I think it is an issue because, people browsing your site in other languages will have the wrong language title displayed in their browser tabs if they are multi-tab browsing! The title tag is still one of the important ones for SEO, nothing has really come along to replace it

A businesses' ambitions in terms of an international roll-out, are to break into new (foreign) international query-spaces and get extra traffic (especially from Google, or leading search engines in other nations like Yandex and Baidu). Google's ambitions (when adding your international pages to their index) are that their audience can break onto other areas of the web which (due to the language barrier) were previously closed to them. But they want your content to then be 'tailored' to their international audiences, traffic which Google has no obligation to send your way. Google wants good UX for their searchers, so that Google remains top-dog in the search world

The less tailored your international roll-out is, the more shallow it is (with more pieces missing), the less confident Google will be. They will be less confident that sending their users to you will result in positive search-sentiment

Every piece of the jigsaw which you are missing, counts against you. It makes your international roll-out look more like a quick Google-translate powered land-grab, and less like an authentic international roll-out

My question to you is, when you identify a bad signal - why carry on sending it to Google?

Search is a competitive environment. If there are thing you won't do, others will

No, none whatsoever. The old TLD bonus debates drew an accurate correlation but completely inaccurate causality

People thought:

1) I see lots of EDU sites

2) They rank really well

3) If I make an EDU it will rank well

... WRONG! Google aren't that stupid. Otherwise all webmasters would now be using EDU domains and all other domains would be pointless (which would be a weird internet to live on)

The truth was actually this:

1) EDU TLDs (Top-Level Domains) tend to be chosen by educational bodies or organisations

2) Such organisations are usually run by educated people and academics

3) One thing those people are good at, is creating really strong (in-depth) accurate content

4) As such many EDU sites naturally became prominent, because of Google's normal ranking rules (not some weird EDU TLD bonus scheme)

If you're looking for quick and easy answers in SEO, you're gonna have a bad time

If you had two different source codes served via user-agent (web-user vs googlebot) then you'd be more at risk of this. I can't categorically state that there is no risk in what you are doing, as Google operates multiple mathematical algorithms to determine when  'cloaked' content is being used - and guess what? Sometimes they go wrong

That being said, I don't believe your risk of garnering a penalty is particularly high with this type of thing

These are the guidelines:

• https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66355?hl=en

You're in a really gray area because, you aren't serving different URLs - but you _could _be serving different content (albeit only slightly). I say 'could' rather than 'are' as it entirely depends upon whether Google (on any particular crawl) decides to enable rendered crawling or not

If Google uses rendered crawling, and they take the content from their headless-browser page-render (which they can do, but don't always choose to as it's a more intensive crawling technique) then your content is actually the same for users and search engines. If however they just do a base-source scrape (which they also do frequently) and they take the content from the source code (which doesn't contain the visual cut-off) then you are serving different content to users and search engines

Because you've got right down into a granular area where the rules may or may not apply conditionally, I wouldn't think the risk was very high. If you ever get any problems, your main roadblock will be explaining the detail of the problem on Google's Webmaster Forums here. Support can be very hit and miss

The authority has probably decayed, I think it's more a case of starting over and rebuilding the authority - rather than waiting and hoping for the best. I know, it sucks when you have shelled out on a domain. But in my experience domain purchasing is really hit and miss. If you don't see an immediate difference, often you don't see one at all. Maybe others have different POVs though

Site speed impact is where I see this becoming a real problem, unless the setup is done correctly

404s are usually for pages that 'don't exist' so that's pretty usual. This is either:

1. somewhere on your site, links are being malformed leading to these duff pages (which may be happening invisibly, unless you look deep into the base / modified source code). Google simply hasn't picked up on the error yet

2. something is wrong with Rogerbot and he's compiling hyperlinks incorrectly, thus running off to thousands of URLs that don't exist

At this juncture it could be either one, I am sure someone from Moz will be able to help you further

Google doesn't use rel=prev/next any more: https://searchengineland.com/google-no-longer-supports-relnext-prev-314319 - so forget about it unless you think it has benefits for crawlers other than Google

I would do the redirects properly, so redirect the old paginated URLs to the same page (paginated URL) on the new site

Google usually doesn't list paginated content but it can do sometimes. A good example of this is when you type really specific queries into Google and find that Google is linking to a topic on a forum. Quite often you'll see Google linking to paginated content there. Why? Because that specific page of the topic, is the part where the thread really gets answered (or gets its best insight). Maybe some people link to that page of that thread specifically, and it becomes more popular than the first page

In those situations, Google's usual view (that first page should be canonical) gets overridden. So whilst Google 'usually' makes the first page canonical, sometimes Google can change its mind if popularity metrics suggest a different paginated URL should be canonical instead

As such, you don't need rel=prev/next (which Google doesn't even use) and you don't need to put canonical tags on paginated content pointing to the parent (which might disable Google from overriding the default canonical URL). I would properly redirect all the old paginated URLs, to all the new ones - so Google doesn't get confused

This means that Screaming Frog is not 'waiting long enough' before returning the time-out error.

Just do this:

1. https://d.pr/i/D7Cj5M.png (screenshot)
2. https://d.pr/i/N6xdLA.png (screenshot)

Raise that number up, until you don't get 0 / Time Out any more. Note that if it does fail a lot on moderate crawl settings, there are likely to be underlying page-speed issues (either that or the machine you are crawling from has bad bandwidth)

It could also be that your crawl ' frequency' is too high, go Configuration->Speed and lower the thread count (to 2-3) and the URI/s (to one or two)

Finally it might be that the SF user-agent is blocked so go Configuration->User Agent and switch it to Chrome

**To help you **- I did the crawl for you, here is your crawl data: https://d.pr/f/a1ux4b.zip (archive of crawl file and some exports)

You can actually use my crawl file as a starting point (by double clicking it) when you want to re-crawl in future. Should be useful to you

Yeah definitely don't do it the other way around. To be honest if the landing pages are orphaned, Google probably won't rank them anyway. If Google 'is' ranking them instead of the other ones, the real question is why does Google find them more useful, and what can you add from the landing pages to the organic pages - to make them better!

Hard to tell what to do without seeing specifically where this error is coming up, but it usually has something to do with font sizes being too small on mobile devices. Mobiles have much more densely packed pixels on their screens (images are sharper, the pixels are smaller and more numerous). This means that 12 pixels (font-size) on desktop can look like 5 or 6 pixels on mobile devices (or even smaller)

This is why, with responsive design, many people don't specify a pixel-based font-size. They'll make the font size relative (rather than absolute) somehow, be that by calculating pixel width against screen width as some percentage, or by working with newer font-sizing specifications (there are many, and many ways to use them). It's all about inflating font-sizes on devices with more densely packed pixel screens, so that the fonts don't come out looking minuscule

Sometimes you can get errors where, even though the site's design is responsive, as someone was writing text in the CMS text editor - it appended styling info including the px font-size, which is then inlined (overruling all your perfectly thought out font-sizing CSS rules)

If it's not mobile related at all, it's likely that the font is just generally too small

I guess the main thing to do, if you are concentrating on giving gambling reviews - would be to focus around the terms that people are searching for right now.

It might not be bad to try for "도박" which transaltes to "gambling", which has (according to Google's keyword planner) - 3,600 average monthly Korean language searches in South Korea

If you want to be more ethical there's keywords like "도박 중독 치료 (260 avg. searches / month, S.Korea)" which is "Gambling Addiction Treatment". If you are reviewing online gambling sites, maybe giving some links and resources to help people suffering from addiction could also be helpful. Reviews are one type of 'advice', so really this is just an expansion of what you are already doing (though it may come with some legal entanglements)

This one is interesting: "단 도박". (480 avg. searches / month, S.Korea). It translates to "sweet gambling". But what does 'sweet' mean? Is it just that people think it's 'pretty sweet', or instead is it a special type of Korean gambling using sweets (confectionery)? Tailoring your content to your market and audience, is incredibly important

Tread carefully. There are lots of keywords like this one "도박 사이트 처벌"  (10 avg. searches / month, S.Korea) - translating to "punishment of gambling sites". There are lots of queries asking about 'cases' (legal assumed) of gambling addiction and gambling punishment. Although the web is free in South Korea, maybe laws on gambling are in fact stricter (needs more research)

Indeed, this keyword "도박 마" - translates to "do not gamble" (1,600 avg. searches / month, S.Korea). This is interesting, is it some kind of cryptic warning? Who knows

This keyword "합법 도박 사이트" translates to "legal gambling site" (140 avg. searches / month, S.Korea) - hinting that not all online gambling, even in South Korea, is legal

I found this which is a very interesting read: https://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2017/02/koreas-gambling-law.html - mind how you proceed. Very murky waters

Highly doubt that would be a reason to 'lose of lot of SEO ground'. If those URLs were 404-ing before, you had breadcrumb links to 404s and that's worse than breadcrumb links to 301s

The bigger problem was, you lost your category pages which got set to not visible. And by the way, even when you change them back to 'visible', if the 301 is still in effect - users and search engines still won't be able to access your category URLs (as they will be redirected instead!)

If the category pages have been restored and you're still redirecting them, yes that is a big problem. But it's not because you used a 301 in a link, it's because you took away your category URLs. That very well could impact performance (IMO)

Unfortunately there are too many variables to analyse this much further. It could be a legal thing where in South Korea, gambling is allowed but only certain South Korean institutions have permission. If you're not one of those suppliers, it may be illegal for people even from South Korea to use your site, which may give them leverage to remove your search results (to stop their citizens from engaging in illegal gambling)

Gambling is allowed there, but it's very tightly regulated. So could it be a law reason you get removed, not a Google reason?

Usually that depends upon the significance of the edit and how much Google trusts the query-space (or whether it is a YMYL query-space). A lot of people say that gambling sites are YMYL sites

The real question is, do the rankings get removed and then come back again later? Or do they get removed and just stay gone period?