Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi tcope25,

Thanks for the clarification, that helps me to understand better the end goal. To futher clarify, you say "we want every other visitor in the world to visit our international subdomain." Do you mean "every other [English speaking] visitor in the world." ? If so, I think your proposed code is close. It is now just missing a self-referencing element, so it should be:

Just keep in mind that even if your tags are perfect, if your English US site has significantly more authority, it may show up in international search results anyway as rel="alternate" hreflang is a signal, not a directive.

Hope that helps!

Dana

Hi tcope25,

Implementing rel="alternate" hreflang is likely one of the most complex, and most commonly incorrectly implemented elements for SEO. Just the example you've provided above would take about 30 minutes to talk through, clarify business needs, and then determine a course of action.

I normally don't push off answering a question, but I would highly recommend seeking out an SEO professional to help you sort this out. Tere's just a lot wrong with the proposed code above - sorry, not trying to be insulting, but helpful.

One real standout in your proposed code above that I would not recommend is to set your "x-default" to one of your secondary international sites. The "x-default" if used, should point to your strongest, primary version of your business sites. For example, if your English site in the US is your primary, most important site, then your "x-default" should the English US site URL.

Also based on your code above, it looks like you are serving the same content, via the same URLs to US and Canada searchers. If this is true , meaning you are not localising content for Canada and it is 100% the same page (I hope you aren't showing different content to US and Canada visitors via the same URL by attempting to use geo-location to decide what they see - that's a whole separate SEO issue) - then you don't need "en-us" and "en-ca" you just need "en" - But you would need to be sure that you haven't set your International Targeting in Google Search Console to "United States" - You need to leave the country targeting there unchecked.

This are very high level observations - I would recommend engaging a reliable SEO consultant to help make sure it's all implemented correctly.

Hi QubaSEO,

This is how I would explain this to a client whose knowledge of SEO is limited:

"The way your site is currently set up, all content located on pages that are not 'Page 1' in a series of pages, is not being crawled or indexed by search engines. It is being given zero value. As a result, you are missing out on gaining relevant traffic from searchers looking for the content that you have on pages other than page 1."

If they have spent money and time creating that content on pages 2, 3 etc), or if they are an eCommerce site and they care about selling all of their products (not just products displayed on page 1), then they are significantly inhibiting their return on that investment.

You probably already have this https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en

We are currently implementing the SEO module for Endeca faceted navigation. Our development team has proposed URLs to be structured in this way:

Main category example: https://www.pens.com/c/pens-and-writing/

As soon as a facet is selected, for example "blue ink" - The URL path would change to https://www.pens.com/m/pens-and-writing/blue-ink/_/Nvalue (the "N" value is a unique identifier generated by Endeca that determines what products from the catalog are served as a match for the selected facet and is the same every time that facet is selected, it is not unique per user).

My gut instinct says that this change from "/c/" to "/m/" might be very problematic in terms of search engines understanding that /m/pens-and-writing/blue-ink/ as part of the /c/pens-and-writing/ category.

Wouldn't this also potentially pose a problem for the flow of internal link equity?

Has anyone ever seen a successful implementation using this methodology?

Hi all,

We have an opening for a Senior SEO Associate. Would love to hire someone in the Moz Community. Here are the details: Sr SEO Associate https://g.co/kgs/Ucwzp7

Cheers,

Dana

Martijn is correct. The answer is Yes.

Can you provide a little more information? Where s the Q&A section at the bottom of your product pages redirecting to? Is there any way to update the source of the redirect to be the redirect [end] URL? If so, no redirects would be needed at all. If that's not an option, why not just change all the 302's to 301's? If you really don't want that content crawled or indexed, then yes, you could block via robots.txt or a no index tag, but you may need to use the remove URL feature in Google Search Console to get any URLS that have already been indexed out of Google. If you can provide more details maybe I could answer more completely.

Hi Steve,

This appears to be schema used to help search engines understand the nature of content in objects containing "stuff" that search engines have trouble completely understanding. For example, I found keywords as possible markup element for a Video: http://schema.org/VideoObject

I don't think this plays into rankings at all. Google is so over that kind of easy manipulation. However, I DO think that when these are marked up in conjunction with ALT attributes for images, or transcriptions for videos, they can help Google understand the semantic relevance of that content. For example (and I am totally making this up), imagine a video of a veterinarian administering vaccines to an animal. During the video the vet keeps referring to the animal as "the patient." So from the transcript, a search engine (or someone who's visually impaired) wouldn't know that this video is about medicine for animals instead of humans. Using the schema.org markup for keywords would allow terms like "animal vaccine best practices" to be included to help search engines understand better what the content is really about.

That's my 2 cents. Hope it helps!

Dana

I agree with Christian. In the example you give above, the article is in Hindi. That being the case, a translated URL using Hindi would be the one I would choose.

Hi Steve,

This is a great question. I think it depends entirely on how much search volume there is surrounding the other variants for "refurbished" parts. If there's a reasonable amount, I'd recommend giving them their own URLs. I know this is harder because if they are substantively similar, producing unique content could be more difficult. I believe you can use schema.org markup to indicate "condition" [http://schema.org/OfferItemCondition] - This would help search engines understand that these items are unique from each other in important ways.

As long as it was clear to both humans and search engines that these power tools are uniquely different from each other in some way, I'd opt for the separate URLs and optimize them for long-tail terms.

If the only difference were color, say a power tool came in red or black, then maybe I would consider making these attributes that didn't necessarily influence the URL. Again there would be the caveat of search volume. If there was significant search volume for different colors, than having separate URLs and schema markup for each would be the way to go.

This is a similar type of question eCommerce site merchandisers (and SEOs!) ask themselves when strategizing how to handle faceted navigation. What combinations of facets warrant their own URLs and which ones do not? I would let search demand guide your answer.

Thanks all for the help. After digging a little deeper I discovered that Yoast's inability to run properly in our blog wasn't because of the theme, but because "Your hosting environment does not support PHP's Document Object Model. To enjoy all the benefits of the page analysis feature, you'll need to (get your host to) install it."

Hi all,

WordPress isn't my area of specialty in terms of themes and identifying what a blog might currently be using.

Here's the link:  http://www.pens.com/blog

I've had one developer tell me this blog is on the Genesis framework and another one told me it is not. Can someone weigh in here and also give me some tips on how to know one way or the other?

If it is not on the Genesis Framework, can you provide any helpful links/tutorials on how to get this blog onto the Genesis Framework? We want to be able to use Yoast SEO and apparently our current theme will not allow us to do so. Thanks in advance!

Dana

Hi Becky,

Multiple H1s isn't the serious issue it used to be for SEO. Still, well-organized heading tags are great for usability and can indicate to search engines that you have spent time creating a well-organized page. Search engines also have gotten pretty smart and understand that heading tags are also being used many times for stylistic purposes, so I don't think these are going to have a huge impact on crawl budget. Your site architecture (what's linking to what) is going to impact that, not necessarily whether a navigational element is labeled with a heading tag or not.

If you want to take a stab at re-organizing the heading tags on your PDPs so they make more sense, particularly from an accessibility perspective, install the Fangs add-on in Firefox https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/fangs-screen-reader-emulator/

This will allow you to see your page as a screenreader would see it. Click on the "Headers" tab in the Fangs resulting page and you'll see something like this [screenshot attached]

The numbers next to each bit of text represent the heading number attached to that text....notice how they are not in any kind of hierarchical order? Not a great experience for someone using a screenreader or for a search engine trying to understand what is important on this page. You could use this output list as a map and then number headings accordingly. There may be a good number of things that just don't need a heading at all, but that just need styles attached.

Hope this helps!

Dana

vY4ad0J.png

Hi vtmoz. Did you change your domain name? Or just migrate to a different CMS?

Martijn's answer is correct. To elaborate: You must include the XML sitemaps on all the sitemaps referenced in that same sitemap. If you don't, Google Search Console will identify return tag errors. Every url in your sitemap that references an equivalent URL on another country's site, must have a correlating "return" URL coming back to the originating pages from tthe hreflang XML sitemap associated with that other country's site.

Hi Dmitri,

I also see the homepage in Google, but very few pages indexed beyond that, so there does appear to be a serious problem. I don't see anything immediately regarding problems with robots.txt or no index tags. Screaming Frog was able to crawl this site without any problems.

One thing I did see in the few pages that are indexed is the presence of a lot of internal search results pages being indexed.

For example:

https://www.hauteheadquarters.com/shop/rings/2?sort_price=ascandhttps://www.hauteheadquarters.com/shop/rings/2?sort_price=descThese two pages are exactly the same products, just in different order. This page also exists: https://www.hauteheadquarters.com/shop/rings/2 - the same products again. For all practical purposes all three of these pages are exactly the same content. Unfortunately, they price sort pages are not blocked from being crawled and indexed AND they are using self-referencing canonical tags.Based on pages like these and other duplicate/thin content issues across the site, I wouldn't rule out a Panda Penalty. It is highly likely that this site may have been penalized. Just because there is no manual action doesn't mean a penalty isn't in play.Recommendations:1. Audit sitewide content and determine which pages should be in Google2. Implement directives in the robots.txt file to prevent the URLs containing query parameters that don't provide unique content from being crawled.3. Implement canonical tags referencing the original URL without query parameters. Examplehttps://www.hauteheadquarters.com/shop/rings/2?sort_price=ascandhttps://www.hauteheadquarters.com/shop/rings/2?sort_price=descShould both be canonicalized to https://www.hauteheadquarters.com/shop/rings/24. Rebuild the XML sitemap and include only important URLs5. Resubmit the XML sitemap in GSC Wait a anywhere from a couple of days to a couple of weeks after resubmitting the sitemap, then evaluate if this has remedied the problem.Don't file a reconsideration request. This won't do any good because if it is a penalty, it was done via the algorithm and not manually.Hope that helps a little and good luck!Sincerely,Dana

I agree with Logan. If the total number of URLs in your master sitemap is 50,000 or less, you can do one sitemap. If it's more, split it into multiples.

You should mark Logan's answer as a good answer.

Sincerely,

Dana

Hi Mike,

EGOL's answer is a good one. You should mark it so (hint, hint, nudge,nudge, know what I mean?)

Cheers,

Dana

Hi Bob,

I second Paul. His answer is a good one. Hope we helped you.

Sincerely,

Dana

I totally agree with Joe Link Reclamation is a totally worthwhile endeavor. Keep on it!

Hi again Bob,

Take a look at this thread on how to remove query strings from static parameters...I believe your answer is there.

https://wordpress.org/support/topic/how-to-remove-query-strings-from-static-resources

Dana

P.S. Why is this a problem for SEO? A couple of reasons:

1. It's highly likely your content will get shared without the query parameter AND with the query parameter. This will effectively split your link equity between two versions of the same page.

2.Google Search Console is very bad at understanding that the page without the query string is the same as it is with the query string...you'll likely get a lot of duplicate content notifications.

3. From an end-user standpoint, it's just plain ugly....and end user experience matters to SEO right? - I understand that's somewhat facetious....but it's your business right? You want it to look a good, solid, high-quality, professional site. Ugly query parameters scream "I hired my 21 year old nephew to b build me a WordPress site."

Hi Bob,

What CMS are you working with? Once you answer that I might be able to help a little more.

Dana

Hi Inevo,

David and Jake's comments and recommendations are spot on correct. You need to update your robots.txt file. Jake is correct when he said "just because a canonical tag is in place, that doesn't prevent Google from crawling and indexing the page."

Sincerely,

Dana

If you set up a Google Adwords account, you can access a magical report called the "Paid & Organic Keywords" report.

Tl;DR  Exporting Search Queries from Google Search Console limits you to 2,000. The Paid & Organic Search Report from Adwords gives you every single organic keyword that produced a visitor to your site. Yes, every single stinking one. Yay.

Don't worry, you don't actually have to spend money on campaigns to access this report. Simply set up a campaign, set your bid to $0.01 and pause the campaign.

THEN - you must connect your Google Search Console account to your Adwords account. This is a simple setting that can be enabled in the Admin area.

Downside - Data doesn't start being collected until the two tools are connected. You can't get historical data.

Instructions for setting up the Paid & Organic Search Report can be found here.

Google says (emphasis added by me): "Organic results are not constrained by your AdWords campaigns’ ad targeting settings. In other words, your ads are limited by the languages and locations you target in your AdWords account, but your organic search listings are not. That means it’s possible to have more organic impressions than paid impressions even if your campaigns have 100% impression share. For example, if your ad campaign for a given keyword is targeted just to the United States, an organic impression occurring in Canada would still show up in your paid & organic report for that keyword even though you don't advertise there."

Here are some helpful screenshots:

1. Where to go to set this up

2. What you see once successfully connected

3. How to navigate to the Paid & Organic report.

There you have it. Access to all of the keywords that have sent traffic to your site. The report is updated once a day. Date ranges are available back to the day you first connected your accounts.

Hope that helps! Hit me up if you have questions.

Dana

1vTq82n iSsbXfw 7MS4jHn

Hi there,

Every time I get into the "trailing slash vs. non-trailing slash" discussion with my clients I go back and read this excellent post in the Official Google Webmasters Central Blog by Maile Ohye: https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2010/04/to-slash-or-not-to-slash.html

Problem for SEO: Both URLs are producing 200 OKAY status codes, resulting in duplicate content. This can interefere with crawl efficiency and fragments link equity.

Solution: Ideally, rather than relying on canonical tags to achieve what you want, 301-redirect the non-preferred versions of your URLs to the preferred version. Only one URL should return a 200 OKAY status code. The other should 301-redirect. This is a better solution than relying on canonical tags.

Hope that helps!

Dana

Hi,

I agree with EGOL that the "100 links" rule is old information.

To more specifically answer your question, yes, all links in your global navigation, footer and links on category and product pages are all counted as internal links and all (provided you haven't done anything silly like added "no follow" attributes) pass link equity throughout your site. For this reason it's important to be strategic about the architecture of your navigation and internal linking structure. Ideally, your top most important pages should be included, if possible in your navigation and/or footer.

It's not unusual for large eCommerce sites to have significantly more than 100 links on a given page.

For example, Home Depot ranks #2 in Google for the term "flushmount lights" with this page: http://www.homedepot.com/b/Lighting-Ceiling-Fans-Ceiling-Lights-Flushmount-Lights/N-5yc1vZc7nk

As you can see from the attached screenshot, this page has 523 links on it. While clearly exceeding the "100 links" - this page still has no problem ranking very well for a targeted keyword.

For verification that Google dropped the "100 links" rule, check out this Matt Cutts video from November, 2013 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHG6BkmzDEM

EGOL is also right that Moz should update their suggested SEO best practices to reflect more current methodology.

Hope that's helpful!

Dana

BVeoZ

Hi all,

I am working with a developer who believes OSE (Open Site Explorer) is flawed. His reasoning is that OSE shows completely different link equity and domain authority for these two URLs [company name is purposely withheld]:

http://www.mydomain.com/us/

and

http://www.mydomain.com/us

NOTE: http://www.mydomain.com/us has been properly 301-redirecting to http://www.mydomain.com/us/ for years.

The developer's argument is that the URL that is being 301-redirected shouldn't have any link equity at all, therefore OSE is flawed.

Here is the response I would like to give him. Please feel free to poke holes, provide feedback or flat out correct me if I am wrong:

Dear inquisitive developer,

Any URL that is being linked to by another site that has link equity will get link equity passed to it. This is true even if the URL is a page that doesn't exist. What it can't do (if it doesn't exist) is then pass that link equity on to another page. Moz's OSE is showing separate link equity for the two versions of this URL because other sites have linked to both versions. The fact that one 301-redirects to the other is good and ensures that link equity from one is passing to the preferred URL. The 301-redirect does not, however, remove link equity from the first URL, but rather passes the existing link equity from one to the other.

Consequently, Moz's OSE is not flawed, but rather is displaying the link equity of one URL that is benefiting the other via a 301-redirect.

Sincerely,

Dana

Hi Damon,

I believe there may be a third option. In Google Search Console, there is the option to tell Googlebot not to crawl and index URLs containing certain parameters. In this case, it seems like it would be easiest to indicated to Googlebot that anything with the ?tab parameter should be excluded from crawling and indexing.

You can find this in Google Search Console by navigating to "Crawl" and then "URL Parameters," then click "Configure URL Parameters" and Google will show you a list of potential candidates for exclusion.

Hope that's helpful...it's my understanding that Yahoo/Bing have something similar but I've never used those.

Cheers,

Dana

Thanks Lesley. Yes, I agree. I think the only way we are going to get a definitive answer is to look at the logs. We are working on getting access.

Hi All! What constitutes a normal crawl rate for daily bingbot server requests for large sites? Are any of you noticing spikes in Bingbot crawl activity?

I did find a "mildly" useful thread at Black Hat World containing this quote: "The reason BingBot seems to be terrorizing your site is because of your site's architecture; it has to be misaligned. If you are like most people, you paid no attention to setting up your website to avoid this glitch. In the article referenced by Oxonbeef, the author's issue was that he was engaging in dynamic linking, which pretty much put the BingBot in a constant loop.

You may have the same type or similar issue particularly if you set up a WP blog without setting the parameters for noindex from the get go."

However, my gut instinct says this isn't it and that it's more likely that someone or something is spoofing bingbot.

I'd love to hear what you guys think!

Dana

I totally agree with Moosa....I am guessing you also have limited resources. Maintaining two separate sites, one desktop and one mobile requires a lot of major time that most small businesses and small website owners just don't have. One version of your site that's managed via one CMS that is a responsive design is the way to go if you are short on time and resources...and let's face it...even if you are an enterprise corporation, you are still short on  on resources.

Hi inhouseSEO,

The canonical tag would be an appropriate solution to these duplicate content issues. Another solution, depending on your CMS, would be to incorporate those variation pages into one hub page that allowed customers to select size and color without providing an individual page for each variation to search engines or users. There are a number of ways to accomplish depending upon what CMS your are using. It also depends on whether or not your site is using faceted navigation, which opens up a whole additional can of worms.

That's a very high level answer. If you want something more granular based on your type of navigation and CMS I encourage you to respond because a lot of other site owners here could probably benefit from the discussion.

Cheers,

Dana

Hi Ilka,

Unfortunately, it's probably now more important that you initially realized. This past week, Google announced that mobile usability will be a ranking factor in their algorithm beginning April 12th of this year. On the up side, there may be ways to maintain the design elements of your site that you like while maintaining mobile usability, you just might need a little help.  Remember, no matter how much in love you are with your design, if it's not serving your end users, and the devices that they are accessing your site from....the design is not serving your business goals.

Think of it more like this: Google is saying you have to change your site. Google is trying to tell you that your visitors want you to change your site...that's a whole different thing.

Here's a link to the Google announcement: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.ca/2015/02/finding-more-mobile-friendly-search.html

That's probably not exactly what you wanted to hear, but it is important to know where things are headed. If 25% of your site traffic is currently coming from mobile it might be safe to say that will double to 50% over the next year.

Cheers,

Dana

I would suggest creating some kind of simple system that track what improvements you are making to your website over time. The, Make sure you annotate that in Google Analytics so you can look back over time to see what kind of impact it had.

Hi,

You are on the right track by admitting that your content is thin and working to remedy that. I understand, that takes time. However, yes, there are some things you can do to work towards optimization, even in the interim there are things you can do. Use SEMRush to analyze what keywords your competitors are ranking for that you are now. Use Screaming Frog to Optimize your Title Tags, Meta descriptions and H1 tags. All of these can have significant impacts.

I hope that helps!

Dana

Hi,

You've worked really hard at putting together a business, a site and now a plan. When I read your list, I was left asking "Why?"

What drove the decision to distribute one press release per month? Is it for a tangible reason? For example, so you release a brand new product every month? If so, then okay, there's a business reason for that frequency and that goal.  But if not, Why once a month? Is it because you think that's somehow going to get you attention in the search engines?

My same question/challenge transfers to everything else in your plan, You mention Web 2.0 submission Web at Squdoo, Hubpage , Tumblr , Blogspot , WordPress. Why those? What made you choose those? Was it driven by data that tells you that your users are hanging out in those places? Or was it driven by what you think Google is going to reward in the SERPs.

I'd personally revisit every item in the plan and determine whether or not there's data to support that decision, if not, move on and find some other way, some other place to promote that's directly relevant to your particular business.

A linkbuilding plan shouldn't be arbitrary. It needs to be intentional. Just my humble opinion. The days of a formulaic/quantity driven approach to link building are long, long gone.

Cheers,

Dana

I'll reserve my answer until you hear from your dev team. A massive site for sure.

One other question/comment:  just because there are 13 million URLs in your sitemap doesn't necessarily mean there are that many pages on the site. We could be talking about URI versus URL.

I'm pretty sure you know what I mean by that, but for others reading this who may not know, URI is the unique Web address of any given resource, while a URL is generally used to reference a complete Web page. An example of this would be an image. While it certainly has its own unique address on the Web, it most often does not have it's very own "page" on a Website (although there are certainly exceptions to that).

So, I could see a site having millions of URIs, but very few sites have 17 million+ pages. To put it into perspective, Alibaba and IBM roughly show 6-7 million pages indexed in Google. Walmart has between 8-9 million.

So where I'm headed in my thinking is major duplicate content issues...but, as I said, I'm going to reserve further comment until you hear back from your developers.

This is a very interesting thread so I want to know more. Cheers!

Hi. Interesting question. You had me at "log files."  So before I give a longer, more detailed answer, I have a follow up question: Does your site really have 17+ million pages?

Hi! Can you clarify your question a little bit please? You said "dropped domain." What do you mean by that? It sounds like what I'm hearing you say is that you had an old domain that was dropped from Google, but you are concerned that actual visitors to that old domain are able to find your new domain, without inheriting the bad link profile that may ahve cause the old domain to get dropped.

Honestly, you may not be able to accomplish what you are wanting. But I need to know more first so that's why I asked for clarification. I'd be glad to help if possible.

Cheers,

Dana

Thanks Caroline,

You are most definitely on the right track. Don't be discouraged by traffic being low at first. Ask any blogger, regardless of how well-known they are now, and I am sure they will tell you that it seemed like an eternity before they started to get some traction. Like most worthwhile things, it takes time, patience and intelligent, consistent work.

Not that I'm a well-known blogger (I'm not) but I've been blogging since July 2008. Take a look at an overview of 6 years of my own blog:

Just keep at it. You'll get there.

Czc4h64

Hi again Caroline,

Thanks for answering my initial questions.How much keywords research, what tools did you use and how long ago did you do it?

What is your main business objective with you blog?

Hi Caroline,

You are awesome. I love that you are passionate about SEO, in all of the right ways and you are really going about this the right way. I'm impressed.

Ok, so let's get down to brass tacks, check out what Rand Fishkin's real life experiment revealed when he moved a blog from a subdomain to a subfolder:

http://moz.com/community/q/moz-s-official-stance-on-subdomain-vs-subfolder-does-it-need-updating

You also mentioned results? What are you measuring? Rankings? Traffic? Both?  How's traffic?

Dana

Hi Manuel,

You did exactly the right thing. Now the problem is that those pages with the parameters will stay in Google's index for sometimes a long time before they drop off. Since there's only a handful, I'd recommend using the "Remove URL" tool in Google Webmaster Tools to remove the versions of the URL with the parameters from the index. I've done this before and Google can be pretty quick at getting them removed (as little as a couple of days). You don't really have to do this. It will happen eventually, but if you want to be proactive you can take this approach. Hope that helps!

Dana

Great question! Google Adwords Keyword Planner doesn't make the place where you can do this very obvious or easy to find. Here's where you can do what you need to do:

1. Log in to Keyword Planner

2. Click "Get Search Volume for a List of Keywords"

3. Upload your keyword list via the resulting popout screen

4. Run the report

5. In the subsequent screen, upper right, just below the chart is a link that says "Download Ideas" - Click that

Then you will have all the data in Excel, provided you are running something newer than Excel 2003 which I believe had limited capabilities (45,000 rows maybe?)

Does that answer your question or was I way off  Let me know. Hope it helps!

I believe the problem here is being caused by the fact that you are using relative, rather than absolute URLs for your canonical tag. I've seen this happen before on a site I was working on.  Thanks to awesome suggestions from Moz Q & A from community member George Andrews (endorsed by Dr. Pete Meyers), we updated all of our canonical tags to be absolute URLs instead of relative URLs. This completely solved the exact problem you are describing.

Here's a link to that thread: http://moz.com/community/q/what-is-the-proper-syntax-for-rel-canonical

The best news is, it's a very easy, inexpensive and quick SEO win. I love those!

Dana

Hi Garrett,

It really depends on the nature and use of the image. I'd really take that on a case by case basis. If you created unique images that received a ton of links or social shares, or they provided something important to your end users, than sure, recreating them on the same URLs might be a great idea. You might want to spot check a few in AHrefs, OSE and Google ANalytics to see if they were generating buzz, traffic, links or all three. Choose some likely candidates and find out what you see in those tools and let that guide how you proceed. Cheers,

Dana

If the images are no longer on the site it's perfectly acceptable to let them 404. Those 404s aren't going to hurt you. They should eventually drop out of Google's Index, although GWT can have a very long memory and hold on to 404 errors for what seems like forever.

If you think there is value for your end user in redirecting to a relevant image on the current site, that's fine too. I just wouldn't let your motivation be fear that 404 errors are somehow hurting you. If the 404s are resulting because the content has been removed, this is a perfectly acceptable reason to have a 404.

Hope that helps!

Dana

Hi Niners52, This is a server administration issue. Normally the IP address version of the site is 301 redirected to the preferred domain. It looks like your site has been cached by Google based on the IP address. Here's a helpful thread discussing the issue and how to fix it:

http://www.webmasterworld.com/google/3833633.htm

Hope that helps! Cheers,

Dana

There are some great suggestions here. I would use all of them. One nifty tool not mentioned is http://www.found.co.uk/ppc-keyword-tool/  It concatenates lists of keywords. After getting all the possibilities there, go to Ubersuggest and plug them all in. If you want to do a whole bunch at one time without being bothered by turing numbers, try using ScrapeBox. Cheers!