Hi Joost,

Unfortunately we don't use Wordpress in our company - I know the basics of the Yoast plugin but I am not really an expert in how to configure it. Maybe somebody else on Moz can help you on how to configure it. My guess would be to fill in the full url - you could always try & see if this works.

There are quite a lot of users on the forum who use Yoast - so I guess they should be able to help you with the configuration.

rgds,

Dirk

Joost

You might want to open a new question (on how to filter) - this question is too deep down the list & marked as answered so I fear nobody is going to see your additional question.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

This is question which is asked quite often on Moz Q&A. Pages that have a big chunk of source code in common are sometimes considered as duplicated - even if the content is quite different. Recently they did a post on the tech blog on how they identify duplicates (it's quite technical stuff - but still interesting to read - https://moz.com/devblog/near-duplicate-detection/)

If only address & image are different but description is identical - the page will probably be considered as a duplicate by the Moz bot. If it's only for 40 of 1500 listings, I wouldn't worry to much about it, especially because you are unable the content anyway.

I would be more worried if other real estate companies would use the same feed and hence provide exactly the same content on their side, not only the 40 you mention but the full listing.

rgds

Dirk

Hi,

You could put a 301 redirect of the old image folder to the new location. The easiest alternative is to keep the images in both places for a while, until Google has indexed the new location (which can take a few weeks/months). Normally, if all the internal links have been updated, there should be no links to old location, so these images will disappear from the index and replaced by the ones in the new location. Once they are indexed on their new location, you can delete them in the old location

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

Do you get a lot of traffic coming through image search? Most of the images you use on the site seem to be stock images, so normally the % of image search traffic shouldn't be that big.

If you receive limited or no search traffic from image search, you don't really have to do anything special. There 404 errors in WMT will disappear after a while & the new images will get indexed. Normally the 404's will have no impact on search traffic.

If all CDN's contain all the images, you could always redirect the original image folder to one of the cdn's - but it not strictly necessary.

rgds

Dirk

Hi Peter,

Don't really understand your question about permalink & url - as far as I know a permalink is just an url which remains permanent. Could you give an example of what you mean?

GWT is checking if pages exist - it's not showing you errors if only a part of the page (like the image is missing) - Screaming Frog is much better to help you with this. If Screaming Frog is detecting the issues, it implies that there are links to these images. When you go to the "Response Code" tab - filter on 4xx errors and click on the image url - you can see in the window below under "inlinks" which pages are linking to this image.

Dirk

No they will not be indexed. Check: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2007/03/using-robots-meta-tag.html:

If content values conflict, we will use the most restrictive. So, if the page has these meta tags:

We will obey the NOINDEX value.

Dirk

This can have different reasons - without having the actual example it's difficult to assess. Based on the info you give, adding all this content, video, images, it could be that your page became a lot heavier to load (check the page on webpagetest.org and with pagespeed insights). May be you exaggerated a bit with the optimisation - and is Google considering the page a bit too spammy.

If possible, can you give the actual url of the page?

rgds,

Dirk

Difficult to tell how long it will take before it's completely removed (Google is never very clear on how long it takes). If it's urgent you could use the url removal tool :https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663419?hl=en

Dirk

Hi Dustin

I checked the last example a bit more in detail:

Webpagetest indicates that his page is even heavier than the one I tested the first time - results here: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150501_XQ_Q1H/ (load time ok - but page way to heavy)- page speed analyser results are not terrific either. Check also the links on the page - a lot of your css files seemed to be 301 to a new location - it's better to call directly the final location. Optimising shouldn't be too difficult - compressing images, js,..etc should really increase your scores.

Also on the technical side, probably good to clean the code a bit. You don't really have to pass the W3C validator test, but it seems your page generates a awful lot of errors.

From a content perspective - looks good. A remark could be that a lot of content is not directly visible when loading the page (read more, tabs). Google announced end of 2014 that they don't really like content that is hidden when the page is loaded (https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html). Don't really think this would cause a drop - but it's something you could consider changing if you modify the HTML code.

Hope this helps,

Dirk

It's will not have a big impact - while not really common, it's ok to use parenthesis in the url. Just makes the url a bit more difficult to remember, a bit like very long url's. In the example you give - not sure if Google is going to interpret this & that as two different words or that he will think of it as one entity this(that). If this or that are important keywords for you - it's may be better to put a - between this-(that)

Difficult to confirm without having the actual site. Looks like analytics spam on first sight.

You can find some useful info on how to block this in this article: http://moz.com/blog/how-to-stop-spam-bots-from-ruining-your-analytics-referral-data

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

The tagging seems to be on organisation level and looks ok on first sight (you can always check the tag inside WMT or using this tool . From your question I do not really understand where you add the product specific info. Normally they should be in two separate itemtypes: organisation / product (the one for the product should be without the aggregate rating - as this only exist for the organisation & not for the product).

You could check the example on https://schema.org/LocalBusiness (scroll to the bottom) for the tagging of your organisation. For the product - you could check the tagging on https://schema.org/Product (idem).

Hope this helps,

Dirk

If you see a sudden change in Analytics it's very often related to a problem with the tracking code. You could install the Analytics plugin for Chrome & check your pages. It could be the same visit is tracked twice - as Bill says - check the bouncerate. If this has significantly decreased it's almost certain a tracking issue.

You could  check that you don't have a meta refresh or something similar which could artificially boost your page views.

Hope this helps

Dirk