Hi Joseph

It's usually totally fine to leave your company name in there by default. Then if a particular page title is too long, you can edit the title tag on an individual page basis and create a title without the business name.

You can do a "site:" search directly in Google like this and I currently see this --> http://screencast.com/t/ZVqq5iumQ - you can probably do a site: search on the whole domain, a subfolder or a specific page etc.

Thanks! OK, yes I'd make your Sitemap and HTML image URLs the same.

Also, that's a LOT of images, so I'm not surprised Google is taking time to index them.

Also, there can sometimes be a delay in Search Console data. You can always be checking Google itself to see what files are indexed.

Thanks! Hmmm did it clear Search Console without any errors? I see an error in my browser --> http://screencast.com/t/VLWhg8EyR3Dd

Is this your current sitemap?

http://www.parismatch.com/var/exports/sitemaps/sitemap_parismatch-index.xml

What is the direct address of the image sitemap(s)?

Thanks!

I see, thanks. Hmmm... did anything else change besides the re-design? Did the images URLs change, or did where they were being hosted change?

The current implementation doesn't show any issues, but I wonder if things were properly done in moving to the new design. Did you always have a slideshow format? Did the code change or just the design?

Hi There

There does not appear to be any accessibility issues. I can crawl and access the images just fine with my crawler.

My guess is that since the images are duplicate, and they also exist on other websites, Google may be avoiding indexing them since they already are indexed and they are technically not being linked to with a normal tag.

Is this causing a particular issue for the site? Or is it just a pesky technical bug?

Hey There

I just did a reverse image search on two of your images and they are present in Google Image search

• http://screencast.com/t/QWKhqQfIH0Z8 - this one is indexed.
• This one is indexed and both versions are from Eyeem

But one issue, is that when I click 'view image' (what normally would open the image file in a new tab - instead it triggers a download box for me --> http://screencast.com/t/7LyLRRJ4CTb6 - perhaps this is because you are preventing people from doing so and just copying the images for free. But I was actually able to download the image for free straight from Google (the download worked).

Which leads me to another question... if the images are not free, maybe it makes sense to not index them? Or maybe index a watermarked version or small thumbnail?

Hi Jenny

Yes you can redirect to URLs with anchor tags, but to Gaston's point - now that you have everything on one page, they may not rank as well as before. It does depend a little on how much overlap there was across the different products to begin with. The new page might rank well for a little while, but as Google starts to take the new consolidated page into account, you may lose ranking. The root fix would be to maintain separate pages like before, it that's possible.

Hey Andy

To answer your questions:

1. So if you're 301'ing the page, it's not really a 404 page, it's a 301 So yes, you can remove the 301 redirect, making it a true 404 page (check that it returns a 404 code using fetch as google or a tool like urivalet.com).

2. If they are in the sitemap, this won't prevent Google from removing them from the index, but it will throw an error. And not that many people care about Bing, but Bing is apparently super picky about having XML sitemaps perfect.

So yes I would just 404 them without the redirects.

Hi - right, then if the URL changes for the user, you'll want to probably use the PushState method (linked above) to convey this to Google. They likely can't see the URL change by default.

You can check by trying to crawl the site with Screaming Frog SEO Spider with the user agent set to Googlebot. Then go to "outlinks" for the page with the facet links, and see if they are listed.

Hope that helps some more! Let me know if you need further direction.

-Dan

Hi - right, I should have answered your specific situation too

When the user selects a facet - does this change the URL too? Meaning, it's supposed to be a totally different page?

Google recently updated how they prefer AJAX is handled:

https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2015/10/deprecating-our-ajax-crawling-scheme.html

They now recommend using the PushState Method - I won't pretend to know all the intricacies of how it works for implementation, but that's the best method to go with. If you need any more help let us know, and I'll have another associate jump in and take a look.

-Dan

Laurie

It should be clarified that Moz's Domain Authority, while a really solid metric, is not the metric Google has or uses. And domain authority can have a few artificial quirks. So I would not be alarmed at all.

That said - can you explain where you are seeing the two different number? I see a Page Authority of 39 for both http and https - and I see a domain authority of 27 for both http and https.

Now, even IF Moz has two different numbers for http and https, again, this is not what Google is doing, it's just an approximation.

Setting a canonical from https to http is just a band-aid and I would not recommend that approach. I would recommend having a site-wide 301 redirect so if a user lands on the https version of a URL it redirects them to the same version of that page on http. Or vice vera, whichever version you are prioritizing.

I have to respectfully disagree with Dmytro and Robert - as mentioned, Moz's metrics are not Google metrics - and the best action here is always to prioritize http or https with redirects.

Hi Joshua

I don't think this will cause a search engine conflict, but I'll pass this to a Moz product person to see if they can answer re: Moz On-Page Grader

-Dan (Moz Associate)

Hi Ria

99.9% certain Google 'sees' all of those as the same in terms of character/word separation. I don't think OptionA/OptionB etc will be seen all as one keyword.

However Patrick has the right idea - to question if you really need one page or if things can be broken into separate pages.

I'd also optimize for readability and clicks too

-Dan