Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree with Matt, he's got some great points there. In terms of the Facebook traffic, this will not have any effect on your SEO. When Google is looking at site engagement, it's in terms of Return To SERPs. So, if someone performs a search, visit your site, returns to Google and visits a competitors website, then that's bad. Referral traffic is a different matter. However, I totally agree with Matt here. You are missing a trick if visitors from Facebook are not engaging with your site. I would look into why this is and try to provide some reason for them to engage. Why not ask your followers what it is they are looking for when visiting your site?

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the answer, that was pretty much my take on the matter. The sites in question are all sites build by the previous SEO company, so there seems to be a small link network. Their Auth and PR has dropped dramatically.

Thanks

Rob

Hi,

I am now working on a website with some rubbish links in their profile, which were created by the previous SEO Company. They are footer links from unrelated business websites. All authority from these links have been removed by Google during the latest updates and our SEOMOz DA went from 37 to 35 after the past Penguin update.

My question is: Should I get these links removed or rather will we see any advantage to getting the links removed?

Or should I just focus my efforts on getting a better link profile together using content?

What I don't want to happen is to remove these not great links and then see a decrease even further of the authority.

Thanks

Yes, this is duplicate content. Duplicate content covers the whole web - not just your site. Squidoo for example will not post your article as they will see that it is somewhere else on the web.

Hi Paul,

We have the same issue, so will be interested to see what is said here. Our site changed from www.stonehills.co.uk to www.stonehillsselfcatering.co.uk using 301's and none of the link juice has copied over at all

Good point Alan. I now have access to WMT and while I wouldn't want any of my sites to have links from the sites they are getting links from, there are no warnings or messages from Google. There on-site SEO seems alright, shouldn't have been anything there that caused them an issue.

Hi

I already know the answer to this but wanted some backup. A friend of mine has asked me to take a look at his site. He was using an SEO company that saw him get hit hard by Penguin.

He did the right thing and started all over with a new domain name. I've just noticed that the old domain name is actually setup to 301 to the new domain. This has to be a bad thing right?

Thanks Andy, that's pretty much what I thought but it's good to get a second opinion.

Hi all,

Our queries in GA have bombed, strangely since Penguin. We've gone from 12,000 impressions to none. Traffic is ok, we've not seen a decline. IS this a GA glitch or should we panic?

Thanks

Hi Istvan,

Thanks for your comments. I have contacted Sanderson but as @Bede suggests, I might try and do this in webmaster tools

Hi Bede,

I did think about that a while back, the issue is that we are an ecommerce site, so I don't want to run the risk of excluding page 2,3,4 etc from being crawled. However, I think you might be right - this may have to be the way forward. Currently we have 3165 products and 9495 pages of duplicate content, so it is something I need to get fixed.

Thanks, Rob

Hi Istvan,

It is a system called Elucid from Sanderson. It is basically a multi-channel platform. The problem content all run off the same template, which is the issue.

Thanks

Hi Guys,

We have an issue with duplicate content caused by dynamic URLs, so want to implement rel=canonical. However this isn't easy due to the way out CMS works.

These were pulled from SEOMoz scan:

http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463
http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463?page=1&perpage=10&sales_group=NULL&filter_colour=&filter_size=&sortby=RELEV&inStock=NO&resfilter=
and are obviously the same page. As far as I can see I have two options.

1.  To implement the canonical meta tag only on page 1.

2. To implement the canonical tag so that I add ?page=X

so
http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463
would be
http://www.transair.co.uk/pp+Aerobatics-Training+463?page=1

Will this work?

Thanks

Rob

Hi,

I was talking to a web consultant today that teaches SEO, he said that an image is ok as an h1 tag as long as it has an alt tag. This is something new to me and something that I've always tried to avoid. Does this now work?

Thanks

Thanks for your response, that clears things up. It's just not something I've come across before. We are always dealing with content being stripped and websites using our GA but this was new to me. Strangely as it turns out they thought they were doing us a favour as they have closed their business now.

Hello,

I have just discovered that a company in Poland www.realpilot.pl is directing their domain to ours www.transair.co.uk. We have not authorised this, neither do we want this. I have contacted the company and the webmaster to get it removed. If you search for the domain name www.realpilot.pl we (www.transair.co.uk) come up top. My biggest worry is that we will get penalised by Google for this re-direct as it appears to be done using some kind of frame. Does anyone know anything about this kind of thing?

Many Thanks

Rob Martin