Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Sorry for the long delay I have been away on vacation.

Your response is very valid and indeed in our generated string we do also include product titles,  however since changing the order of the aspx attributes our sales have taken off. An issue we have is that we have many products which have very slight variations in name and come up against the the URL too long issue to give real keyword rich titles.  We choose to use the attributes to make sure that pages are visited by google on feeds to them, but then generate the title on the fly when the page is rendered.  This keeps the url nice and short for Google to locate but allows the spider to see the title in the url. The issue remains that Google are not spidering the all of the attributes but using just the first they come across even if it gives rise to duplicate feeds.  You would think that they would index using a sample with all attributes and then with individual attributes to make sure they gain the most content rich and valid results.

We will now run a test to see if truncating the titles improves indexing or shows little or no improvement. I would like to think that this is fairly minor as long as the keywords are close to the start of the title string and hence if Google truncates for result display purposes users will still gain a rich experience.

We have a page on our site https://www.spurshelving.co.uk/shop/bigimage.aspx?m=353&i=3436 which enders happily on all browsers as far as I am aware and is reasonably well optimised.

So when google sent me a link to a new test tool I just had to check it out.

https://testmysite.withgoogle.com/intl/en-gb/?utm_source=awareness&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=tmsv1awareness&utm_content=header

Well the result was shocking...... The page that renders in the results is a default missing product page and not the  page that the link renders on a web page.  I played a little  and simply used the I=3436 attribute and the page appeared no problem  I then reversed the attributes so that they were i=3436&m=353 and the page again resolved totally as expected.  This indicates to me that Google have an issue with aspx attributes. Now I know what to do but is this same issue an issue in spidering and indexing pages.  If is is wow that is a big smack in the face.  Does it also harm search results in other engines.

Keen for comments here

Thanks this is great. I had seen this in my quest for information but I would still like examples of sites where json ld has been implement well.  I am trying to get things right first time with all the bells a few whistles and may be a trumpet as well.  It strikes me you can pretty clever in the way this is implemented and articles do not really give the same insight as well crafted in page code.

Hi all

I am looking for some really good clear examples of sites that have excellent JSON LD markup.  Not just the basics but packed to the teeth with markup for every element.  I am particularly interested in e-commerce applications as I am re skinning our e-commerce platform written from scratch in house. It is far from perfect, not mobile friendly and well a bit backward but links into everything we have in a seamless way all the way to our manufacturing plant.  Take a look have a little laugh and then take pity

https://www.spurshelving.co.uk/shop/shop.aspx

Thanks

Pete

The links are all pretty historic so there is no direct relationship and but we do not have a record of what the links were for this site.

Peter

Hi Domain Authority has plumeted and sessions that were running 20% up year on year are now down 50% year on year. There will be other factors but this is indicative.

I have seen reports of Black hat spamming with dodgy links but we have another issue with a clients site.  The site had a small number of solid following links about 60 which had been in place for years and in the past few weeks all but those directly under their control have ceased to link.  At the same time a very aggressive competitor has entered their market which is owned by the officers of an SEO company.  Could it be that they have somehow disavowed the links to the site to damage it how do we find out? there are now just 10 following links?

Thank you Patrick

that was a great and very thorough response.  I have worked through the page improving links and key word popularity this has caused three of our pegs to move overnight to take P1,2 & 3.

the major corporation we are battling do not have the key word we are promoting in their page.  It is a registered trademark so we assume they are promoting off page and feeding links.  How can we search for links to their page to understand what they are upto?  Any ideas welcome.

Thanks

peter

Hi

I am trying to understand why a page list in position 1 on Google despite the fact it does not include the search terms anywhere in the page source.  One of our sites has been in that position for years has great content and links for the key word terms so how can the other page overtake it and all of the other keywords without so much as a sniff of the keyword in the URL, Meta, content or images. It grades F on Moz!

How can I discover the technique that has been used.  This really is black art stuff or do Google accept payment from major corporations to list their pages irrespective of content?

Thank you and yes we are doing that. We have requested a list of Google Proxies as many of the clicks come through them We are also looking for IP addresses that resolve to proxy servers. This is a manual task and the cost involved is reducing ROI.

Sent real letters to customers last week for the first time in years. Fantastic response!!

We are having high levels of activity on one site from Ip addresses that resolve to be legitimate search engine bots. But, the cookie from our site is identifying an individual user.  Is this a real person verifying our site or a click fraud that is well disguised. Some of the clicks generate gclid strings but never any sales.

We have done similar in the past but rather than repeating the URL you could use /turtle-to-buy which is similar and as Google is now using similar terms that may be more positive in the long term.  We see great success by mixing it a bit with associated terms.

Thanks

I am pleased I do not have to go through the whole site again and even more pleased as I have a number of other sites to work on.These could certainly do with a bit of a boost and this is a quick win.

Hi thanks for the response

The issue is we have one set of pages on a server which is addressed through several different url's.

I never got involved in the server side of things so I do not know if that was by redirects at the route URL.  Just maybe I am trying to add canonical links that just are not required.

If I have www.a.co.uk/index.html, www.a.com/index.html, www.b.co.uk/index.html and want them all to point to www.b.co.uk/index.html. As index.html is on the server once then my thought was that I should have a canonical link to that page from within that page with the www.b.co.uk/index.html as the route.  This may be right or wrong but there is the risk that a spider stops when it gets to the link and goes to the start of the same page, again and again in a loop.

You are of course right that the Google bot should be OK with this but the Moz bot stopped in its tracks and asked if I wanted the page indexed so I had to do this manually.

Gut feel says I should remove the links for now but need to understand what we did server side. Gut feel maybe wrong and I would prefer to do the right thing!

We have a site www.mezfloor.com which has a number of Url's pointing at one site.  As the url's have been in use for many years there are links from many sources include good old fashioned hard copy advertising.  We have now decided that it would be better to try to start porting all sources to the .co.uk version and get that listing as the prime/master site.

A couple of days ago I went through and used canonical tags on all the pages thinking that would set the priority and that would also strengthen the page in terms of trust due to the reduced duplication.  However when I went to scan the site in MOZ the warning that the page redirects came up and I am beginning to think that I need to remove all these canonical tags so that search engines do not get into a confused spiral where we loose the little page rank we have.

Is there a way that I can redirect everything except the target URL without setting up a separate master site just for all the other pages to point at.

I am enjoying every second.  Some would call me sad!!

Thanks, well maybe the fact that we have two different styles on the page one generated and one in the template should be addressed one with id= and one without.

Of course you are right on Title  but we do have

It's a good ten years since I coded anything and I am just getting into the nitty gritty of things to get our site performing as it should.  It won't take long before I am flying again!

There are three questions here.

1/ Does it matter in which order you list the meta tags.? Title , Description etc.

2/ Should these be bang at the top of the head section or is it irrelevant as long as they are there?

Finally our generated site is written so that the output is in the following form:-

Would it be better to suppress the id= tag or move it to the end.

I have gut feel that this is detremental when it comes to some search engines but have not done any analysis.