Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Thank you for your feedback Peter. My apologies, I made a mistake in the question description. The rel=alternate is exactly as you mentioned:
I did use Fetch and Render tool and Google renders is property. However on a side note, the URL http://www.example.com.au/4652374 301 redirects to http://www.example.com.au/page-1. Could this be as issue as I am not using the final destination URL within the android deep link?
Thank you so much in advance.
Hello Mozzers
I recently noticed that there has been an increase in crawl errors reported in Google Search console & Google has stopped indexing our app content. Could this be due to the fact that there is a mismatch between the host path name mentioned within the android deeplink (within the alternate tag) and the actual URL of the page.
For instance on the following desktop page http://www.example.com.au/page-1 the android deeplink points to http://www.example.com.au/android-app://com.example/http/www.example.com.au/4652374
Please note that the content on both pages (desktop & android) is same.Is this is a correct setup or am I doing something wrong here? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you so much in advance.
Hi Sridhar,
as Ria mentioned, there are many factors to consider. This is the official MOZ guide; https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-link-building which has plenty of great tips.
Often, we get carried away with focusing on external links when it comes to link building. There should be more focus on authority building, and this comes from many more places than just external sites.
High quality external links are certainly a large factor in ranking highly.
However, link building strategies also need variety. There are link opportunities EVERYWHERE, which are often overlooked. We wrote a blog post on this, which you can see here; http://www.inmarketingwetrust.com.au/link-building-smart-strategy-online-success/
Hope you find that useful!
I have a client with a similar issue. In the end, it will depend on how close the relation is. Google will favor websites with more focused content. From a SEO perspective you will want to split the domains. You will also save on the costs of running three domains at once. However, from a workload perspective, it will be easier to manage just the single domain compared to three different websites. This will allow you to target your audience better with multiple domains.
Good examples of both ideas can be seen in the business world.
Pepsico split all their major brands into a number of sections, and even have separate domains for some (http://www.fritolay.com), and keep most of their beverage products under the Pepsico website.
Woolworths use a subdomain for both their supermarket and for their car, home, pet, travel and life insurance. They both carry the Woolworths brand name. The two may some crossover in target audience, but the products are not directly related. Woolworths also has other divisions that do have separate domains. Dan Murphy's is owned by Woolworths Limited, but trades under its own domain.
The major influence factor will be how linked the products are under a branding perspective and how much time and effort you are willing to commit to this. Woolworths catagorises all of their 'Woolworths' brand under the one domain. Anything else gets its own separate domain. They want to focus more heavily on the SEO side because they can afford to pay people to do this. If you are a one man operation, consider how much time and money you can put into this.
Hi Karen,
For one off videos, the Youtube imbedding fuction is great. However, if you are going to have a series of videos all connected to one another, it is probably better to link to the Youtube website.
Single videos are great content for SEO, but having too many may confuse your viewers.
Paid promotion is a good starting point, but not necessary. Paid promotion only goes so far.
General advertising on a number of mediums both online and offline will get you likes too. Let people know you have a Facebook, keep it active and people will like your page.
Write a blog and include your Facebook link. On forums add a Facebook link in your signature. On paper advertisements, include the Facebook logo and a simple link to it, e.g. www.facecook.com/inmarketingwetrust
I also see you don't have your Facebook account on your Moz profile. That is also I good place to start.
Did company A share, or post a link on Company B's page? That is the main difference.
The way Facebook sets up 'sharing' posts is that it creates an entire new post with a redirect link to the original post.
If people like or comment on the shared post, Company B will gain the exposure. However, they have the option to click to the original post of Company A and like or comment on there.
Hi TJ,
While internal links do help your websites ranking, they aren't a major factor. They can be used for keywords and boosts a few website analytics such as bounce rate and total time spent on page.
Your time would be better served focusing on producing content and getting external link clicks to your website through multiple channels. This will increase your SEO and page rankings. This is most likely why your competitors are out ranking you. Not because of their internal links.
It seems to me you already have a large number of internal links under the heading 'Heliskiing Canada Operators'.
Best of luck with your SEO!
This is quite a tricky situation.
The best way to optimise your website from an SEO perspective would be to focus on your main keywords. Once you attract the people looking for the broader topic of St. Augustine, they will then look specifically at a certain location such as Tours, Food or activities through your website. I would imagine this would give you a low bounce rate comparatively.
Best of luck in your website!
I have a client with a similar issue. In the end, it will depend on how close the relation is. Google will favor websites with more focused content. From a SEO perspective you will want to split the domains. You will also save on the costs of running three domains at once. However, from a workload perspective, it will be easier to manage just the single domain compared to three different websites. This will allow you to target your audience better with multiple domains.
Good examples of both ideas can be seen in the business world.
Pepsico split all their major brands into a number of sections, and even have separate domains for some (http://www.fritolay.com), and keep most of their beverage products under the Pepsico website.
Woolworths use a subdomain for both their supermarket and for their car, home, pet, travel and life insurance. They both carry the Woolworths brand name. The two may some crossover in target audience, but the products are not directly related. Woolworths also has other divisions that do have separate domains. Dan Murphy's is owned by Woolworths Limited, but trades under its own domain.
The major influence factor will be how linked the products are under a branding perspective and how much time and effort you are willing to commit to this. Woolworths catagorises all of their 'Woolworths' brand under the one domain. Anything else gets its own separate domain. They want to focus more heavily on the SEO side because they can afford to pay people to do this. If you are a one man operation, consider how much time and money you can put into this.
I'm a freelancer to big agencies (30%)
I do consulting under my own brand (69.8%)
I work on my own sites (.2%)
Makes me look like I go by every SEO opportunities. Call me easy, but call me maybe...
Hi Avi,
Not a lot of material on this element so I can't really support my answer with public information.
About 1.5 years ago we tested this question on some of our pages. Results were not conclusive as the difference in ranking was only so small.
We tested this on popular pages (50k search a month) as well as long tail queries. We went all out with writing a crazy amount of content for those pages.
I noticed that the expanded content was a detractor to our user's activity as our CR went down with it.
Part of me thinks that hiding a significant portion of your textual content can lead to Google not taking this content into account. The other part wonder how google could effectively differentiate something that is hidden purely for aesthetic purpose and what is SEO hidden content.
I suppose the format and volume of hidden content would dictate Google's perception of your content. Looking at the recent developments in Google approach towards content, I would say text heavy pages are progressively diminishing in value. If you could swap the text with a more engaging video, you are more likely to be in a better position in the near future.
Hi there,
If you get no response from Google to merge the accounts, consider creating definitions for the two different pages.
• One Personal account for Youtube, email, Google+ (socially)
• One work account to manage her music.
As recommended below, the pre-existing account should become a work account. Particularly in the music industry as I understand how difficult this is to get a foothold in.
So separating your 6 points, 1, 4 can be used personally. 2, 3 and 5 should be used for work.
Is point #6 even required to be updated at all then? Can it just be left blank leaving less work overall?
Hope I can provide some insight and best of luck!
I'm not sure I would say that banned tactics are 'dominating', but the bad eggs generally rise to the top. You usually hear more about what people are doing wrong, than what they are doing right. Seems to be the way of the world now-days.
There are plenty of White Hat operators across all industries. Over time, you will find that the the tactics you mentioned will fade away and new ones will rise to the top only to make way for others. The true SEO companies will outlast the other tactics.
Finally, the higher the competitive nature of the industry, the more people will push the boundary to reach the top.
Best of luck with your new client!
Did company A share, or post a link on Company B's page? That is the main difference.
The way Facebook sets up 'sharing' posts is that it creates an entire new post with a redirect link to the original post.
If people like or comment on the shared post, Company B will gain the exposure. However, they have the option to click to the original post of Company A and like or comment on there.