Welcome to the Q&A Forum

There are several resources around the net that show how to do this. Here's a code snippet provided by http://www.inmotionhosting.com/support/website/redirects/setting-up-a-301-permanent-redirect-via-htaccess

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^example.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.example.com [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.net/$1 [L,R=301,NC]

If this doesn't work for you, here are some other resources:
https://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/blog/search-engine-optimization/301-redirects/
https://css-tricks.com/snippets/htaccess/301-redirects/
http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/how-to-properly-implement-a-301-redirect/

The first code example is more canonical friendly. The simple version I see used a lot and recommended in the other resources I've provided looks like this:

RedirectMatch 301 ^(.*)$ http://www.xyz.com

Definitely add more comprehensive content on product pages but make sure it's unique. Meaning if you use an API to bring in the manufacturer's specs and everyone else selling or renting your equipment are doing the same thing, then it's not unique and Google won't determine that you have something extra to provide to users. You should still have that content, but add on to it.

If you want an example of this technique working in the wild, just search any product and you'll find that Amazon ranks highly for thousands and thousands of products that others sell. They have a lot of unique content in the form of user generated content (which Google counts as unique content) and this helps them rank.

So yes, adding content will help you rank, but make it useful content (scrap the fluff), make sure it's unique content, and mark it up with schema for that extra oomph in the SERP.

Standard operating procedure for us is to nofollow anything we noindex. Theory is that pagerank will still flow through a link to another page that has been noindexed if you don't nofollow it. But since it has been noindexed the PR will just be trapped there and can't move on to another page through any links on that page.

I don't know how true that theory is, but erring on the side of caution has never cost me a dime, and nofollowing links to a page that is noindexed won't have a negative impact.

Unfortunately not, due to issues with data integrity and seasonal variations in traffic. What I can say is that it did not have a catastrophic impact on our traffic. Google still indexed both versions of the webpages if it found them, and chose to display one or the other. Since we don't have a constant to compare it with, it's difficult to ascertain the exact impact it's having. I can say that the less competitive terms with lower traffic we're ranking for just fine, but we're on page five for the most competitive term (with the most volume) we're attempting to rank for, and both an http and https page are vying for position. That's in part the structure being an issue, and also in part the content on the page is thinner than I'd like it to be.

If you run into this issue on specific pages, try adding a rel canonical tag to the page you want Google to rank. If you use this strategy only when you check your rank tracking tools to see which pages are in the SERP and having issues, you can cut down on the maintenance, and quickly determine whether or not it's the duplicate content that's preventing you from ranking or if you need to focus on other on-site or off-site signals.

Hi Jacob,

The definitive resource on reviews for Google is found here: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/reviews

I'm not 100% certain I understand your problem. Are you worried about first party reviews wrapped in schema, or third party reviews? Are you able to see reviews in your Google My Business dashboard, or in a knowledge panel when you search your brand? Have you checked competitors who have been garnering reviews?

There are some industries that cannot display reviews due to legislation, such as financial advisors. I don't believe your industry falls into that category, and you may just be experiencing some normal fluctuation in the SERP. Verify the points I mentioned above and perhaps we can find an answer.

I'd be interested in seeing the research you did showing that Google is using Facebook comments as a ranking signal. I think a correlation definitely exists, and there is supporting evidence for it, but to date I don't believe anyone has proven causation.

The best research I've found on the topic is here: http://buzzsumo.com/blog/social-shares-and-inbound-links-insights-from-new-correlation-data/ In short, it states that some content that is shared garners more backlinks depending on the type of content and where it is shared. You should compare this with your research and see if it follows the trend noted here.

If you're trying to decide whether to move to AMP or not, consider that you could receive a ranking boost as some have, but you could also be sacrificing your ability to convert as highly as you used to.

I like to follow this rule of thumb: publishers yes, everyone else no. We all have to make money somehow and stripping out conversions is not a great way to do it.

Update: after about two weeks the crawl rate returned to normal. We haven't been able to identify a cause yet.

We're dealing with a similar issue here. Someone from Russia scraped our content and knocked us out of the SERP. Google sees a 200 status code but all others see 404.

We sent in a DMCA takedown request via https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/dmca-dashboard and it was responded to in less than a week (4 days). One caveat - make sure you have copyright ownership on that material. If you are an agency representing a client you may not have copyright and you may need to have them submit the request.

When you submit the request to Google and they verify it's legitimate they will remove the offending site from their search results. This is the only way to begin restoring your position.

You can contact their hosting provider and submit a takedown request with them as well. Provide evidence, and threaten legal action if they do not respond. Of course, Google has still indexed the other website, so you still need to submit a DMCA request with them to get your rankings back.

May the odds be ever in your favor.

I think if you try to do what you're suggesting you're going to end up with a headache for both yourself and your users. A simple and elegant solution to this would be to rewrite (or copy/paste) some of the blogs as pages, and set a canonical URL so Google knows which content it should attribute originality to.

If you have a sidebar, you could also utilize a widget that recommends related blog posts to users if you'd rather maintain the structure you have, but callout related content and provide navigation.

There is value. You are indicating to Google throughout your website with every link you place that you consider Page A or Page B to be more or less valuable than the other to your users.

We know that Google places different values on backlinks based on the the placement of the link. For example a link that is in the main body content will pass along pagerank and so will a link in a footer, but the value is modified as it passes through on the assumption that a link in the footer is of different value than a link placed in content.

I'm not sure where you heard that Google only counts the first link it finds. That's incorrect, and you can read any of the older articles from Matt Cutt's blog on how pagerank works to see why.

I believe the best case for you is to create links that go to content you value highly for your business and your users, and to place these links in logical places.

I received a response from Barry Hunter who said pretty much what I suspected: that the devil is in the details.

"Critic reviews must allow for customers to express both positive and negative sentiments. They may not be vetted by the business or restricted by the content provider based on the positive/negative sentiment of the review before submission to Google."

I've bolded the distinction he had made which is that it's acceptable to vet reviews as a profanity filter.

What he did not address, though he did acknowledge, was that there may still exist some confusion as the reviews most laden with profanity are likely to be angry, negative reviews. While I'm not 100% satisfied with this answer, I think it's likely to be the only one I'll get.

For those interested in the discussion: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!msg/webmasters/k24p4fPf404/3e7D7hjxEwAJ

I'm tempted to <nofollow>that link until I get a satisfactory response  </nofollow>

Thanks Miriam, I've posted the question in Google's product support forums as well to try and find a resolution. If anyone nibbles I'll update the Q&A here as well.

There is a caveat in the wording that I've noticed where it states "Critic reviews must allow for customers to express both positive and negative sentiments. They may not be vetted by the business or restricted by the content provider based on the positive/negative sentiment of the review before submission to Google."

This may give us wiggle room to vet the review based on profanity, though I don't know how Google would be able to make the distinction since any review using profanity is more likely by its nature to have a lower rating, and therefore is likely to trip Google's alarms.

Google released new guidelines last year governing how schema markup is to be deployed on a website. One of those guidelines states that reviews on your site must not be filtered or altered to receive the benefit of schema markup. After my client was slapped on the wrist by Google for ignoring their Webmaster guidelines (and our advice ahem) they removed all filtering from the websites.

However, being a family friendly company it is a requirement that no profanity be displayed on the website. Google's guidelines are not entirely clear about what to do. They state:

"Profanity and vulgar language are discouraged. Reviews should be appropriate for a broad and diverse audience. Consequently, reviews containing vulgar or profane language may be ineligible for use."

and...

"Critic reviews must allow for customers to express both positive and negative sentiments. They may not be vetted by the business or restricted by the content provider based on the positive/negative sentiment of the review before submission to Google."

The issue is that we need to vet the reviews to remove profanity, yet that may be triggering for Google. Any thoughts?
Source: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/reviews

Were they referencing Rank Brain in their article? The statement sounds similar to an explanation given on what Rank Brain is and how it impacts search. It does seem like a bit of hyperbole but I see their point and I agree with it to a certain extent. I believe the purpose of a machine learner is to continuously innovate without human intervention so that improvements are made while you sleep. It's my understanding that Rank Brain does this based on feedback from users. It's the perfect solution to handling the complexity of search, and would result in a continuously changing algorithm.

I do see a lot of websites ranking without backlinks. Try any local home services query - they're mostly propped up by citations which is a little different than your standard backlink.

Is there some reason you need to have individual landing pages for each image? That's a lot of bloat. Hundreds (or thousands) of unique landing pages with nothing but an image isn't going to convey either relevance or authority to search engines, nor does it sound particularly useful to users.

Since Googlebot can't "see" the images, I would follow Steve's advice and add the images to your sitemap, noindex and nofollowing the pages that lack content. Taking it a step further, I would also make sure the filenames are readable by search engines and alt text is entered for each image. Doing so will help Google understand what the images are and may help display you for relevant queries.

You may want to consider just doing gallery style pages for your portfolios with the option to enlarge a photo to max resolution by clicking on it if you're just trying to let users see a larger image. Probably will help with UX on top of SEO.

Yes I have, and yes there are pages that aren't listed in the sitemap and aren't supposed to be there. That's being corrected (we're considering experimenting with priority tags in the sitemap to see if it has an impact over just immediately blocking with robots.txt or meta robots). But if you factor in those pages, it still only amounts to 303 pages.

Weird, right?

I'm going to recommend Screaming Frog here. Run a scan of your site and then filter it by duplicate title tags, duplicate meta descriptions, and (my favorite) word count. Usually I don't need to go any further than duplicate title tags.

There's also www.siteliner.com. I've used that regularly and it has been tremendously helpful for pages that have duplicate content in the body but not in the META.

Finally, Google Search Console. Go to Search Appearance and click on HTML Improvements. You can also find all your duplicate title tags there, which should help you identify duplicate content easily.

I just checked your xml sitemap and (as Steve mentioned) you don't have any images in your sitemap (or videos). I strongly recommend using a dynamic xml sitemap as well, if you're not already. Glancing through your site you should have a much larger sitemap than what's displayed.

Also your robots.txt file looks a little funny. Normally I see a line under "User-Agent: *" that says "Disallow:". I'm not sure it's completely necessary, but I don't play around with that file. Too many clients have done weird things by varying from the standard. Here's THE resource on robots.txt:

http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html

This can create some real headaches. If you're going to secure a part of the site, you may as well secure the whole thing. Leaving part of the site unsecured and just securing a few pages that are transactional or used to collect customer data like physical addresses is something other sites have done, but should be considered a temporary solution while securing the rest of the site.

While I'm not sure that this implementation would create dark traffic in your Google Analytics reports, you're still leaving yourself open to MIM attacks and other SEO issues with a partial implementation, such as creating duplicate content. I'm dealing with this issue right now with a couple clients and I can share one of the headaches we're experiencing.

Mixed sitemap URLs! Some URLs are in https and others are in http, because they've managed to confuse the CMS (don't ask, I'm not sure what they did yet). On top of that, duplicate content is created with every new page, because the CMS now creates a page in http and a page in https. The dynamic XML sitemap then picks one and adds it. It gets worse, but I'll end it there.

You can avoid all this by securing everything, and you'll have the optional benefit of upgrading the site to HTTP/2 if you secure the whole thing first.

While Google has been reluctant to just come right out and say "Responsive is the way to go", they've dropped enough hints to make it fairly obvious that's what they want you to do. It makes sense - provide the same content to mobile users as you do desktop so it's accessible from anywhere. And the simplicity of it allows Google to efficiently crawl the site.

You're likely to realize greater efficiency by moving to a responsive design, which in turn will allow you to improve rankings more expediently. If SEO is a concern, go responsive and ditch the worry.

I see Google focusing on mobile more and more. The launch of Pixel was specifically done to maintain search share (people rarely change default browsers on mobile devices, which Microsoft used to their advantage in Europe by releasing phones preloaded with Bing).

That said, mobile friendliness will be ever more important. This means the mobile first index will be fine tuned, and I expect to see more ad revenue focused on mobile this year. Site speed will continue to play a factor, and further integration of video into the SERP and paid ads is where I'll put my money.

HTTPS is already a ranking factor, but I expect that to become more important in the future once a certain threshold is crossed. Once Google can force the issue without impacting their own search quality I'm sure it will happen. Unknown if that will be a 2017 advancement or further down the line.

And of course Google will continue to try and make G+ relevant

Hello all, I'm looking at something a bit wonky for one of the websites I manage. It's similar enough to other websites I manage (built on a template) that I'm surprised to see this issue occurring. The xml sitemap submitted shows Google there are 229 pages on the site. Starting in the beginning of December Google really ramped up their intensity in crawling the site. At its high point Google crawled 13,359 pages in a single day.

I mentioned I manage other similar sites - this is a very unusual spike. There are no resources like infinite scroll that auto generates content and would cause Google some grief.

So follow up questions to my "why?" is "how is this affecting my SEO efforts?" and "what do I do about it?". I've never encountered this before, but I think limiting my crawl budget would be treating the symptom instead of finding the cure. Any advice is appreciated. Thanks!

*edited for grammar.

I'm running into this same issue where I have about a quarter of a client's site not indexing. Using the site:domain.com trick shows me 336 results - which I somehow need to add to a csv file, compare against the URLs crawled by screaming frog, and then use VLOOKUP to find the unique values.

So how can I get those 300+ results exported to a csv file for analysis?

Did you set up a hostname filter to block ghost spam and accidentally block all sessions with that hostname? That's the only thing that comes to mind.