Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree with Monica, it's seems unlikely that adding user reviews would affect your rankings in a negative way.
Did you also notice a decrease in traffic on these pages?

That been said, I don't doubt the quality of the products you offer, but to be very honest, the reviews look a bit fake (they are all very positive, there is no date on the reviews), and apart from the two you mentioned, I don't find a lot of other reviews on the site (first 10 pages of site:www.naturalworldsafaris.com reveal maybe 5/6 holidays with reviews, and then it's minimum 3 reviews). Don't think this would have an impact on the search results, but probably something to think about for your human visitors

Thanks for the compliment Egol!

Hi Figen,

I fear that will be difficult to find - I did a quick google search & first result was this topic on Moz from Jan. 2013 (http://moz.com/community/q/how-do-you-check-the-outbound-links-of-a-site) . The answers basically are the same - it's possible to to a check outgoing links on one page using tools- however if you want to do it on a full domain - you'll need a tool like Screaming Frog (or alternative Xenu LinkSleuth).

If Google isn't providing the info, all the other potential solutions would require crawling sites - most of the tools available on the market give information about who is linking to your site (or you competitor's site for that matter) - but not the other way.

Dirk

Moz Local currently only supports the purchased management of US and UK business listings (source: https://moz.com/help/guides/local).

So won't work for Zimbabwe - sorry.

Dirk

this is the way I understood it - if you can add the canonical url to each page it is ok. If you can't add the canonical you shouldn't mask the url as you will be creating duplicate content as each page is accessible on 2 urls, the subdomain and your personal domain

Hi,

I did several major site migrations in recent months and if you get the basics right, there should be no (negative) impact on your rankings. It's a myth that site migrations always lead to a drop in rankings. Changing technology should not have an impact - Google is all about the user experience, not about the technology used to create the user experience. Having a responsive site should increase your traffic (and rankings).

Not affiliated to them - but as already indicated by Travis a tool like Screaming Frog (the paid version) is almost a pre-requisite for a successful migration.

The main thing you should take care of is that all your current url's are properly redirected to avoid 404's after migration. You indicate that the url's are not going to change so this should be no problem. To be sure - crawl your current website with a tool (like ScreamingFrog) to get the full list of url's. Export the list of url's & replace the current domain with your test domain and crawl the responsive version based on this list. Check if all url's return a 200 status (if they return a 301 - check if the redirected url's return a 200 status). As a side effect, crawling your current site could also show you other areas of improvement like images that are too heavy, endless loops, unbalanced site structure, etc. If you encounter issues with your current site - try to solve them with the migration.

Compare the main on-page items between the two sites (H1, page title, metadescription) - in your case they should be identical (if you use ScreamingFrog this is a pretty basic task - just export the craw results to xls & see if they match)

Crawl your new site - check if the number of pages crawled is identical (or close) to the number of pages crawled on the current site. Screamingfrog allows you to see the site structure - compare it with your current site, to be sure that important content is not pushed deeper into your site.

Use a tool like webpagetest.org to check the speed of your site - both for your current site and your new site to be sure that with the new designs you are not slowing down your site - do this for a number of typical pages on your site (hint: look at your most popular landing pages in Analytics). Do the same checks with https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/ - see if you improve the results with your new responsive site. Your score for mobile should be a lot better - if not - you did something wrong with your re-design.

For your most important pages (probably your most important landing pages / most visited pages) - do some visual checks between old & new site - is all the content present, does it look ok, ...etc.

I don't know if you get a lot of traffic from image search (check your webmastertools). If this is the case: if the url's and/or the names of the images change - make sure that the 'old' images remain accessible under the old url (in my experience it takes a bit longer for google to update the index for Image search).

Make sure that your sitemap is updated when migrating. Probably you block your test site for indexing - don't forget to remove this when putting your new site online.

After migration, check your webmastertools for 404's - idem for Google Analytics. Correct 404's as fast as possible (make sure that your 404 page is tagged in Analytics).

To answer your point 3 - if something goes wrong during migration, in my experience you should count on approx. 3 months for recovery, but with no guarantee that you'll return to previous positions, so better make sure that you get the points above right from the start.

Good luck with the migration!

Hi,

Check the answer of Cyrus Shepard on this question: http://moz.com/community/q/are-cdn-s-good-or-bad-for-seo-edmonton-web - I fear it will be hard to find other quantified data.

"We've done a lot of studies here at Moz and what we've found is this:

• There does seem to be a slight correlation between site speed and rankings (keep in mind that correlation is not causation)
• Our studies have not found a relationship between CDNs and higher rankings.

So the evidence would seem to suggest that CDNs can help your website speed, and it's possible to help your rankings, simply using a CDN by itself is no guarantee."

Hope this helps,

Dirk

The positions in the SERP's are fluctuating all the time. In fact, there is no such thing as a universal ranking: Google takes user's previous behaviour into account to determine the results in the SERP's (http://googleblog.blogspot.be/2009/12/personalized-search-for-everyone.html). If you try to check the rankings, you should try to do it in a more "anonymous" way. Cyrus Shepard from Moz wrote an interesting blogpost about it which you can read here.

Apart from the personalized search, Google is a learning organisme, and changing positions in the results is part of that learning process. Rather than continuously tracking the small ranking variations, it's better to track if your 'average' ranking, which you can find in Google Webmaster Tools. As long as it's stable or improving you're doing ok.

Dirk

You could block the site for all bots except rogerbot (

Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; rogerBot/1.0; http://www.seomoz.org/dp/rogerbot).

Alternative would be to use a local crawler like Screaming Frog (and modify the spider settings so that it ignores the robots.txt)

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Margaret,

You should read this review on the Moz spam tool written by Marie Haynes, who is quite knowledgeable on link removal & spammy links. Basically, the tool can be useful, when used in combination with other tools and with manually reviewing the links themselves. So don't take decisions only based on the score of the tool - Ryan made some valuable points on how to determine if a link is spammy. You should also read this post by Marie on how to identify unnatural links.

Based on these elements, you can make a decision whether or not to disavow these links.

rgds,

Dirk

You can quite easily check if these filters work - using Google Webmastertools (crawl section > robots.txt tester).
In the test-tool you can enter the criteria & check if they do block Googlebot from indexing these pages. I tried a few of the examples you gave & they seem to work.

Apart from updating your robots.txt (which seems quite a radical solution) you could also consider implementing canonical url's for these duplicate url's.

Another alternative is to configure url parameters in Google Webmastertools (also in the crawl section) - where you can indicate which parameters need to be ignored.

You could install the Google Analytics debugger (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-analytics-debugger/jnkmfdileelhofjcijamephohjechhna). Check the Javascript console in Chrome for Analytics related error messages to be sure that the event tracking is properly setup (when triggering the event)

I would prefer better load times in Analytics. It samples the actual load time of the pages on your site, and is a good indication on how fast your users are seeing your content. You build your site for users, not for search engines. Normally, the faster your site loads, the better the user experience will be.

Apart from that, Analytics allows you to analyse which browsers, operating systems, etc. have the best/worst loading times, which helps you to prioritise the issues that should be solved.

Page speed insights is a great tool and will give you a lot of useful information on how you can optimise. It's is not a measure of how fast a page is loading. If you have 4 x 200KB images on your site, that are losslessly compressed - the tool will be quite happy to give you a good score on image optimisation, even if images of this size will take ages to load over a mobile connection. On the other hand, it can give you a low score for some render blocking javascript or css file, that in reality hardly has an effect on the user experience.

There is a 3rd tool I often use to measure pagespeed (webpagetest.org) - it also indicates areas of improvement and gives scores on each individual item, and it will also shows you the load time of each individual item on your page. Maybe most important feature: it allows you to see how fast the visible content is completely rendered on screen (which is in fact the most important measure for your visitors).

Hope this helps,

Dirk

No need to set up a new analytics - the old one will work just fine.

If both the www & non-www would be active at the same time and if you would still use the previous version of analytics (i.e. not Universal analytics) - you would need to make a modification to your tracking code - but as far as I understand this won't be the case.

Dirk

I guess that most of these people just heard that SEO is all about link building. As the price is extremely low, most of these customers will probably reason they don't have much to loose and a lot to gain if they try the offer. They are probably completely unaware of things like Penguin & manual penalties.

An easy road to success is what a lot of people are looking for, the same reason why crash diets & get rich schemes are very popular, even if they seem to good to be true...

rgds,

Dirk

The best way is to use a crawler like Screaming Frog to detect all broken external links. These links need to be corrected, because it's bad for user experience, and if it's bad for the user experience, it bad for SEO as well.

If the main reason of broken links is like the example above, because the products you mention on the page don't exist anymore, you will have to update each of these pages, not only removing the links, but also updating the description and putting links to the newer products.

The question is if linking to your suppliers is a wise idea from a business perspective. You probably do a lot of efforts to get visitors to your site, and when they are trying to decide which product to buy, you send them over to the site of the supplier. Once they are on the supplier site you can only hope that they will get back to you once they make the decision which one to buy.

Personally, I think your site would offer more added value if you would list the main products on your own site and add some value, like you would do if somebody would visit a physical store (which is the best model to choose, the difference between brand A/B, which A/C to choose on which budget, ...etc).

rgds,

Dirk

Read this, it's obvious

If you are selling to B2C customers in the UK you have to include the VAT in the price your list - it's a legal obligation (this is the case all over Europe)

Quote: Any <abbr title="Value Added Tax">VAT</abbr> due is already included in the price of something you buy in a shop. No tax is added when you pay.

Source; https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping

rgds

Dirk

If you don't have a mobile version for the French site I would not automatically redirect to the English version.

I would rather offer users the choice - Continue to the French desktopversion or Go to the mobile version (English). For me it's not as much a question of SEO but more about User experience.

Once the FR version of the mobile site is ready you can do the automatic redirect.

rgds,

Dirk

When creating a campaign by default it will track all subdomains. If you want to limit only to subdomain select 'Exclude subdomains to restrict this campaign to the domain you enter' under the advanced tab. If I'm not mistaken you have this option only when creating a campaign - you can't change it afterwards.

If need want to track all subdomains with a separate campaign - you will have to upgrade to the next tier.

Dirk

With Penguin in mind, a link like this doesn't look real natural to me. Even if you don't pay for it, it still looks like paid link.

It would be different if this pizza place would have a blog, where they would discuss about their legal troubles with their neighbours, and they would mention what a terrific job your lawyer has done to defend them.

I refer again to the beginner's guide (sorry for that). Link techniques that used to be good and are considered bad practice now are

• Blog comments that are not moderated
• Press releases with optimized anchor text
• Article directories
• Guest post signatures
• Advertorials
• Embeddable widgets
• Infographic embeds
• User profile pages
• Guestbooks
• Forum signatures
• Directories that are not moderated

Source: https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-link-building/types-of-links

You also might want to check https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en - one of the (negative) examples is quite close to what you would like to do

• Forum comments with optimized links in the post or signature, for example:
  _Thanks, that’s great info!
  • Paul
    paul’s pizza san diego pizza best pizza san diego_

My advice would be - don't do it.

rgds

Dirk

Forgot to mention - there is also a topic on moz on redirects: http://moz.com/learn/seo/redirection - and I also was a bit to fast with my first answer - the rule I gave was if you only change the domain & keep the remainder of the url.

If you also change the directory and the article name, than I hope there is a certain logic between your old structure and the new one. Redirections in htaccess can get quite messy if you have to use many rules inside (they can be in conflict and have an impact on performance).

In each case - you should test all the url's of your old site on the new one (before launch) to be sure that they are all properly redirected. A crawl tool like Screaming Frog can do miracles for testing.

Hi Dave,

How is overall traffic - did you see the same traffic drop. Sometimes Google traffic is reported as referrer traffic (for one of the sites I manage which is largely dependant on image search almost all google traffic is reported as referrer rather than search traffic)

I noticed that you're using a (very) old version of the GA tracker - consider updating to the last version (universal). If I check the page with the Tag Assistant plugin I get 3 warnings (sync version / code outside head / depreciated method get_tracker)

Dirk

I didn't check all the references of Patrick - but yes, the way you build your url (folders or "flat") will have no impact on how you are positioned in the SERP's (if they contain the same keywords)- so both of the options you mentioned in your original question are equal if you only see it from SEO perspective.

rgds

Dirk

Hi,

Although you don't literally mention the name of the site in your question - it can be found based on the info in the PR message.

If I'm right, the site is entirely made in Flash (never knew this still existed). While technically, Flash can be indexed by Google, it's certainly not the best technology from a SEO purpose (read this article http://moz.com/blog/flash-and-seo-compelling-reasons-why-search-engines-flash-still-dont-mix). It isn't the best technology from a user perspective either (the home page takes ages to load, and the final result doesn't really look very attractive - check http://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=150131_SB_TB8-r:1-c:0). If you really want to stick to flash - there is some info to be found here: http://blog.woorank.com/2013/01/how-to-optimize-flash-for-seo/ - although this post also clearly points out that it's to be avoided.

The biggest problem with your site is that you are serving different content to bots (javascript disabled) and to human visitors (the non-javascript version of your site is completely different than the normal flash version). This is probably done with the best intentions in order to make the flash content accessible for bots, but I fear Google is considering this as cloaking. If you look at how Google sees your site - there is certainly room for improvement: http://goo.gl/Pvj51j . Main content is not really visible, not really easy to read - basically ignoring all the best practices which you can find on Moz.

I don't know why Google suddenly decided to drop your site from the listings, but I doubt that it is the result of any negative SEO effort. To put it very bluntly, it seems rather the result of sticking to a technology which is long past its expiry date.

Dirk

Yes - you have to update the sitemap with the new url's.

If you don't do it - you'll see that Webmaster tools will generate warnings for every url that is redirected.

Dirk

Hi Neal,

If I understand what you're saying - you're not really doing a migration - you will be running two CMS's in parallel; the current content will remain in Joomla & the new url will be created in Wordpress. People visiting the homepage will be redirected to site.com/wordpress_site/index.htm

If this is the case, this solution doesn't really look future proof. First of all there is the maintenance issue, you'll have to maintain two systems. Very soon, you will probably only update the Wordpress site & neglect the Joomla site and the two sites will become completely disconnected (and the Joomla content outdated). At one point, you will probably want to retire the Joomla application & then you will have to redirect the entire site to the root again.

I had a similar case when we did a partial migration (part of the site migrated to the new cms in a subfolder / part remained on the old cms on the root). The part which was migrated was one of the traffic generators of the site & we really had a very big drop in traffic (as this new part was almost disconnected from the rest of the site. To be honest, there were also a lot of other issues with the new cms, which probably had part in the traffic loss )

I would recommend you to check if you can't migrate the content from the old cms into the new one (at least the part which is generating traffic). If this is not possible, or difficult on short timeframe - I would 301 the Joomla site to archive.site.com (or site.com/archive) & put the new site on the root. In a second step - you can then put the content from the old site into the new one and redirect from the archive to the new site.

Dirk

Yep - Google does that all the time when you have very specific long tail keywords where they don't seem to find (enough) relevant results. So they will show you results for the next best thing (which they still deem relevant for your query) and indicate which keyword isn't included for these results. Most cases I have seen this is when a query contains a specific location - like the example you give.

It isn't new - don't know when it has started but I've seen page like this for quite some time now.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Justin,

The tags are now completely wrong - on the .com version it lists (seems the same on .com.au & the .co.nz)

Not really that technical, but check with your programmer - he must be able to find a way to get this right. The x-default is not that important in your case I guess as you mainly target these 3 markets. If you can't fix it it's better to take them off because now you're sending a very confusing message to Google (for en-us it now has the choice between 3 url's - and for the other languages there is no alternate url mentioned...)

rgds

Dirk

If you would see this links as generators of traffic or to increase awareness it could be a valid strategy  (check this article:https://moz.com/blog/the-hidden-power-of-nofollow-links )- however if you need these links from an "pure" SEO perspective to increase your page rank you can forget about it - the links on Youtube are nofollow.

(apart from that - Google doesn't really approve paid links...)

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

If you want all pages with the same product id p=2692 and different &pageid=x to be considered as one big page your implementation is correct. Canonicals can be used in parallel with rel next/previous. The example you give is quite similar to the example given by Google: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en (example at the bottom of the page). The canonical you use on the pages aren't really necessary, but they don't hurt either so you can leave them there.

The one thing you have to avoid when mixing canonicals & rel next/previous is when you implement it like this:

**Product page #2 ** http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692"/>
http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692" /> http://www.example.co.uk/Product.aspx?p=2692&pageid=3" />  => in that case you would be sending mixed signals to Google - on one hand indicating that all the pages with different pageid's should be considered as one big page & on the other hand saying that Google should only index the first page as the pages with different pageid's are duplicates.

Hope this clarifies,

Dirk

Using 301 is that standard way of proceeding if you need to change the structure of your site. If done properly, there is no impact on your rankings (always make sure to update your internal links - avoid 301's on internal links). As a rule of thumb, don't change your url's too often, because the redirects can get quite messy after a few years.

For the ranking question, I wouldn't know how long it takes, I mainly track traffic, not really page authority, so can't help you on that one.

Unrelated to your question, but could have an impact on your SEO: I was a bit surprised by your choice of Magento for a smaller shop. Magento is known for being quite hungry for resources, and normally requires a dedicated server to run on. I sometimes had difficulty accessing the pages.

When I did a speed check the final result was ok, but 'time to first byte' was quite long, which could indicate that your server is not really up to its task. Another strange finding was that a very large part of the content that is downloaded are javascriptfiles (65% of total weight of the page) and css files (20%) - you should try to regroup these files & minify them. Also try to tune your caching settings - a lot of static resources could be cached. Full details can be found here: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150204_1H_1A91/ - you should also check the Page Speed Insights tool from Google: https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhippemamashop.nl%2F&tab=desktop.

On your productpages, some of the descriptions are quite short, and maybe not 100% optimised for search (and for your target audience). Additional info is not always correct 'Materiaal: Nee' (Lief sokjes). Try to find a unique tone of voice for your site - you are trying to attract young fashionable mothers - so you probably should adapt your descriptions to that target audience

rgds,

Dirk

Marcel

with this setup Google considers your mobile site as the mobile view of your desktop site so in terms of authority it should not have an impact on authority. Most sites we have in this setup have same rankings for mobile & desktop searches.

rgds

Dirk

Hi Justin,

I fear I made a mistake in the url's - you have to use the full url

Sorry.

Dirk

That's a literal reproduction of the post from John Mu

I don't think this would be considered a black hat technique, as most corporations with multiple brands are doing this. Just don't try to over optimise the anchor texts and you'll be just fine.

However, I am a bit puzzled by your remark on self referral. If it's a completely different brand, and you want to measure the traffic separately from your corporate brand, you should use a different Analytics property for that site.

If you want to measure the traffic as if both the corporate & the brand site would be one site, one property is ok, but than you have to adapt your analytics tracking code for cross-domaintracking. If you are using universal analytics - you can find here (https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/1034342?hl=en) how you can do that.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Theo,

We encountered something similar when we migrated a site. We properly redirected all the old url's to the new one, however, in the weeks after the migration, we saw a huge increase of 404 in the webmastertools.

When we took a closer look to these url's, we noticed that these where using an url structure we had abandoned several years ago. On the "old" site, these were redirected, but we didn't implement these old redirections after migration as we assumed that these very old url's wouldn't be in the index anymore. We proved wrong. We could delete them manually from the index using webmaster tools, because they used folders we are not using any longer, this is not probably not possible in your case.

While it is a bit annoying, I don't think that having these "phantom" url's in the index is doing you any harm in terms of SEO. They will probably never pop-up for normal search queries, only when you do in-depth queries, limiting the results to only your site.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Gerald,

Without the url it's difficult to check what's wrong with your site. You could try to use tools like http://web-sniffer.net/ or http://webpagetest.org/ to check what is happening with your pages. If you don't want to disclose your url you could send me a private message so I could have a look & check.

rgds,

Dirk

Justin,

Seems to be ok now  - tested the 3 url's and all are ok (homepage)

Don't forget to update the pages inside the site:

Example: https://www.zenory.com/tarot-readings

Here the hreflang should become

Currently they all point to the homepage.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

A bit strange. I assume that you are using a generic TLD (.com, .net, .org or something similar) and the the language used on the site is Spanish. With the limited information you give is not easy to find out what is causing this problem.

You could set the hreflang tag to "es" to make it very obvious for Google that you are targeting the Spanish market.

How is your link profile - is the majority of the links coming from Spain (or Spanish speaking countries) or do you have a lot of links coming from Sweden?

Are the "Swedish" queries you find in GWT also Spanish, and are they similar to the queries from other countries? Do you see Sweden as an important source of traffic in Analytics?

rgds,

Dirk

I think that the answer that Richard gave you on your first question is also applicable on this one.

Apart from that, you should see SEO as a long term strategy, if your competitor is ranking well with shady techniques, it's may be good on the short term, but he'll loose on the long term. I saw plenty of my competitors take a dive in rankings after the Panda update in May, while quite a number of our sites gained substantial search traffic (+25%)

If you already got punished for over optimised backlinks, I would certainly not take that road again, and be very careful with any SEO company which would propose this strategy.

rgds,

Dirk

I fully agree with Egol - the moment you start "manipulating" traffic just to please Google, you're taking the wrong direction. I can maybe work for a few months, even years, but in the end it's always a bad strategy.

The only valid strategy is trying to figure out how to please your visitors, and traffic & Google will follow. It's not always easy to cope with the pressure for to change things, because your competitors are doing it that way, or because you have certain targets, but you'll win in the long run.

Missing metadescriptions are on your /tag/ pages - but these are noindex so shouldn't be a problem. Few missing metadescriptions apart from that. Normally Moz bot respects noindex - so a bit strange that it's reporting these errors.

Didn't find exact duplicates but I guess these are generated by pages like http://venture.photo/kristine-chris/ - http://venture.photo/danielle-dave/ - the only difference between these pages is the video, which makes it almost impossible for bots to tell the difference between these pages. You could try to add some text & some images (with alt wedding photo) to make these pages more unique or integrate it with the "article style" content you have on site.

The galleries have a bit the same problem - a lot of images - but almost no text. I also noticed that you use "-" between the words in the alt text of the images -which is not necessary - it's even better to make it a plain descriptive text.

rgds

Dirk

To be honest - if it is only putting one letter in capitals most of your customers/visitors will hardly notice. If this is the only change - it will not make a difference in terms of usability.

Google changed it logo recently and there was a big buzz about it. When I asked at home - nobody had even noticed the change (4 frequent Google users).

Dirk

Hi,

You might want to check the performance of your pages. As an example I tested your homepage with webpagetest.org (result here: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150502_9K_HMR/1/details/ ) - it's weight is a whopping 8.375KB & it 47sec to download... - so certainly room for improvement. I would reduce the number of images & compress them. Also check if you really need to load these audiofiles - most users find audio quite annoying & it making your page a lot heavier.

Second thing you might look at is your linkprofile - checking Open Site Explorer shower quite a high number of links coming from linkdirectories. I Sampled a few of them and these were quite low quality.

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi Robert,

Your question seems similar to this one - http://moz.com/community/q/home-page-blog-snippets-duplicate-content-help - there is no duplicate content if you're just using a small part of an article on another page.

Not sure where you would put the noindex - in each case noindex is only possible for pages - not for snippets

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

The message you get from the seobook tool is quite straightforward - trying the url https://www.equipashop.ie/shop-fittings-retail-equipment/gridwall/gridwall-shelves/flat-gridwall-shelf.html generates a 302

Then the tool tries the redirect url (https://www.equipashop.ie/flat-gridwall-shelf.html) - which gives status 200.

When I visited the site myself - on first visit - I was redirected to https://www.equipashop.ie/flat-gridwall-shelf.html - when I tried a second visit - I remained on https://www.equipashop.ie/shop-fittings-retail-equipment/gridwall/gridwall-shelves/flat-gridwall-shelf.html

I tried again using Incognito browsing - and again I was redirected. I think it has something to do with your cookie settings - when I disable cookies I am always redirected.

Hope this solves your question. Apart from that, if you want to redirect the URL - it's better to use a 301 than a 302

rgds,

Dirk

Hugh,

Without the actual url is difficult to judge what's going on. If it's a recent site the difference could be related to the crawl frequency. You could always try to double check with a crawler like Screaming Frog (free is you use an url list or for the first 500 crawls).

rgds,

Dirk

Not sure if it's a spammy tactic. If you look at the cached version of these pages you'll notice that it contains a section on the right hand site: Travel blogs we like (http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GS8irLH9VKkJ:www.travelsupermarket.com/blog/learn-to-make-a-monkey-out-of-a-towel/towel-origami-109/+&cd=2&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=be) - with a link to "what's Dave doing"

Date of Cache for this example is Sept. 15th. It's quite possible that in the mean time Travelsupermarket decided to drop that section on the page. Normally these links should disappear in the coming months as these pages get crawled again.

Dirk

Hi,

First about the city added to the title. Google does this on mobile so that it's easier for the searcher to see if the business is nearby. If I search for "bakery" on my PC - it shows the normal titles, if I do the same thing on my mobile, it's adding the city.

About the wrong location: to be very honest I am not really an expert in local SEO. When I check your site however, it's seems to me that you're not really making it very clear to Google that you have two locations, and what your primary location is. You mention the two addresses on your home page, one with Alberta office, the other one with B.C. (and you assume that Google will know that B.C. stands for British Columbia).

Check this article on local SEO: https://moz.com/blog/everybody-needs-local-seo - it contains a lot of tips & tricks on how to make it very obvious to Google what your location is.

Hope this gets you started & maybe that other Moz members with more "local search" experience could add some additional tips.

rgds,

Dirk