Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi

Both questions are not completely related. Technically it is possible to have different hosts for different folders - so it's possible to have yourdomain.com/fr/mypage hosted in France & yourdomain.com/en/mypage in the US (see also http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1848605/can-a-website-subdirectory-be-served-by-a-different-web-server)

If you have to choose between folders / subdomains - go for folders (see also this post: http://moz.com/community/q/moz-s-official-stance-on-subdomain-vs-subfolder-does-it-need-updating)

If you check the signals Google is using to determine which country you are targeting (check https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/182192#2)

• 1: geotargeting - it's perfectly possible to activate two webmastertool accounts for yoursite.com/fr targeting the French market & yoursite.com/us targeting the US market

• 2. server location - is used as a hint & became less important with the use of CDN's (mainly important for performance reasons). If you use a CDN there should be no problem even when the "main" site is hosted in France.

-3. other hints like address, use of local language:  it's probably a good idea to use the content-language metatag in the head of your HTML. If identical pages exist in different language versions - it's probably a good idea to use the hreflang tag to make it obvious to Google which part of the site is targeting which audience. For hreflang - this generator can be useful: https://moz.com/blog/using-the-correct-hreflang-tag-a-new-generator-tool & this tool to check if everything is implemented as should http://flang.dejanseo.com.au/

In your case - I would go to

• separate folder - geotargeted in Webmastertools
• hosted in US - if this not possible: use CDN
• if different language versions of the same page exist across the site: hreflang to make it obvious for Google which part of the site is targeting which language / country - use content-language metatag.

Hope this helps

Dirk

Hi,

The url https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum/?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=41 has https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum  - however this canonical url doesn't exist - it's redirected to https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum/

If you update the canonical to https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum/ you should be fine, there is no need to redirect the url's.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Pete

Even if you don't make the videos yourself, it still ads value for your visitors if you use videos from Youtube and/or add additional info from suppliers. Engagement & time on site should increase - so indirectly it will have a positive impact on SEO.

It's not really necessary to make the external links nofollow - normally Google advises only to put nofollow on commercial links / links to low quality. Of course, if you are linking to competitors, it's better to put a nofollow (you don't want to reinforce their position).

rgds,

Dirk

According to Google: "Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar."

The example you give is a bit in between: it contains a part which is unique - however the tabulated content which would appear on each page contains more content than the unique part. Personally I don't think that these pages would be considered duplicate content. However, if you want to be on the save side you could make a separate page with all possible configurations. This would also have the advantage that you could do without the tab's (end of of 2014 John Muller indicated that hiding content under tabs is not the best seo strategy (https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html).

I wouldn't go for the iframe solution - it's a bit an outdated way to present information.

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Michael,

It's the same - just the wording is different. For some reasons Analytics prefers to use sessions instead of visits.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

It will not work when you put it in the body - check mistake 5 on this page: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html

"When we encounter a rel=canonical designation in the , it’s disregarded. "

rgds

Dirk

Hi Darcy,

If you apply the strict definition of Google, you are "inserting text or keywords into a page only when the User-agent requesting the page is a search engine, not a human visitor" - even if you don't do it with the intention to trick search engines (the inserted text = text which is invisible for non-registered users).

Is there a way to show the same content to both bots & humans, and still keeping the page

• attractive enough for search engines
• teasing enough for humans to register

It's difficult to guess the level of risk you're running - but once penalised, traffic drop is huge & recovery takes normally a long time (with no guarantee of full recovery)

rgds

Dirk

Hi Darcy,

When people click on the results in Google  - do they see the normal page (the one that Googlebot saw) or the version for the "new" users. If it's the second case - you are indeed cloaking according to Google's definition (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355).

If you're listed in Google News - you could participate in "First Click Free" (https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40543?hl=en) - which basically allows you to hide your content behind a registration wall but still be indexed as long as you provide at least 5 pages (articles) /day

Not all participants to First Click Free are playing according to the rules (http://searchengineland.com/google-fails-enforce-first-click-free-203078) - but I guess your site isn't the Financial times.

You could continue what you're doing now, but you certainly run the risk of a penalty in my opinion

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Pete,

I assume that with h tags you mean H1, H2, .. tags? There is not really a need to add these to the links. Adding theme based crosslinks will probably a better strategy.

You could also consider syndicating content - I've seen quite a lot of examples where DIY stores or fertiliser companies created content, both text and video (how to paint the ceiling / how to keep your lawn in top condition / ...) that was distributed on 3rd party sites (with the same topics). Even if the links on these pages are sometimes nofollow - it still creates brand awareness/trust and probably leads/sales as well.

If I take the sample product page - I would however put some intro text at the top of the page. I guess most people who want to hire a tool like a pressure washer have a certain task in their head, but wouldn't directly know which type to choose. I would add a kind of guide at the top of the page (which type of pressure washer do I need) - you have an article about it, but the title is only about the pressure you need ("Pressure washing guide - Which psi do I need?"). Same applies to "Power cleaning techniques using a pressure washer" - people look for "how to use a pressure washer". Videos on how to use these tools are also great (it always seems so easy to use them until you try yourself...).

Apart from the keyword research already mentioned, ask the sales persons in the stores what the typical questions are that people have when they come to the shop - these questions are excellent titles for your articles.

rgds,

Dirk

Also be careful with the hidden text at the bottom (Read more about our Pressure washing services) - in 2013 Matt Cutts indicated that this was ok for SEO (http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-on-hidden-text-using-expandable-sections-youll-be-in-good-shape-167753) - however end of 2014 John Muller indicated that it's not the best strategy (https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html).

Even the volume is not abnormal - suppose you have a Italian restaurant & take-away in Manhattan, then you would probably appear on pages on restaurants, italian restaurants, mediterranean restaurants, catering, take-aways in Manhatten, New York,... - all these lists are indexed in Google and all these pages would have links to your site. Depending on your business & region - you could appear in an awful lot of combinations of (sub)categories & geographic locations.

rgds,

Dirk

These are normal 404 errors - the :443 after the url just indicates that it's using the https port (you can add the 443 after each of your https urls - they redirect to the normal ones); Don't know why wordpress is adding the :443

Check your site if you have internal links to these 404 pages (try Screaming Frog or another crawltool. These pages seem to have existed in the past: check this example http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_M5jZnMoFmcJ:https://www.compleetverkleed.nl/hoed-al-capone-panter-8713647758068-2/+&cd=2&hl=nl&ct=clnk&gl=nl

If no internal / external links to these pages exist - this problem should disappear after a while.

rgds,

Dirk

Normally the links from yellowpages are of type "nofollow" so they do not need to be disavowed.

Apart from this fact, given the fact that most businesses are listed in the yellow pages, these links don't seem to be very unnatural to me.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

The reason why you have these duplicates is because the different domains you have all point to the same server - as a result the content is available on all these different url's.

To solve this - choose one principal domain (the one you want to keep)

Option 1: Edit the htaccess file and redirect the other url's to the main domain: to do this add these lines

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.example.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.example.com/$1 [R=301,L]

The second line checks if the request url is has the form www.example.com

If not, the 3rd line is rewriting it to example.com

Suppose the site is called using www.test.com/article.htm - it fails the test on line 2 - it will be rewritten to www.example.com/article.htm

Option 2: Alternative is to choose "domain forwarding" - this a standard option most registrars provide to forward a domain to another domain (check with your registrar how to do this - make sure you choose a 301 type redirect & that the url changes to the destination url)

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Replace www.example.com by your main site & you should be fine. The emails won't be affected - that's something which is defined on

Hi Pete,

These pages are not really duplicates, but they do not add a lot of value either. For these kind of pages I would use "noindex, follow" attribute. If I look at them, I really have difficulties to imagine for which kind of query these pages could provide a suitable answer.

Each of the articles mentioned in these list seems to contain useful content- but grouping them by date of apparition is not really adding value. If I were you - I would rather try to regroup them in logical themes (Taking care of your lawn / Painting / Maintenance / ...)

Put yourself in the mind of your target audience - they need to solve a certain problem & they probably need one of the products you have for hire. How would they search? What is the info they need? How can you help them? Many of the articles I see on your site are a bit too generic ('How to take care of your lawn in spring'). To be honest - that's a question I would never enter in Google. People are searching for things like "how to get rid of moss in lawn" - your site doesn't really seem to have a specific answer on this topic. It would however be an excellent opportunity to promote your lawn scarifier.

On first sight, it looks that your site has a lot of interesting content, but it's not really organised around themes, doesn't always answer the right question & links in a bit arbitrary way to the e-commerce part.

Try to do some keyword research (nice article here: https://moz.com/blog/keyword-research-in-90-minutes - a lot more resources here: https://moz.com/ugc/category/keyword-research) - to find out how your target audience is searching & optimise your content according to this;

Try to create smart internal linking using topical hubs  (I love this WBF of Gianluca : https://moz.com/blog/topical-hubs-whiteboard-friday)

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi Justin

Google doesn't seem to be figuring out (even with the correct hreflang in place) which site should be shown for each country.

If you look at the cached versions of your .com.au & .com versions it always the .co.nz version which is cached - this is probably also the reason why the meta description is wrong (it's always coming from the .co.nz version) and why the % of url's indexed for each sitemap (for the .com & .com.au version) is so low.

Try to rigorously eliminate all cross-references in your site - to make it more obvious for Google that these are 3 different sites:

• in the footer - the links in the second column are pointing to the .co.nz version (latest articles) - change these links to relative ones

• on all sites there are elements you load from the .com domain (see latest blog entries - the images are loaded from the .com domain for all tld's

As long as you send these confusing signals to Google - Google will mix up the different versions of your site.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Justin,

If you want to redirect to home I guess you should just put / as the destination url (as told - not really an expert in Yoast)

I think the rule should look like

Redirect 301 /folder_to_be_removed/ /

Could you give it a try?

rgds

Dirk

Hi Jamie,

The link in your profile looks ok (it's not a "nofollow") - I guess that the issue is more related to the data delays of Moz OSE.

rgds

Dirk

Hi

When I look at the source the href's are missing - see attached screen copy.

rgds

Dirk

wilyMlg

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

It could be that the message is only disappearing tomorrow.

The message from Google however doesn't say that the penalty is revoked but that it has been revoked or adjusted. It's possible that the penalty is now only applied to the specific subdomain rather than the site as a whole. Is it still the original message which is shown under Manual actions?

Would update the terms & conditions anyway - so that you can react quick if you see other actions appearing. Try to scan the subdomains from time to time to make sure that they are not violating the Google guidelines.

Regards,

Dirk

Hi

The syntax you use is wrong:

Example page: https://www.whichledlight.com/bulbs?page=2

The canonical should be

(currently )

Check this reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en

The rel next /previous should be:

(currently:

Check this reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en

Hope this helps;

Dirk

Hi,

Try to answer your questions point by point:

1. You could add to your terms & conditions that sites created need to follow Google webmasterguidelines - and if they are not followed you can delete the subdomain.

2. Revoke the penalty is only possible by cleaning the site and removing the contested content. It depends on your current terms & conditions if you have the possibility to force the one who is managing this blog to clean the site.

3. Idem as above - if your terms & conditions didn't stipulate that messing with Google guidelines is forbidden, there is not much you can do at this point.

4. Wordpress is hosting the blogs on wordpress.com - the main site is wordpress.org. Weebly has terms & conditions that forbid Spam/SEO sites (probably Wordpress.com has this as well - but it's stated very clearly on the Weebly.com)

Update terms & conditions if necessary - send warning to offending blog users & delete them if necessary.

Hope this helps,

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

Apart from the excellent answers already given above, don't forget to check your internal links - and check that you always link to domain.dk and not to domain.dk/default.asp (Screaming Frog can help you to check that). Inconsistent internal linking is often a reason why google detects the second version in the first place.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

To be very honest - I don't know much about Ajax & how it can be crawled. I read an article beginning of March that the Webmaster guidelines on Ajax that you are referencing could well be changing in the near future. Haven't seen an update on Google Webmaster blog - but it might me something to keep in mind.

Screaming Frog can index all the products on the page - so as long as you keep the main category pages accessible via "static" links I don't think you'll run into problems.

Maybe somebody else can add some personal experience.

rgds,

Dirk

Peter,

It depends.

If you don't get a lot of traffic from image search there is no need to do anything special.

If you are receiving a lot of traffic you basically have two options

• redirect the images to the new location (if this is easy to do)

• alternative would be to keep the images in the old location & put them in the new location as well. As you update the sitemap & redirect the url's Google will after a while update the index for image search & get the new location. As long the index is not updated, your 'old' images will still appear in image seach, when people click on the link they will however be redirected to your new page (as the page containing them is redirected). In my experience - the update frequency of the image index is lower than the normal search index.

I applied this strategy on 2 migrations of sites with 90% of search traffic = image & it proofed quite successful.

Hope this helps - let me know if you have additional questions,

rgds,

Dirk

Hi

Not sure what you mean with Google Parameters  - but normally the hreflang should be reciprocal:
(https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en)

• Missing confirmation links: If page A links to page B, page B must link back to page A. If this is not the case for all pages that use hreflang annotations, those annotations may be ignored or not interpreted correctly

In your case page https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting?grank=open is linking to https://fr.sitegeek.com/a2hosting - but https://fr.sitegeek.com/a2hosting is not linking back to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting?grank=open but to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting.

You could try to add a canonical url to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting?grank=open pointing to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting and combine the canonical with the hreflang. Normally this should be possible according to Google - but I couldn't find an example of an implementation.

Try the canonical & test it here: http://flang.dejanseo.com.au/

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi,

It's probably better to contact Moz Support directly - https://moz.com/help/contact 
Don't panic - Moz is quite customer oriented. I am sure they'll find a solution.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

In the Search Analytics report could you put the filter on "Pages" rather than "Keywords" - and check if there are pages listed that seem suspicious to you?

Did you try "spammy keyword" site:yoursite.com in Google?

Recently there where quite some questions about wordpress sites that had been hacked - mainly caused by this vulnerability:

https://blog.sucuri.net/2014/09/slider-revolution-plugin-critical-vulnerability-being-exploited.html

or this one https://blog.sucuri.net/2014/12/revslider-vulnerability-leads-to-massive-wordpress-soaksoak-compromise.html

I guess that sucuri would normally detect this - but maybe you could doublecheck that you're not using these kind of slider on your site.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

The example I quoted in my reply about Paul's pizza (it's not exactly the same - but quit close)

For the newspaper: if it's just an ad random links (e.g. in the footer) it doesn't look really natural. If the newspaper is featuring an article about a legal issue and it's quoting your law firm in the article, than the link would be quite natural.

For the retirement homes: Google is quite aware that if you're in a retirement home you have entered the last phase of your life; so it's not really unnatural for a retirement home to feature some articles on your final "bucket list" - which could include content on how to make a will. If on these articles they quote your law firm, or if the content is entirely written by your law firm, it would be quite logical to mention the original source (or even better - put a canonical url pointing to your site).

Basically - natural links are quite easy to detect. Just ask yourself: if no link building for SEO purposes existed, would the publisher include this link? If he would, it's almost certain that it's a good link. If he wouldn't, it's not really a good one.

rgds,

Dirk

Tom,

Image search is a bit different - if you are dependant on image search & the names and/or location of the images is changing during migration you have to very careful. (as I am a bit lazy, I just repeat the answer I posted here)

In my experience, the image index is updated much slower than the normal index, and while google is quite fast to index the redirected urls it seems to need  much more time for the images. On a previous migration we had the situation where the image thumbnails where still visible in the search results , but as soon you did preview the image the image didn't load as it had moved from it's original location. The problem with image search is that when this happened the position of the image remained in the results but the site behind it changed (at that point we also discovered that an huge number of sites who had stolen our original images).

To avoid this we now migrated the images to the new location and updated the links in the html, but we also kept the same images in the old location until we had the impression that they were no longer indexed.

This strategy seemed to work as unlike the first migration our results from image search were unaffected.

Apart from that, you will have off course have to update the image sitemap as well (if you currently have one)

If you have additional questions, don't hesitate to ask them (I migrated 3 sites over the last year which had 90% of the traffic coming from image search)

rgds

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

I am a big fan of Screaming frog myself. Apart from the real basic stuff (checking H1, titles,...etc) it's also useful to check if all your pages contain your analytics tag and to check the size of the images on the site (these things Moz can't do).

It's also extremely useful when you're changing the url structure to check if all the redirects are properly implemented.

Sometimes you get loops in your site, especially if you use relative rather than absolute links on your site - Screaming Frog has an extremely helpful feature: just click on the url  and select "crawl path report" - which generates an xls which shows the page where the problem originates

It's also very convenient that you can configure the spider to ignore robots.txt / nofollow / noindex when you are test a site in a pre-production environment. Idem for the possibility to use regex to filter some of the url's while crawling (especially useful for big sites if the they aren't using canonicals or noindex where they should use it)

rgds,

Dirk

Unless you're selling pizza's yourself, these links are not going to help you much

This strategy is not really going to work - most sites make links on testimonials and comments nofollow (just to avoid that other webmasters are just going to post comments to create links). Not that nofollow links are necessarily a bad thing (check https://moz.com/blog/the-hidden-power-of-nofollow-links) - but these kind of nofollow links normally add no value.

You might want to check this link https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-link-building and all the resources you can find here: https://moz.com/blog/category/link-building

A lot of reading & studying to do - it might be a relief for you that even experts sometimes get it completely wrong http://pointblankseo.com/link-building-failures

Good luck,

Dirk

Hi,

If you would have asked this question before April 21st I would have said to publish the responsive pages the moment they were ready, even if the remaining pages are having a different design.

At this point, it seems that the impact of Mobilegeddon is quite limited, so if you can finish the complete site in a couple of weeks, I would rather go for the better user experience and present the full site with the new design.

If in the next days the mobile update would have serious impact on search results, you can always decide to publish the pages which are already responsive.

Keep an eye on this post - https://moz.com/blog/day-after-mobilegeddon - if the update really starts having an big impact, you'll read it there. (or follow Moz / Searchengineland / Searchenginewatch / ... on twitter & you'll be to first to know)

rgds,

Dirk

Linda,

I hope there is no misunderstanding, I fully agreed with your first answer. I also like the solution with the canonical - however not possible to implement this if the content has already been put off-line.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

You can only have duplicate content if the same content is published on different sites. As far as I understand from your question, site one doesn't sell product range A anymore, so these products are no longer published on site one. So there can't be a duplicate content issue if you publish the same content on site two.

I like the suggestion of Linda to put 301 from the old pages on site 1 to the new pages on site 2 as it will reinforce the position of the new pages.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Craig,

If the keyword appears twice in the url it should be acceptable. What I normally do is to look at the url & judge if it still looks "natural" (with "natural" off course is quite subjective). If it looks stuffed, I change, if not I keep it. Check the 'stuffed' examples here: http://blogs.bing.com/webmaster/2014/09/09/url-keyword-stuffing-spam-filtering/

Sorry I cannot be more specific, it's a bit of a grey area.

Dirk

Just to add to the answer of Donna - migrating Analytics to the Tag manager is not going to help. They are equally affected (it's quite easy to retrieve the analytics id which is inside).

rgds,

Dirk

Hi John

Nobody but Google can tell you for sure - but if I compare both pages & check the guidelines here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2015/03/an-update-on-doorway-pages.html the site doesn't look like a typical doorway page:

1.Is the purpose to optimize for search engines and funnel visitors into the actual usable or relevant portion of your site, or are they an integral part of your site’s user experience?
=> the user experience on the vanity url is better than the standard page on the Hilton side. The only moment when you lead your visitors to the main site is when they want to book

2.Are the pages intended to rank on generic terms yet the content presented on the page is very specific? You're site seems optimised for people searching for this specific hotel - not hotels in general or any other generic terms

3. Do the pages duplicate useful aggregations of items (locations, products, etc.) that already exist on the site for the purpose of capturing more search traffic?
You don't exactly duplicate - you enrich the content in order to offer your visitors (and not the search engines) a better experience.

4. Are these pages made solely for drawing affiliate traffic and sending users along without creating unique value in content or functionality?
This point is definitely not the case

5. Do these pages exist as an “island?” Are they difficult or impossible to navigate to from other parts of your site? Are links to such pages from other pages within the site or network of sites created just for search engines?
Yes it is an island - but in that case you could see any hotel site as doorway page for a site like Booking.com when they use the Booking search engine.

To be honest, I would not be too worried. The goal of this update to eliminate pages will low added value, that only exist to rank & to funnel visitors to the main site. The example you gave has a high added value, and you're not funnelling to the main site (apart for booking purposes).

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Understand what you mean - to be very honest I don't think that this content snippet is generating duplicate content.

However, I don't really understand the mechanism:

https://www.zenory.com/horoscopes/taurus/day -> I would expect to find the daily horoscope for Taurus - when I click on Capricorn I would expect to go to https://www.zenory.com/horoscopes/capricorn/day - however I remain on the same page & the horoscope is shown in a lightbox. I would rather put it on a separate page (if all horoscopes of all signs are present in the HTML of one sign these pages become quite similar when you look at the source code. 
Sounds a bit confusing, but I hope you get what I mean.

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 Justin,

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

Sorry.

Dirk

I agree with Moosa - I crawled your site with Screaming Frog, and it had no problem to crawl the links inside the slider.

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

Hi,

Fetch the main page(s) with "Fetch as Google" under the Crawl section in Webmaster tools - then submit to the index.

You are sure that there are no other elements blocking the indexing of the page (like meta tag  or X-robots tags in the header?

Also fetch the new robots.txt file - to be sure that Google notices that it has changed.

Did you add a sitemap for this new section - does it show any notifications/warnings in WMT?

rgds,

Dirk