Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hello team, Need to bounce a question off the group.  We have a site that uses the .NET AJAX tool kit to toggle tabs on a page.  Each tab has content and the content is drawn on page load.  In other words, the content is not from an AJAX call, it is there from the start.  The content sits in DIV tags which the javascript toggles - that's all. My customer hired an "SEO Expert" who is telling them that this content is invisible to search engines.  I strongly disagree and we're trying to come to a conclusion.  I understand that content rendered async via an AJAX call would not be spidered, however just using the AJAX (Javascript) to switch tabs will not affect the spiders finding the content in the markup. Any thoughts?

Hi there, I asked a similar question a while ago - please pardon the dupe.  I figured being more specific may help. Here's the scenario: I have two customers which sell very similar products.  They both host with me so they are both on the same class C of ip addresses.  Content on sites is similar due to the nature of the business/industry. There are no links between the two sites - they do not link to one another The HTML is about 50% the same, content near zero other than site structure.   They have similar category structures. Question - could being on the same Class C adversely effect rankings of either.  One site did particularly well until Panda came around and it's sloooowly coming back.  Some advise has been given to the client that the IPs being on the same Class C is killing rankings.  I am trying to either validate or refute the claim. All help/feedback appreciated.

I have two customers that sell the same product.  Their content is logically similar because they are selling nearly the same thing.  The part numbers, descriptions, code base and underlying structure are different however. One customer is complaining that because I host both of these sites in the same server cluster on the same subnet I am negatively affecting their ranking. To what extent might this be true?  I've always held that unless the content is identical the subnet thing was just a myth. Any opinions?

As I understand it, Panda 3.3 was a relatively minor refinement to the general Panda process.  We have a site that was absolutely nuked on or about the same time as the Panda 3.3 update. Does anyone have any particular insight as to what was contained in this update?  We're scratching our heads. Thanks.

Here's  a strange one ... We have a customer that has done remarkably well with organic SEO for the better part of 8 years.   We've made them tons of money with our SEO techniques.  About a year ago they started to get calls from a certain SEO firm warning that they were losing landing pages and keywords by the hundreds each month.  Revenue continued to rise so they did not think much of it.  Either did we. My customer finally relented and hired them for some limited SEO activites in Jan/Feb of this year - unbeknownst to me.  The "other company" assembled some stats to demonstrate the drop in organic rankings, landing pages, keywords, and traffic going back about year.  This data was matched to correlate with variuos Google updates and designed to scare the customer. Long story short and my question - has anyone ever heard of an SEO company sabotaging a potential customer so they would hire them?  We ran analysis and turns out our customer actually gained landing pages and keywords while this company was calling on them and claiming impending doom.  Turns out, since my customer brought them on, the numbers have gone way south.  Now, we look like the incompetent boobs and they will likely "fix something" to look like rock stars. They claimed that the Penguin update is what killed the site, but the slippage started before Penguin, huh? It would make sense to call on a prospect for a while, warn of bad stuff about to happen, make something bad happen and then say, "I told you so, hire me". Has anyone ever hear of this?  If so, any particular tactic I should look for?