Hi Nils,

If you aren't producing translated content, but are just going to put some posts out in English, I do not believe you will see a problem. You could consider putting the English content into a subfolder like /en/ and including a header such as http-equiv="Content-Language" content="en"> in the head. You could also target that subfolder to an English speaking country in Webmaster Tools, but you can't pick more than one country, so that doesn't seem the right option here (i.e. you'd have to choose the UK, US, or another place, and if you're trying to get visitors from all over the world, that could hinder your rankings in all locations bar the country you choose).

If your entire website is geo-targeted to Sweden, either by a .se domain name or geo-targeting in WMT already, you might have a harder time ranking in foreign countries as Google has been told that the entirety of the site is for the Swedish market. However, on a generic TLD like .com, you should be able to pick up a good amount of search traffic from other markets with English content.

EGOL and Samuel raise some very good points here. I feel like you're also somewhat at risk of looking like you're trying to deceive the audience if you're deliberately divorcing the community from the brand site and image, but using it to drive the community to commercial action. I am not sure how subtle they are planning on making that connection, but subtlety in that manner rarely works: it's a lot more "honest" and appreciated to cultivate a community and openly market a product, as Moz has done.

Using the Moz example, this site did not start out as a tool / analytics provider, so the community actually came first. When I was a full time employee, we were largely an SEO consultancy. The blog was a labour of love as far as Rand and the staff were concerned. In 2007 when we first introduced Premium (now Pro) accounts, we clearly used the community (which was pretty substantial, even back then) to market the service. To all but a very few negative folks, this went down fine.

If Rand had started a separate company and website hosting and selling SEO tools and subscriptions, and had dropped hints and posts every now and again here to promote it, it would not have been met with nearly as much favour.

The SEO points about two sites being twice as hard to maintain, market and rank than one also apply, but I would question whether a smaller brand can build a totally separate community that is a) big enough, and b) independent enough not to annoy users if they figure out the commercial intent behind it. If there's one thing that's slightly worse than no community, it's an empty one.

Hi Louise,

If you can ID the parameters, you can also look at blocking these in Webmaster Tools. This page explains more. As with any blocking of URLs, of course, proceed with caution.

As others have said above, combating scrapers is a big reason, but you're relying on lazy scrapers not removing the tags.

Another reason is to prevent rogue content management systems from attaching unnecessary query strings to URLs, creating pages that can end up loading infinite times under different URLs. A canonical tag in the source file would mean that any number of duplicate pages point back to the original. The same reason goes for sites that have issues with redirecting www / non-www URLs to the correct version, or who deal with the same problem regarding secure / insecure URLs. In all these cases, the canonical tag is a bandaid, not a cure - it would be better to fix the underlying problem of the rogue CMS, incorrect redirection, etc. but the canonical tag (self-referencing) is there if you need it.

Google doesn't seem to have an issue with it, but if you're at all concerned about the other engines, use with care.

Honestly, doing site-wide redirects can be very simple if done correctly in .htaccess, avoiding anyone (bot or browser) encountering 404s. Redirecting properly avoids a 404 bloat in Webmaster Tools, allowing the webmaster to identify "real" 404s and fix them as well. I'd go with redirecting anything you plan to move.

Hi Matt,

If you 301 one URL to another, the majority of the metrics previously afforded to the old URL will be transferred to the new URL. Various evidence, some of it quite anecdotal, says that not all the authority passes from the old to the new, but it's certainly the best option you have if you want to change URLs.

If you are moving to a new domain, you can write a rule in your .htaccess file (if using an Apache server) or in your control panel (if using an IIS server) that transfers every URL to its new location. Even if URLs have no external links, this will simply direct any traffic to the old URLs to their new locations.

Hi Stephen,

Great that you've probably found the cause - this will absolutely cause mass de-indexation. I had a client a year ago canonicalise their entire site (two sites, actually) to the home page. All their rankings and indexed pages dropped off over a matter of about six days (we spotted the tag immediately but the fix went into a "queue" - ugh!).

The bad news is that it took them a long time to get properly re-indexed and regain their rankings (I am talking months, not weeks). Having said this, the sites were nearly brand new - they had very few backlinks and were both less than six months old. I do not believe that an older site would have had as much problem regaining rankings, but I can't be sure and I have only seen that situation take place first-hand once.

How are the indexed numbers looking in WMT today? I see 3,370 results for a site: search on the domain, but those can be iffy in terms of up to date accuracy: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Agoautohub.com&oq=site%3Agoautohub.com&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i58.798j0j4&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=119&ie=UTF-8

Not that this should matter too much if you are submitting a sitemap through WMT but your robots.txt file specifies sitemap.xml. There is a duplciate sitemap on that URL (http://goautohub.com/sitemap.xml) - are you using sitemap.php, which you mention here, in WMT? .php can be used for sitemaps, but I would update the robots.txt file to reflect the correct URL - http://i.imgur.com/uSB1P1g.png, whichever is meant to be right. I am not aware of problems with having duplicate sitemaps, as long as they are identical, but I'd use just one if it were me.

It really depends on what you define as blackhat. On-page trickery (cloaking, redirects for search engines bots, etc.) can be discovered by browsing as a search bot, digging into code, viewing caches, etc. Danny Sullivan and Rand uncovered a large amount of cloaked (and stolen) content on stage at SMX Sydney a few years ago. It was quite entertaining at the time

Some people are basic enough to use tactics like hidden, white-on-white text, as Martijn says. I'm yet to see that tactic actually working post-2004 though

If it's links they're using, the easiest way is to use a tool like Open Site Explorer, Ahrefs or similar to check the links out. Sneaky people can block the OSE / Ahrefs / MajesticSEO bots from crawling the sources of their backhat links if they have access to the linking sites. You can block the bots either in robots.txt or by rejecting the visits to stop the bots from noting that the links exist. That way, the backlink analysis tools will never see that blackhatsite.com links to rankingsite.com, and so forth. It takes a big network that the spammer controls to block link research tools' bots' access to every link you build, however, so this isn't too common.

Whether all big brands / well ranked sites are using blackhat tactics pretty much depends on your definition of blackhat, but it's certainly true that it is very hard if not impossible to rank top 3 for competitive terms (car insurance, poker, credit cards) without parting with money that results in links being built. This doesn't mean that they're all buying links, but they're definitely investing in marketing that results in links, and the whitest of the whitehats will say that this is technically not organic, natural link development. It is, however, what we do - marketing.

Hi Stephen,

Checking in to see if you had checked the points William has raised above. Do you see anything that could have resulted in the drop? Also, are you comfortable sharing the site here? We might be able to have a look too (feel free to PM if you are not comfortable sharing publicly).

Cheers,

Jane

Hi Rohit,

Just to follow up and add to what others have said: if you built links from third-party websites, pointing to your site, Google should crawl the third-party websites and see the links pointing to you within 15 days. If Google is not crawling the site more regularly than once every 15 days, the websites are probably lower in quality and not great sources of backlinks to begin with.

If you are using Moz / Ahrefs, etc. are slower in crawling and indexing than Google. Moz often updates once every 30 days, so could pick up these news links in its next crawl. Ahrefs tends to be slightly faster, but is still not instantaneous in picking up new links.

Hi Adam,

Not to point out something that is likely well taken-care of, but did the GA / Analytics code populate across the site?

Also, is there any heavy JavaScript on the site, especially above analytics code, that might prevent analytics code from loading properly. We had this happen with a client a few years ago. We built custom analytics for this client (they did not want to run GA). Client placed our code in the footer. Client placed slow-loading CRO code in the header. CRO code took so long to load that people had often clicked away from the page they landed on before our code had had a chance to record their visit, as JavaScript generally loads in the same order as it's placed on the page. We had them move our little piece of code up to the top of the page. Problem was solved (in the mean time, we were recording a 20,000 visit loss each week!).

I'm just wondering if this is a tracking issue since all search traffic, not just Google has been affected. It would be quite rare to find an issue that has the same effect at the same time to both Bing and Google's algos. They're similar, but they're not identical and Bing generally tends to take longer to respond to change than Google as well.

Any chance you have raw server logs to compare analytics stats to?

As someone who used to work at a company on the Recommended list (and who was in charge of the Contact form) - we did get leads. They were about 80% appropriate for the business model, although a lot were too small or wanting short-term projects (my agency generally took on corporate-level accounts for long periods of time). I would say that this sort of linking is different to just linking to clients, e.g. if we then went on to link to an insurance company that came to us through a Moz Recommended referral. But if your SEO company partners with a PPC agency or design firm, provides some services to the other and sends out a relevant link, that seems a little more relevant.

On the other hand, I hate these discussions about what we're "allowed" to link to

I hope not, for your sake! 13 hours later - do you see any new downturn?

"But if they are already in the html, would that be considered cloaking?"

There are times when presenting something in HTML that is otherwise not visible, but having other features on the page that allow people to read / click / access that content in other ways, is fine. Linking is a tricky because links are so inherently valuable in terms of SEO. You don't can't really be too careful.

I'd be wary of presenting links (a subset or full set) in HTML if there is a form process to actually arrive at the links' targets. Essentially you'll be linking to products X, Y and Z on a page, for search engines but requiring a specific input from a user to see X, Y or Z - an input that only very few overall visitors are actually likely to make. I would say this qualifies as showing different content for SEO's sake and not providing a UX alternative that is pretty much the same thing. Others may disagree with me on that - I'm being wary here

I would very much like to see the HTML if you are still active in this thread when it is produced, but you may be left with a situation where the pages need to be linked to elsewhere throughout the site to ensure they are crawled.