Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Thank you, Robin!
I agree that there's a danger of splitting authority with the solution I've proposed and either of the alternatives would be stronger. The issue here is that I've got PDFs with 80+ pages of content, so making that into a HTML page would be it's own can of worms.
I'm thinking of doing one or a couple as an experiment and seeing the results before putting effort/taking on the risk of doing a whole bunch.
Looking at some reports, I found that a client's site has PDFs that are ranking well for niche terms and getting some traffic.
What can I do to get more out of them from a marketing standpoint?
The obvious issue is that a PDF doesn't have the interactivity of a site visit, where we have analytics and CTAs. Someone has to follow a link back from the PDF to the site for us to even register a visit, let alone try to get their email or have them otherwise convert.
My first guess is to make landing page summaries of the PDF content that link to the PDF, and canonical the PDF to the respective landing page.
Has anyone tried this, or done something else that they would recommend again in this situation?
Hi All,
My client grabbed a Matterport camera and I'm trying to get the most out of the embedded models from an SEO standpoint.
Other than slapping alt text on iframes, the only thing I turned up was a wordpress plugin that appears to point links you share of the embed (not just the page it is on) back to your own website instead of matterport's.
Any thoughts appreciated.
The only danger is if you disavow the wrong links. As long as you are careful not to include legitimate links in with the bad ones in the disavow file you should be fine.
Best practices involve doing a link audit and sorting things out, then contacting webmasters about taking down the links, then running the disavow. Given the apparent clarity that this was an external negative SEO campaign I would consider skipping the second step and including a comment regarding your theory on the origination of the links in the disavow file... but I've never tried that. I've only been in situations where the disavow was based on misguided previous seo efforts, so we went through the removal step.
Hopefully someone else can jump in on that.
Assumed: The material around good migration/redesign practices recommend, logically enough, to change as few things as possible in any given step, thus giving search engines as little trouble as possible identifying and reindexing changes. So if someone is doing significant changes to content, including uri changes, and a rebranding that requires a domain migration, they are generally better off doing one, than the other.
1) Beyond immediate testing and checking for correct crawl health being reestablished after one change, any thoughts on rules of thumb for when to do the second change? Do you do it as soon as you see your rankings/traffic turn the corner and confirm an upward trend after the drop, or wait till you have it all back (or at least hit a plateau)? In the absence of data or best practice I'm thinking of just letting 1/3rd to 2/3rds come back.
The only danger is if you disavow the wrong links. As long as you are careful not to include legitimate links in with the bad ones in the disavow file you should be fine.
Best practices involve doing a link audit and sorting things out, then contacting webmasters about taking down the links, then running the disavow. Given the apparent clarity that this was an external negative SEO campaign I would consider skipping the second step and including a comment regarding your theory on the origination of the links in the disavow file... but I've never tried that. I've only been in situations where the disavow was based on misguided previous seo efforts, so we went through the removal step.
Hopefully someone else can jump in on that.