders within their page code. Its best to leave them blank rather than point them at themselves. Pointing a rel=canonical at the page it is installed in essentially tells us “this page is a copy of itself. Please pass any value from itself to itself.” No need for that.
I would say that because they main difference is a image v some flash. the text content is very much the same
I don't get why you would have tracking on the image, Takeshi may be correct, but I would not do it myself as it may be a low quality signal. I know that the Bing Api will detect it as a duplicate files, what they will do about I don't know.
First I would not no-index any page, as you then have links that point to those pages pouring link juice into the abyss. If you must no-index a page use the meta no-index,follow this way the links will be followed and link juice can flow back into your site.
If these pages are not duplicates, then why canonical?
But seeing you have, I cant see no harm in what you have done. it would be good to ge a url so we can check that the canonicals are correct
For the most part, I agree with Chris, but I would like to make a point on the 301.
Google may have said that the manual penalty has been lifted, but it does not mean that you are not still being penalized via the algorithm. doing a 301 may damage your second site.
I would 301 redirect only the good links, by looking at the referrer header.
As for 301s passing as much link juice as a link, I also seen the matt cuts video, but I don't read it the same way.
if you make a link to pageA, then redirect to pageB, you will lose link juice twice.
Matt was not very clear in the video, he did say that a 301 loses as much as a link does. A link and a 301 both a make a request to the server. I think the better way at looking at it is that every request loses link juice. Having a link to pageA then redirected to pageB is 2 requests, and 2 loses of link juice
James is correct, is a lot of effort that you could be putting into your primary site.
If some o ne them have good exact match keywords in the domain, them it may be worth the time.
I have a few sites, selling the same product, but I did this because I already have my primary site performing at its optimum, so them putting time into a second site to crowd the results makes sense, but I would be trying to get the first site to the top first.
I just tested it and found your new pages returning a 200, what status code was it returning before
Is your site listed in google wmt? if so is there any messages.
Ask for re-consideration and explain what happened
I agree, the competitor argument seems meaning less to me.
no, you don't need to keep the hosting alive
siteA is being retired, correct
You should now point the dns for siteA to siteB.
now do your 301 in the htaccess for siteB, redirecting requests with a http_host of siteA to the relevant page
Are they identical, you say the search equivalent, I just wouldn't treat search engines any different
Well then, yes I would be concerned, you are serving up different content to users, that is cloaking.