Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Is it possible to have too much content? If so, how do we prove (or at least get evidence) one way or the other to whether we are being adversely affected in the SERPs? The only way we could think of is to publish a lot less for a week or two, but nobody is willing to risk it. Numbers wise we are publishing an average of 125 articles a day, with an archive of around 300k fwiw thanks 🙂

The attached graph is from google analytics, a correlation of about 14 months of Organic Google visits with algo changes, data from moz naturally 🙂 Is there any way to tell from this which will have affected the site? for example #1 or #2 seems to be responsible for the first dip, but #4 seems to fix it and it broke around 6, or is the rise between 4 and 7 an anomaly and actually 1 or 2 caused a slip from when it was released all the way to when 7 was released. Sorry if the graph is a little cloak and dagger, that is partly because we don't have permissions to reveal much about the identity, and partly because we were trying to do a kind of double blind, separating the data from our biases 🙂 We can say though the different between the level at the start and end of the graph is at least 10,000 visits per day JarMzoK.png

I am looking for some proof, or at least evidence to whether or not sites are being hurt by duplicate content. The situation is, that there were 4 content rich newspaper/magazine style sites that were basically just reskins of each other. [ a tactic used under a previous regime 😉 ]  The least busy of the sites has since been discontinued & 301d to one of the others, but the traffic was so low on the discontinued site as to be lost in noise, so it is unclear if that was any benefit. Now for the last ~2 years all the sites have had unique content going up, but there are still the archives of articles that are on all 3 remaining sites, now I would like to know whether to redirect, remove or rewrite the content, but it is a big decision - the number of duplicate articles? 263,114 ! Is there a chance this is hurting one or more of the sites? Is there anyway to prove it, short of actually doing the work?

Google's mod_pagespeed has a lazy image loading facility which is great, but it uses meta refresh to auto disable itself for people without javascript and the moz crawler says it is not good for seo, but we are not using them for that, example code <noscript><meta HTTP-EQUIV="refresh" content="0;url='http://www.example.com/?ModPagespeed=noscript'" /><style><!--table,div,span,font,p{display:none} --></style><div style="display:block">Please click <a href="http://www.example.com/?ModPagespeed=noscript">here</a> if you are not redirected within a few seconds.</div></noscript> Will this cause SEO problems? If not then is there anyway to filter the warnings out of moz, it finds this issue with every page

Are there any  specific tips to how to gain traffic from very short lived search terms? If the site you are SEO/SEMing want to go for search related to things like the latest celebrity breakup, or a fashion event that lasts less than a week The onsite stuff seems pretty good as SEO onsite tools generally give it an A grade Is it just a case of doing the same stuff as normal, but faster? 😉

The SEO Moz crawler has found a number of 500 error pages, and 404s etc which is very useful 🙂 however some of the urls are weird/broken formats we don't recognise and nobody remembers ever using - not weird enough to imply hacking, but something broken in the CMS Is there anyway to find out where the crawler found these urls? I can patch up and redirect the end result as best I can but I would prefer to fix plug the leak thanks 🙂

Great news, yesterday we had a nice big spike of referrals from facebook, GA shows them all going to a certain article (an online magazine type site), but only shows them as coming from /l.php (Report: Traffic sources->referrals->facebook.com - secondary dimension landing page) Nobody in the office did anything with facebook and that article, so it must be a visitor; any ideas how we can find out any more details about who or why? It would be great to be able to reproduce as in the 4th April saw more FB traffic to us than March!