Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
I suspect that moz bot did not yet crawl this site either due to restrictions imposed by the site itself or perhaps because it simply didn't get to it yet.
Example: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/http%253A%252F%252Fwww.tntaccess.fr%252Fintegral.html/a!links
Speed could be a problem if it affects the performance of your site to the point of not being user-friendly. 2.8 however is not an alarming speed. I have seen sites with 5 and doing well in results. I rarely ever see websites in green (unless they are total text content only and no graphics and files to call on). I think Google is to lower the bar a bit on site speed expectations.
If this was a problem then all Word Press websites in the world would be penalised. What you're trying to do is common business sense and it imposes no risk given that your statement about content being unique is true.
I say go ahead and make awesome sites now that you have the right technology.
Getting links to multiple domains fragments your efforts. Unless we're talking about an exact match domain the long term benefit does not seem that interesting. Not to mention branding. There was a recent post about this in the blog actually, if anyone can find the link.
False, all links will be recognised if they have been indexed - they will be recognised as links from duplicate content however. Clearly not as beneficial but still acting as part of the link graph. To say they are completely ignored is taking it too far.
301 redirects can take time to be recognised. How long has it been since the directive was put in place? Have you checked that there is no problem with the way redirection was implemented?
I support the brandable domain option. No point registering keyword rich domain unless it's a short lived affair.
Hmm... let me clarify this you say:
Now on the first page (eg mysite.com/cat-page1.html) I've set this up to rel= canonical = mysite.com/cat-page1.html
what about the each subsequent page (... | 2 | 3 | 4... ) what is their canonical value?
Hard to say without looking at it. Are you able to log into GWT and give me a list of all the recognised parameters and what Google suggest to do with each. If too many perhaps create a screenshot.
Speed (even when set at slow) is not always the problem but a regular timing of queries which is unlike humans who operate randomly.
Hmm... parameters. I wonder if you can do something in GWT to set the parameters in your favour...
I have noticed exactly the same behavior by Google. They're trying to promote the end page, not the category - even when this is not useful (I think they have a bit of work to do still). If this was my site through I would not tamper with the natural structure of the site but feature key products and pages from pages higher up in the site's hierarchy.
Would it be the case of product variation (color, size, date, price)?
If that was the case you would implement rel="canonical" for the main page.
For example:
site.com/page.php remains main URL while site.com/page.php?special=january gets treated as if it was the first one.
Any links you earn through that January page would count towards the core product.
You are likely using tools like SEO Elite etc which send fast queries. This type of software can be set to slower hit rate. I doubt you guys search that fast to be booted without use of software. Check your plugins and software - that would be my first recommendation.
I do get this from time to time when I try to hack URLs to death... but it only happens occasionally 
They will be treated as seperate sites, to us www1 and www may seem very similar but to Google it will be two separate things. Even http:// and http://www. can be two different sites. So from that point of view I say you are safe given that you're not duplicating content in ways that I may not be aware currently.
I have no idea how Google bumped into that but it's easy to remove it by applying noindex in meta (you can do it as I have seen examples of this tag on other pages).
Another problem... look how many French furniture pages you have:
Perhaps decide which one will be your main page and ensure it earns a few links and you should be fine 
Recently we had the same situation which was resolved nicely with rel canonical alone.
Sorry this sounds a bit silly to me. I vote against.
Google understand when it's looking at an eCommerce site and it does not expect lengthy articles on each product. So if I was you I would focus on creating product descriptions as useful and unique as possible and allow customer feedback and reviews which will grow your natural content.
Focus your links towards the main domain / categories / product pages. If you do have articles use them to point relevant anchor text links (in moderation) to products they describe.
I have to be honest, Google Webmaster Tools gives me all the free data I need including ranking history and impressions which resulted in no clicks (which is useful to know).
I recommend you do precisely nothing. Leave the link as it is and in fact you should have it present on all pages (or as the case is usually in the footer) if it is meaningful to your users. Privacy policy tells Google something more about your site and it does represent an extra hint (e.g. blogs usually don't have one).
Canonicalising your privacy policy page to itself will do exactly that - tell Google that that's the correct canonical version of it and it would be useful only if you have various different URL versions of that same page.
Privacy policy page has PR4 because PR5 links to it - it's how it usually turns out (one down each link distance away). Also there is no such thing as "domain PageRank", PageRank is calculated for each individual page - with home page usually being strongest.
Given that your privacy policy does come up on the 2nd page could be due to URL length which plays role in sorting with site: command not necessarily the PageRank alone. If this page was the first page that comes up when you do site: command I would look at twice at your link structure.
As it is it doesn't sound like you have any problems of that kind.
GWT > Your site on the web > Links to your site > Who links the most (More) > Download all links
csv will contain all your backlinks registered in GWT.
This works on every domain I tried so far.
I always go for centralised option and manage all listings via one account, usually set up in batch if it's hundreds of locations. Having it all in one place provides a single point of control and performance monitoring. Alternative would be to provide guidelines for your agents on how to set up quality listings that maximise their presence through content and completeness.
It's your video and your attribution - to me it makes sense to have a link back.
You can't rely on SEOMoz and Majestic to give you Google data as these two use their own crawling. My warmest recommendation would be to gain access to GWT and learn about what Google knows about your links.
Have you got Google Webmaster Tools access to this site? If you do you would just export all the backlinks from there and truly find out if they are visible to google or not.
I support this view. Let's not do the same damage to our branding as Yellow Pages did to various AAA Aarwark Plumbing type businesses.
Were all the links from the same source / or contact? Message me the address if you'd like a conclusive assessment - it's a bit hard with simply guessing.
I am not sure if I understand your intention correctly but canonicalization sounds like a solution for your problem (to the point of not having to do redirection for Google at all). Apply rel canonical from flash towards html version and juice will flow towards the correct one. Flash will no longer be indexed but its HTML equivalent.
Yes. This is perfectly normal and common behaviour. In fact Matt Cutts confirms this in one of his videos on Webmaster Help channel on YouTube. Without knowing the exact technical details it's hard to know whether there is a risk for sure or not. The problem you have is the fact that Googlebot may not act as a geo user and you may end up with US or English language content only in index. Sitemaps or site structure will be a handy solution in that case.
My vote goes for 301. It makes more sense.
Agreed. Domain authority will play a significant role and more authoritative site may get away with it easier than a small one. I speak from what I have seen (not a speculation).
On a branded term you typically get quadruplets.
One of our clients did this once. We restored the robots.txt to original version allowing robots to browse normally and pointed a few fresh links to the site. The site was back in the index within a week. If your site has thousands or millions of pages that may take a bit longer. We found that discovery through links leads to better and quicker indexation than when you simply submit to Google. Get Google Webmaster Tools account and ensure that Google has clear picture of your site.
Not coming up for a term that is within your domain is not a good sign:
http://www.google.nl/search?q=spelenroulette&pws=0
At this point I am thinkiing penalty or ban, however ban is not the case as you still rank for an exact domain search:
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=spelenroulette.nl
Only 11 pages on the site (or indexed):
http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=site%3Aspelenroulette.nl
Your site seems pretty poor in content and purpose so it could be an algorithmically assigned penalty. The thing is that my dutch is not that great so I cannot evaluate (I am also not sure if the new algo applies to Holland yet).
Link command shows no links:
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=link%3Aspelenroulette.nl
You're in a very spammy niche and I wouldn't be surprised if there was some sort of filter or penalty applied.
Search for: "spelenroulette.nl" -site:spelenroulette.nl brings 37 instances where your domain was mentioned (or perhaps linked) and they don't seem that flashy.
What was your link building style?
Google claims that nofollow links do not pass link juice - no matter what. If your tests show otherwise then Google is a liar (or they just don't know how they work internally). To my knowledge proper blog commenting work brings secondary value to a direct link from the page you're commenting on (scraped content links which exclude nofollow, citations, mentions, branding, networking...etc).
Honestly, no idea. What I would be "comfortable" with personally would be no more than 20.
If your network is not a secret then ensure that you have full and clear disclosure on the site(s). I remember Matt Cutts once said this as an answer to a similar question on YouTube. Private registrations are common for non-SEO purposes so Google cannot act on it alone. However if you have 1000 domains with private whois that may start looking a bit suspicious.
This is a followup to a Q&A posted by fideaux64 taking it from speculative to practical level.
Question: Can a popular social profile page outrank an exact match branded domain.
Results: http://www.google.com.au/search?q=erase%20the%20thought
This experiment is currently in progress. You're welcome to comment and participate.
Note: Please do not link to the main domain - only Facebook or Myspace.
After going through numerous post-algo update articles I find one price comparison site to have gone though unscratched - NexTag.com
Question: What contributed to their success? Was it sheer domain authority, content quality, unique toolset... or something else?
Any link will help relevant or not, just on a different level.
Note: If you start making "clever schemes" and mass link manipulation you may get in trouble if reviewed by Google.
Several times I allowed WP to manage page redirects and this caused no trouble. I cannot say for instances where you rename file more than once as it never happened internally.
Hosting images externally never had any impact on cases I had a chance to observe. The only problem I can think of is that you lose control over loading times or if somebody takes an image and links (credits) the image hosting domain instead of your domain.
Blocking a sitelink item does not remove item from index, only from sitelinks specific to your website. This allows Google to replace it with a different one (usually the next one in line of their importance scale).
This will not be problem from the penalty point of view - the question is if the page value. What is new or unique about the page that is also about the same topic?
On another note observe that Google monitors and warns about duplicate TITLE and META description tags in Google Webmaster Tools. H tag duplicates are not included. That would have to indicate that H tag is not as important to them.
I would go for a less cost and more linking domains given that they are all real sites. However it all depends what competition is like and whether you need authority or quantities (or both).