Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If it's just a matter of link count, I wouldn't worry about it. If the comments are clearly spammy, then I htink M.-J. is exactly right - you need to moderate and remove those comments. It is possible for a large number of spammy comments (with outbound links) to cause problems with a site. It's not just an SEO issue - it looks bad to legitimate visitors as well. If you can't moderate, nofollow would be the next best option (the only other option, really).

If you've got 200 links on the page, though, and the comments are 95% legitimate, it's fine. It's just a popular post.

You do risk that those would look like duplicates, and the search engines may filter one or more copies out. If they do that, you may lose any link-juice from them (although that's a lot tougher to measure). The links could also just look low-quality, if you're "spinning" out the same article over and over.

It really depends on the scope. If you did this 3-4 times with a couple of articles, I doubt you'd have any major issues. If you do it 100 times with 1 article, you may get a short-term ranking boost, only to see those links devalued a couple of months later.

If you can get people to post a blurb and the link back to your site, that's definitely ideal. That's the best way to protect the content and signal that you're the source.

You can also have them use the canonical tag, as Daniel mentioned (cross-domain), but my concern is that you'd lose the link-juice. I haven't seen a good study on that. In other words, you'd be seen as the source and would rank for the page, but Google might not count the link back to your site.

Good discussion here, but I endorsed Keith's comment because I do think you have to trust your gut. Directory links are fine, to a point (especially higher-quality ones), but they should be part of a broader, more diverse strategy. If this firm seems like a one-trick pony and you just get a bad vibe, that's important. I can't count how many times I've ignored that gut feeling with a new vendor (or client) and later regretted it.

Sorry, I think my statement may have been unclear. I was throwing out some numbers to try to illustrate what $1,000 could buy someone in low-quality link-building (number of hours, etc.). My broader point, though, was actually AGAINST that kind of approach. I'd rather see people invest in content than cheap links.

What's a "reasonable" number really depends a lot on quality vs. quantity. Someone could get you 100 links/day, but they'd be mostly junk. Some links could take months to build (if they involve building relationships with people and organization), but they might be well worth the investment. It's a balancing act. I think it's fine to get some blog comment links, guest-blog, do article marketing, etc., as long as the quality is reasonable AND you diversify that with hard-to-get links with higher authority.

I'll also make another pitch for content marketing, because it's the only way to put link-building on autopilot, so to speak. Once you invest in content and start to get the word out, that content can naturally attract links. You could get 10/day some days without lifting a finger, once the content is in motion. I think some manual link-building is fine, and probably necessary, but if you can put both in motion, you'll be in much better long-term shape.

Looks like they may have a ton of links to deep pages on sub-domains (like forums.tentonhammer.com), so we're not reporting the count right across the root domain. Once I dig in and export data, it's making more sense.

They're also doing something weird on the root domain - tentonhammer.com seems to redirect to www.tentonhammer.com, if you type it in, but then header checkers read it as a 200. So, we don't seem to be consolidating those links, either. I suspect that 220 number is way low.

Agreed with comments on community-building and the broader value, but it does look like social mentions are having indexing and probably ranking impact. The Twitter connection is a little unclear, now that Google has cut the contract with Twitter for their direct data, but it does seem to be coming into play. Danny had a great interview on it with search engineers earlier this year:

http://searchengineland.com/what-social-signals-do-google-bing-really-count-55389

It looks like Google+ is definitely coming into play, too, especially with personalized results. If you're logged in and have a Google+ account, chances are it's already impacting your rankings. This will probably only increase during 2012.

I think that's a great clarification. Paying $20-25K for someone to build authoritative, trustworthy links and content to drive you to the top on competitive keywords could be a bargain. Paying that for someone to create junk is worse than a rip-off - it could kill your rankings. Off-page (1)-(8) all look low-value to me, and (9) is ambiguous.

I hate to say it, but I'm with Marty. There's just no way to tell, and it's completely dependent on the editor(s) for your niche. Recently, I'm seeing many cases where people get a DMOZ listing and it's so deep in the site that the page isn't even indexed - so they wait months for this "great" link that then passes no link-juice at all. File a good submission and get on with life - that's all you can do, unless you know an editor personally.

I'll just add that, if by "legit", you mean the company will do what they say they'll do, then possible. The problems is that:

(1) They automatically get more from the exchange than the customer does. You're giving them links before they do anything, so it's not free.

(2) They take no risk and you take all the risk. You're more likely to be penalized by linking out to this link-farm than they are, in some ways (fair or not).

So, they may do what they outline, but it's not legit in my sense of the word and it's high-risk, low-reward SEO.

That's best-case. Worst case, these folders contain malware or dangerous payloads that could steal data and destroy sites.

I hate to say this, but I'm going to, because I have no tolerance for design companies and hosting companies who hold clients hostage (and I've worked at a design/hosting company, so I don't buy 98% of the excuses for that behavior)...

Is there any way to hack the plug-in or META data, based on the access you DO have. For example, the META description sits in the header. What if you entered a description like:

This is my meta description.">

Short of that, there's not a lot you can do with no access. Push comes to shove, you may have to let the client know that, to do your job, they need to divorce the design from the hosting. A WordPress CMS can live anywhere - there's no reason the design company should be sitting on it.

Actually, just for reference, I'll add that there are other solutions, but they're usually very technical and somewhat costly. For example, some SEO companies have proxy hardware/software that sits on top of existing sites. What it basically does is inject code on top of what gets served up by the web server. That way, the SEO company can add tags, etc. without direct access to the server. You still need access to the host, though (or cooperation), and typically this is an enterprise-level solution (in other words, $$$).

I haven't seen a solid test of this. From the SEs standpoint, the canonical source and target should be identical, so it wouldn't matter. Of course, they honor canonical tags on non-identical pages all the time, so we no practically that there are differences. My gut is that a canonical probably won't cut off a crawl path, but the links on the non-canonical version are unlikely to pass link-juice.

I would not, just on general principle treat a canonical like a NOINDEX, FOLLOW. If it's important that the links on the non-canonical version be followed, then either: (1) The canonical tag is not an appropriate solution, (2) Those links should be added to the canonical version.

If you could give an example (don't need URLs - just explain the nature of the two pages), I could dig deeper.

Unfortunately, if you really have no access at all, there's isn't much you can do. The best alternative to a canonical tag, in most cases, is a 301-redirect, and you'd need some kind of access for that, too (hosting account, server access, .htaccess rights, etc.).

It depends a lot on the situation, of course. If you're just trying to get some bad URLs out of the index, you could try parameter blocking in Google Webmaster Tools. If you have Robots.txt access, that might open up some other options (although it's limited and only an alternative in a couple of cases).

I assume this is some sort of CMS system or a hosted solution?

What are you trying to achieve/solve with the canonical?

Thanks for sharing your story, Rick. My wife and I lost our first pregnancy due to Turner's Syndrome, so I'm painfully familiar with how random the genetic lottery can be. I'm happy to say we have a healthy, happy 17-month-old girl now. I'm glad to hear Noah is doing well, and I'm heartened to hear how proactive the doctors are being.

First off, I'd just like to say that you're doing a lot right. You have a well-designed site with great content, a good core structure, and many of the important features of a modern site/blog. The wide world of SEO can be overwhelming, but it's rare that you need to tackle it all at once.

I think it's great to be thinking proactively about categorizing your content, and it's ok to let that evolve organically as your needs are clear. Categorizing the videos certainly makes sense.

At this point, though, given that your basic structure is good and you've got a lot of content, the social and link-building aspects are probably equally or more important. You have one tremendous tool at your disposal - sincere passion that can connect you to an audience. Your own outreach efforts, interactions with other parents, discussion boards, communities, etc. will go a LONG way. As you build relationships, links will start building themselves.

One thing that wasn't clear to me until I fully read your post and dug into the site was that your wife is a pediatrician. The "Mom MD" just read like a cute category name to me (no offense intended - that was just my first impression). This fact, IMO, adds a lot of credibility to what you're doing, and makes this more than a personal blog. I'd make this clear, especially on the About page and at the top of the Mom MD section.

This sounds unusual enough that I'd almost have to see it in action. Is the JS-based URL even getting indexed? This might be a non-issue, honestly. I don't have solid evidence either way about GWT blocking passing link-juice, although I suspect it behaves like a canonical in most cases.

Yeah, I actually think that cheap/paid advice can be just as dangerous and absolutely agree that the "who" can be more important than the "where". The other thing I'd add is that so much advice isn't good or bad so much as contextual. When someone asks how they should handle duplicate content or a major site architecture issue, it's tough to give a quick answer. Even when I can and that answer is right for them, that doesn't mean it's right for everybody. Eventually, you really have to understand some of the fundamental principles behind the answers people give.

Let's step back from SEO. Look at generic, internet health advice. Should you drink milk, for example? If you're malnourished, yes, absolutely. If you need more Vitamin D, sure. If you're lactose intolerant, probably not. If you're allergic, you could die. No matter how smart anyone is, there's no one-sized-fits-all answer to that question, IMO. That's true for a lot of complex SEO issues.

"It's important not to go overboard with this approach. The content should always be top-notch so that these smaller sites still have significant value to the visitor."

Exactly. The Devil is in the details. Strong micro-sites with unique value can work. 500 carbon copies of your home-page are going to make a mess.

I think Robert's right - it's a matter of moderation. Sites change domains, for example, and 301-redirects are perfectly valid. Sometimes, sites consolidate and, again, that's natural. The problem is that people have also bought tons of domains and redirected them to game the system, so Google is watching.

The gradual approach is very sensible. You don't want to lose this link equity - absolutely agreed on that point. So, start with the most powerful sites and redirect one by one. Measure what happens and adapt along the way based on the data.

When you get to the weaker sites, it may be time to let them go (especially if they looks like duplicates). This isn't all or none. I'm definitely not saying to NEVER 301 or to always 301 - it's a balancing act. My fear is that if you do this with dozens of domains in one day, you'll get smacked down. So, ease into it.

I generally trust Duane, so I'd take it at some value - I just haven't seen that problem pop up much, practically. Theoretically, you'd create a loop - so, if it leaked, it would keep looping/leaking until no juice was left. That seems like an odd way to handle the issue.

My bigger concern would be the idea that, if you rel-canonical every page, Bing might not take your important canonical tags seriously. They've suggested they do this with XML sitemaps, too - if enough of the map is junk, they may ignore the whole thing. Again, I haven't seen any firm evidence of this, but it's worth keeping your eyes open.

If you're already use rel-canonical, then there's really no reason to also block the parameter. Rel-canonical will preserve any link-juice, and will also keep the page available to visitors (unlike a 301-redirect).

Are you seeing a lot of these pages indexed (i.e. is the canonical tag not working)? You could block the parameter in that case, but my gut reaction is that it's unnecessary and probably counter-productive. Google may just need time to de-index (it can be a slow process).

I suspect that Google passes some link-juice through blocked parameters and treats it more like a canonical, but it may be situational and I haven't seen good data on that. So many things in Google Webmaster Tools end up being a bit of a black box. Typically, I view it as a last resort.

Honestly, it's going to be really tough. Since CrunchBase is a US-based site and has massive cues (like the link profile) indicating that, I'm not sure you can get Google to see that a single profile page is international. You can target a whole sub-directory of your own site, but I've never seen someone to get a single directory listing to be recognized as being from a different international location. I'll run it by an international SEO and see, but I suspect this is an uphill climb.

Why are you trying to get a profile page ranking instead of your own site?

I think the canonical probably your best bet here. You can solve it with a 301-redirect, too, but it's a lot trickier. If you're really running into trouble, parameter blocking in GWT is ok here. Again, it's not my first choice, but it's not a black-and-white issue (just ideal vs. not-so-ideal).

If your pages are truly static, you'd have to write a canonical tag for each one, but most sites at least have a shared header and some dynamic components. In other words, your 1000s of pages may only actually be a few physical pages of code. In that case, you may be able to add the canonical tags on as little as one template (with some code). Unfortunately, this is completely dependent on the platform you're on - there's no universal answer (and the code is completely dependent on your URL structure). You'll probably need some quality time with your coders on that one.

The first thing I'd do, though, is to monitor your site with the "site:" operator in Google, along with "inurl:s_cid". In some cases, Google doesn't crawl these tracking URLs (or knows they're common to an analytics package). If they aren't being indexed, you may not have a problem here.

I'm assuming you can't 301-redirect (and that you still need the sub-directory versions to be reachable by humans)? I'm not sure the cross-domain canonical will work completely. I don't have a good example of a sub-folder to root domain canonical implementation. If the "sites" are identical, it should be ok.

Robots.txt is going to depend a bit on how people access those. If there are links to the sub-directory versions, then blocking will cut off that link-juice (and the canonical or a 301 will be better).

Blocking the sub-directory shouldn't automatically block the domain it aliases, too, unless for some reason that sub-directory is the only crawl path Google has to the outside domain. As long as they're crawling the outside domain separately, I think you'll be ok. I'm just not sure if Robots.txt is necessary here.

Sorry, the devil may be in the details on this one. Happy to take a closer look in Private Q&A, if you want to give out some specifics.

That should work - it's possible your implementation isn't 100% correct (can't tell from the example), but it's possible that we're not handling this completely right. I'm going to ping the product team and see what they can tell us.

I hate to say it, but @inhouseninja is right - there's not a lot you can do, and over-reacting could be very dangerous. In other words - don't make a ton of changes just to offset this - Google will re-index.

A few minor cues that are safe:

(1) Re-submit your XML sitemap

(2) Build a few new links (authoritative ones, especially)

(3) Hit social media with your new URLs

All 3 are at least nudges to re-index. They aren't magic bullets, but you need to get Google's attention.

Just heard from a GeoEdge rep who says that they have proxy servers internationally (100+ locations) and a toolbar-based version as well, so sounds like it's worth checking out.

If there are links (from external sites) to these images/pages, I'd probably use the canonical tag (to the library, as you said). It's not technically a true duplicate, but that would preserve the link-juice. If there are no links, you could just META NOINDEX them.

I'll add this, though, in your case. Are these the only images (I count 21 of them)? Technically, they're near duplicates, in the sense that they have the same TITLE tags, etc., but if you're talking 2-dozen pages,  I wouldn't lose sleep over it. That scale of duplication isn't likely to cause you much trouble.

This is all within the same domain, right? If there's a pattern to how you change them, then you could write rewrite rules to cover the pattern. This is platform-specific, however - Apache is more flexible than IIS, for example.

The other option would be to create a database of the URL changes and reference that (and auto-301) every time a page is called. That's a lot trickier, though, and would take some serious coding.

If there's no clear pattern, I'm afraid it's going to take either the database or manually setting up 301-redirects. If you're doing this frequently, though, I'd strongly consider re-evaluating. Even proper 301s lose some amount of link-juice, and changing your URLs frequently can cause a lot of unintended SEO problems.

Unfortunately, the answer is a giant "It Depends". There's nothing wrong with that structure or having pages like you've suggested, but you have to offer some unique value and you have to have the link profile to back it up. If you only have a few links and then spin out 1000s of pages of eHow-like content, you're not going to rank for most of it (regardless of your URL and site structure). You may even find that most of the pages aren't indexed at all.

If the content is "thin" (mostly pulled from other sources, too heavy on ads, etc.), you could even get hit with a Panda-related penalty. So, you really have to focus on the quality at first, and on build up links and authority to support it. Ideally, it's an organic growth process, and you're not going from zero to 10,000 overnight.

That's not to say it can't work - just that it's not only about how you structure the site. It's ok for one site to cover multiple topics, if it's well organized and has authority, but it's going to be hard to build authority for 100 topics all at the same time. You might have more success picking a niche or at least building up gradually.

I haven't seen evidence they'll lose trust yet, but it's definitely worth noting. Google started out saying that, too, but then eased up, because they realized it was hard enough to implement canonical tags even close to correctly (without adding new restrictions). I agree that, in a perfect world, it shouldn't just be a Band-aid.