Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I would agree more with Cody, Readability and User Experience should be the #1 focus - Focusing on using a term a certain amount of times is moot and you begin writing for the keyword as opposed to the content or reader.

If you are an expert in the field and writing an Article about New Orleans, then inherently the term will be there naturally and organically. And no matter the density with the algo updates going the way they are, I personally think that intent will weigh MUCH heavier than any kind of previous "density" rules.

i would also go with option one for both long term and short term benefits -

Be careful about doing a "Lazy" redirect as seen below, as this can have disastrous user experience implications.

Options +FollowSymLinks
RewriteEngine on
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.new-domain.com/$1 [R=301,L]

For every page that is in Google do a one to one 301 - if the page has no user experience or search implications you can just let it drop. In my opinion

Also make sure all these new pages consist of High Quality Unique Content

1. I had never heard of Onlywire, but seems like the free service PingFM (now seemic) -- As to using it, I would highly suggest against it, as blast messages across Social Networks kind of defeats the purpose of social networks in my opinion.

2. Social "Juice" does not come from the links themselves it comes from the interaction after, so once again I am not sure you will "reap" the benefits with this mentality about social

3. Don't post the same stuff, if you have genuine interesting content every network has its own methodology for "success" so a blast defeats this so you might as well just concentrate on the Big 3 In my opinion (FB Twitter and G+ with Pinterest and LinkedIN being conditionals based on niche)

Hope this helps

Not a plain txt checker, but Xenu or Sreaming Frog, can do this and spit out a customizable report (Xenu is free, but Screaming Frog is more feature rich)

Hope this helps

Ehhh depends on what you are looking at them for

As competition analysis of others in your niche it can give you some insight into them and the landscape of your path ahead (as well as used in conjunction with other general cyber forensics tactics)

If using for link evaluation, if it is a PR 0 then it MIGHT be a bad sign (but also might mean nothing), but I truthfully am not sure how correct of a statement that is these days.

If using Alexa as a basis for an analysis of a possible exposure/traffic link, then it is in conjunction with other traffic tools a way to estimate the traffic/exposure your link might see.

But as an overall part of a big picture strategy I think they are useless, but still have their small role to play in conjunction with hundreds of other data points and tools.

Shane

"Minimum guaranteed number of media websites on which your release is posted" alarm bells!"

Not necessarily an "Alarm Bell" on its own, as that really is all syndication is technically -

BUT what this probably means is a HUGE group of websites that just dynamically place any niche relevant content on the sites of that niche. It is most usually all no follow, so penalties would not be felt - but results might not be felt as well. (Unless it is real news and you are just trying to gain exposure and traffic)

I am not the biggest fan of online press releases so I am probably jaded, but from an SEO standpoint it is not necessarily an alarm bell for something bad. It just means your content will be automatically accepted on the distribution partner sites (as long as it passes quality checks for most reputable release agencies)

Shane

The Metrics you see in SEOMOZ (and really any other SEO Tool suite) is just a combination of a few of the variables within the Google Algortithm

It is attempting to emulate the algorithm, but with thousands of less data points.

So to say that just because you have a better "Score" that you will rank higher for every term is impossible to say based off of SEOMOZ data.

Possible Reasons -

Better on page SEO for given keyword

Better Author rank/Trust in Keyword Niche

You could have a penalty for that keyword or phrase

The list could go on and on, but the best thing in my opinion is to not concentrate on how your opponent is beating you, but concentrate on creating more genuine user interest/buzz around your site/product/service

Shane

If PRWEB is still worth using, is a pretty loaded question and answer in my opinion - The advice I would give specifically to the links, is to use naked, or brand name URLS -

"and it is actually news worthy compared to a lot of things on PR web."

This statement alone, (which I agree with, and reason I stopped Press Releases as an "SEO" tactic many moons ago) would be my answer to whether it is still a VIABLE option, but once again it is a loaded question and answer.

Shane

Hi,

I understand that "Compare Travel" is your brand, but I would think, that would be at least a moderately competitive keyword, so just existing would not dictate a high position. (until you establish yourself as the "brand" compare travel - which is tough, cause compare travel to what and how?

I also, am not sure that "Compare Travel" would be interpreted as a brand signal, right off the bat either.

Cheap Holidays | Holidays Ireland | Compare Travel | Comparison Site

This just seems like a list of keywords, with your "Brand" thrown in (you even have a similar keyword to "Compare Travel" in your title, not helping your Brand Distinction (in my opinion)

Shane

Please take what I say below with a grain of salt, as I am very good with .htaccess, but not so great when Frontpage is in the loop. Also back up ALL files before making ANY changes for quick replace if creates a "Internal Server Error"

_vti_bin/
_vti_adm
_vti_auth

Should be in your structure, each with an .htaccess

add the line

Options +FollowSymlinks

to each one

Now the just add everything streamline metrics has suggested, to the current .htaccess and test

You can try adding what streamline metrics suggests, without the above steps, as .htaccess is not dependent on Frontpage, and the Frontpage extensions have nothing to do with .htaccess (from research i found on the web)

http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com/

Now resolves correctly (it appears)

HTTP/1.1 200 OK => Date => Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:48:30 GMT Server => Apache Last-Modified => Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:25:14 GMT ETag => "2df65ea6-2f72-4cb2aebef67b8" Accept-Ranges => bytes Content-Length => 12146 Connection => close Content-Type => text/html

Sorry I can't be much more help, but without being in your server I am only guessing as how to fix your exact issue -

But http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com/

is still 302 redirecting to http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com/xampp/

HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily => Date => Wed, 03 Oct 2012 16:51:47 GMT Server => Apache X-Powered-By => PHP/5.3.17 Location => http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com/xampp/ Content-Length => 0 Connection => close Content-Type => text/html

I am almost 100% sure your issue is either in vhost or .htaccess

There is a chance, if you use Cpanel, that a domain pointer was used to point to this now deleted sub-directory - but again I do not know your setup

should I still avoid an anchor text link from the first paragraph of this page: http://www.tutorialchip.com/inspiration/20-most-famous-round-corner-business-cards-designs/

For this page, specifically yes - The page is almost a year old, so adding an anchor text link to this specific page, without a major content revision would provide almost nothing in my opinion (from SEO perspective)

If you are paying to have your product on there like the others, then this would need to be No-followed per Webmaster guidelines (if no indexed no SEO benefit would really be seen if left indexed  you run the "risk" of violating Google Guidelines

Would a few links from blog networks be harmful if we had a lot more "white hat" links to offset them?

Depends completely on you link portfolio, as even "white hat" these days is sometimes "Grey Hat" so one more link could be all it takes to push you over the edge, of course I am only playing devils advocate, but when giving advice I try not to give risky advice.

Specifically for the link given above -

I would not....

There appears to be 2 options

1. Impression based ad service (which is cool, if you think you will see ROI from the people who would be on this site, but I have no idea what you are promoting/selling)

2. Linkroll or "Friends"  which again, if you think you will see ROI from being in a 20+ list of varying services... Sure go for it.

But from an SEO perspective, a cautious approach would be NO - On the other hand, if you are a risk taker ----- who knows what Google does or does not penalize these days.... (I am not sure they even know anymore)

Shane

PS Option 3 is your links embedded in text or others articles, which sounds like a blog network to me... Which would change to NOOOOOOO

Hi,

xampp is your server technology, I am assuming.

(XAMPP is a WAMP'ish type stack with added Module support for windows and TOMCAT)

You would usually only see it like that, if your were calling it locally and it would be something like

C:/xampp/directory/index.html  (given your structure is like this)

Currently

http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com is 302 redirecting to /xampp, which is your current issue, and is actually impossible as XAMPP folder would be at least a directory above document root - or it would be document root, so no need to call it after domain.

HTTP/1.1 302 Moved Temporarily => Date => Wed, 03 Oct 2012 15:30:51 GMT Server => Apache X-Powered-By => PHP/5.3.17 Location => http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com/xampp/ Content-Length => 0 Connection => close Content-Type => text/html

I am assuming /xampp is not your dcoument root though or it is missing an index, or somewhere you used incorrect syntax in a redirect, or your httpd.conf or virtual host file is misconfigured.

The first thing you need to do in my opinion is search your .htaccess, or vhost for the 302 redirect of "/" to "http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com/xampp/"

would look something like

redirect 302 / http://www.taxiservicepattaya.com/xampp/

Kind of, off the subject of question - but I looked at your site, and from the description - What you are doing skirts the lines of legality in many different countries as with what happened to megaupload

Just a note, maybe you have already satisfied all legal requirements to file hosting and sharing

Hi,

In my site, I use a php expression - as such -

header.php -

On page -

$canonical = "http://www.domain.com";

Here is a recent Blog Post if the above code does not help

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-advanced-relcanonical-http-headers

Shane

I am not completely sure I get the question -

two ways I interpreted - the easiest would just be the redirect /? to 404

which would be

redirect 301 /? http://www.404pagehere.com

If you are trying to do a wildcard redirect that is a little harder

RedirectMatch 301 /?/(.*)$ http://www.404pagehere.com

I think the easiest might be

RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^foldername/* http://www.pagehere.com/ [R=301,L]

Make sure and backup .htaccess before making any changes, as I am not sure what I gave you will fix your specific issue.

Shane

Hi,

I believe what you are looking for is

Options +FollowSymLinks

RewriteEngine on

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com [NC]

RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]

If I read the post correctly as adding a sitewide canonical in header.php would not work, unless you actually programmed a php statement that all it did was add www, but this would only be a backup, if I was unable to do 301 in my opinion

Shane

Hi,

If the "Author" in question is the owner or operator, or even the "Face" of the brand then - Yes, it is fine as this person most likely wrote this content anyway, or is the "owner" of the content.

I wish i had a source, but I remember this exact question somewhere to Matt Cutts, and he referenced his own website that he does use it, and I believe gave a similar explanation as above.

Also as a note (of course this is not air tight evidence)

But I actually do use it on a homepage on one of my sites, and actually saw a bump a few weeks after it implemented in my "niche" - cause the author only writes about that specific niche (but of course as I said this is only off the cuff evidence, not reviewed)

Shane

Not to knock anyone who went there....

My sister went there for their recording engineer program - and as a evaluation based off of school only, not necessarily the program in question:

They seem to hire alot of their own students to be teachers...

You work with the latest and greatest equipment, but in the real world the latest and greatest is usually few an far between

It is a self paced program, which has advantages and disadvantages - Meaning almost anyone can do a "Brain Dump" but retaining that knowledge and being able to practically apply it is what is important (but this is a prob at most American schools these days)

I also am jaded by the whole certificate thing, cause I come from IS where there is a certification for everything, but the certifications amount to jack squat   in practical knowledge

Shane

I personally go with the "Ghostwriter" option, as having a real person is key - and creating a real "Face" for your Brand is even more important.

I know alot of people on here would suggest the "Create A persona" option and i think there is even a whle webinar on it - But I would completely disagree with this and think as you say it is icky and dishonest - but I know some niches a face is hard to come by

Shane

Not sure I understand the question?

filezilla does not hold the permissions, the user in question does.

Permissions for a linux bases system can be activated with ACL, and would be saved at the OS level (so if you took an image, it would take the file permissions.

I am not sure of a tool, that would do this other than just basic linux tools, and in windows it is saved locally with the user, unless group policy is in control which Active Directory and Registry of host machine would hold the user permissions.

Maybe I misunderstoofd the question though..

Shane

agree completely

Author rank is based on social (amongst many others), so gaining positive social signals would be elevation of author exposure. Just because a site has a bad reputation, does not mean it does not contain the recipes for exposure...

I think you are confusing backlinks or PR with Social Signals that go along with author rank and the signals of content relevance it takes into consideration, and how as the spectrum becomes more crowded, the smallest of differences will affect ranking (much like PR and Backlins does now amongst others)

So in essence we are talking about two different things, squidoo is not a backlink building tool, but it is an exposure building tool, or can be.

Cool you trust a SEO figure over someone youve never heard of that was quite a burn, man you have a razor sharp wit....

LOL thaks for the SEO advice....

Author rank has nothing to do with SEO?

And we all know, that every word a guru says is totally true always LOL =p

LOL and gaining traffic WOULD be a part of SEO, as well as targeting longtail queries for a site with current low authority to gain indirect exposure...

There are many out of the box purposes to SEO, than just "gaining links"

I would completely disagree - It depends on the quality of the article placed and the intention...

If your intention is to use squidoo, as it is supposed to be, then you can make a tiny bit of income, while also gaining traffic. (and depending on the quality/relevance in some cases semi valuable backlinks or author exposure)

The best way to promote squidoo, is socially in my opinion.

Now would i spend any money, or a lot of time and energy on squidoo? No, but it CAN be a valuable resource in you arsenal if used correctly as it is intended.

But as i said, it all boils down to intent, on its level of effectiveness... (basically if you are trying to use it to pad your link profile with low end crap, then you will be wasting your time, but if you write knowledgeable, helpful articles about relevant topics that people actually want to read about, you can get some good longtail exposure and author exposure)

See link for info -

https://sites.google.com/site/webmasterhelpforum/en/faq-rich-snippets#howlong

Just personally, I would still deindex or canonical them - they are just pages with a few images - so not of much value and unless all titles and descriptions are targeting varying keywords and content is added, they will canabalize eachother, and possibly even drag down the site due to 100's of pages of thin content....

So actually from an SEO perspective it probably IS better to deindex or canonical 3 - 5 or so years ago, maybe the advice would have been keep them and keyword target - but not in the age of content

(unless the images were optimized for image searches for sale able products (but I do not think it is)

It depends on how the pages are being created (I would assume it is off of a template page)

So within the template of this dynamically created page you would place

But if this is the global template - you cannot do this as it will noindex every page which of course is bad.

If you want to PM me the URL of the page I can take a look at your code, and see what is going on and how to recitify, as right now i think we are talking about the same principles, but different words are being used.

It really is pretty straightforward. (what I am saying) The pages that you want to be not indexed DO NOT need a nofollow they need a meta noindex

But there are many variables, as if you have already robot.txt disallowed the directory, then no bot will go there to get the updated noindex directive....

If there is no way to add a meta noindex then you need to nofollow and put in for a manual removal

So it is the pages themselves that are dynamically created you want out of index, not the page the contains the links?

If this is so ---

noindex the pages that are created dynamically

Therein lies the problem. I did have the nofollow directive in place specifying the /gallery/ folder, but apparently, the bots still crawled it.

Nofollow does not remove from index, it only tells the bot not to pass authority, as it is still feasible that the bot will crawl the link, so without the noindex, nofollow is not the correct directive due to the page (even though nofollowed) is still being reached and indexed.

PS. also if you have the nofollow on the links, you may want to remove it, so the bots will go straight through to the page and grab the noindex directive, but if you wanted to try to not let any authority "evaporate" you can continue to nofollow, but you may need to request the dynamically generated pages (URLS) be removed using webmaster tools.

?

If a link is coming into the page, and you have Noindex, Nofollow - this would remove from index and prevent the following of any links -

This is NOT instant, and can take months to occur depending on depth of page, crawl schedule ect... (you can try to speed it up by using webmaster tools to remove the URL)

What is the goal You are attempting to achieve?

To get the page out of index, but still followed?

Or remain in index, but just not follow links on page?

?

noindex will only remove from Index and dissallow the act of indexing the specific page (or pages created off template) you place the tag in upon the next page crawl.

Bots will still follow the page, and follow any links that are readable as long as there is not a nofollow directive.

I am not sure I fully understand the situation, so I would not say this is my "reccomendation" but an answer to the specific question.....

but I am wondering if this will stop the bots dead in their tracks or will they still be able to pick-up on the pages generated

Hope this helps!

And as noted in my response above, I do not work for Google, So therefore I nor any (IMHO) can answer that question on this board.

The only answer that can be given (once again IMHO) on that specific question would be speculation and conjuncture. (as i clearly already stated my opinion above)

Below is a link to a calendar, but is subject to change; I believe the rough estimation is every 4 weeks

http://apiwiki.seomoz.org/w/page/25141119/Linkscape%20Schedule

Hi,

Yes, In my opinion those would be paid links

Only one is No-Followed (which is also weird, do they actually have a pay structure for paying for a follow link?) Also there is no Javascript redirect, so this looks like a plain HTML link, that is supposed to be a "Sponsored Link" but does not follow the guidelines below, so it most probably in my opinion is a paid link, but since I do not work for Google, I could not (and not sure who could) tell you why this site has not been penalized for selling links. Maybe it is because the sponsored link is in return for content?

Even below cited from Google, as in everything with Google, It is referred to as "Guidelines" not rules... So this means just in the verbiage it is at the discretion of Google on how closely or far away these "guidelines" are followed at, before a penalty is leveraged. Although this does seem to be the EXACT behaviour Google is looking out for at the moment, from a very visible SEO site - Maybe his social reputation and contribution to the SE community gains him the leverage to do this (since he is doing it "tastefully", as it could just be a mistake (LOL)

"Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:

• Adding a rel="nofollow" attribute to the <a>tag</a>
  <a>* Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file"</a>

<a>Source</a>

<a></a>http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736

....

Not to be a jerk, but "Quality of BMR" hehe BMR had no quality standards... As the sites they used held absolutely no user value.... (who would go to a crappy blog, with crappy content, about crappy sites?)

Not trying to be rude, but just pointing out that if BMR was your standard of High quality, then you might be looking to get yourself in more trouble...

IMHO of course

sorry not to really answer your question, but the question is almost impossible to answer....  As if another BMR type network sprung up, it would be a gamble and high risk to use it.

I personally would stick with services like Myblogguest and put out quality content there, and on your own site - forgetting the "network" mentality.

It would really have to be....

The only reason for a %5C is the use of backslash - as that is actually what it means in code.

**business site occasionally break **

How do you mean "break" ?

My crawl diagnostics here in my SEOMox campaign show 19-20 urls doing this - it's nuts.

Is the only issue from this in SEOMOZ reports?

If you would like to PM me the site I can attempt to profile it

It appears from research it is actually \   (backslash)  not / (slash)

So possibly somewhere in your site you have used \ instead of /  but of course this is just a possibility, as it appears that %5C is the delimiter or interpretation of \ in original Unix.

Hope this helps

PS a quick check at http://www.w3schools.com/tags/ref_urlencode.asp verified %5c is URL encode, for backslash - as it is treated as a special character, so somewhere in your CMS or code, you have used backslash instead of slash.

Yeah Aaron Wall over at SEObook tackled this, and it appears the end result was if any, it would be very small.

http://www.seobook.com/archives/001545.shtml

I would agree, as since Google thinks it is "less important" then it would pass less rank.

But I believe all this could ever be is speculation without rigorous testing.

Hi,

Just from looking at your site I would say if you are not using Varnish, or like program, you could probably help your load time just by leveraging caching to lower per user overhead.

But to be honest, just knowing your site speed, is not a actionable plan to reduce load times.

I personally like Firebug, with chrome addin for Pagespeed - it actually gives you reccomendations of how to reduce your site speed.

I also like this site http://tools.pingdom.com/fpt/, as it gives you specifically per page what is loading, and how long it is taking so you can diagnose image loading issues script loading issues ect per page...

Even though I would disagree with Andrea, in the point that Page Load Time is Page Load time... (due to closing scripts and other items can affect page to page load times) I am not aware of anyway to test this without creating a server side network monitor such as wireshark - if possible at all.

Reason why this is not a larger concern, is fixing the items that are suggested in the above tools, will most likely fix any cross loading issues as well.

Hope this helps

Yes 301 is the best option if possible, Next would be canonical.

whatever Google's default is in GWT - It sets it for you.

You can change it, but it is not reccomended unless for a specific reason (such as Michael Lewis's specific scenario) even though, I am not completely sold that Gbot is what is causing the "dealbreaking" overhead.

Hi,

Your admins saying that, is like someone saying "we need to shut the site down, we are getting to much traffic!" Common sys-admin response (fix it somewhere else)

4GB a day downloaded, is alot of Bot traffic, but it appears you are a "real time" site, that is probably actually helped and maybe even reliant on your high crawl rate....

I would upgrade hardware - or even look into some kind of off site cloud redundancy for failover (Hybrid)

I highly doubt that 4GB a day, is a "dealbreaker",but of course that is just based off the one image, and your admins probably have resource monitors - Maybe Varnish is an answer for static content to help lighten load???? Or CDN for file hosting to lighten bandwidth load?

Shane

"With progressively less usage are four more name values: robots, to control whether spiders should index the page or follow any of its links; generator, used to indicate what tool was used to generate the page; author, used to give the name of the author; and revisit-after, supposedly used to tell search engines how often to recrawl the page. **To our knowledge only one search engine has ever supported it, and that search engine was never widely used — at this point, it is nothing more than a good luck charm. A remarkably widely used one. **More pages use the completely worthless  than use the _ element!"_

https://developers.google.com/webmasters/state-of-the-web/2005/metadata

Just off the top of my head, there are a few low tech ways to do it....

If you have Win 7 the searching has improved greatly - just move all files to a local machine - and search the directory you placed in for the content you are wanting to check - it will give all files that contain the words. (but can become overloading)

If you have dreamweaver or other enterprise level editor - almost all have a site search function to where you can search/profile code/text and have it find one by one which pages contain the searched terms - or globally list them.

Other than that, probably a custom script -or a google search for an HTML profiler might help?

Shane

Code is my life right now (redesign of website and 2 web apps) - So I see it clearly at this point - it is reality that eludes me.

Hi,

It looks as though the code being inserted by the .lbi is inline and ajax - This is why.

And kind of weird?

It is almost like they are using Assets to place a dynamic piece of code (ajax), which seems redundant to me?

But this seems to be why - It is not due to the .lbi itself, it is because the code being placed by the .lbi is Ajax.

I would assume the reason for Ajax is the easy management of adding new items, but the use of .lbi seems redundant.

(at least this is how it appears from code)

But you loose me at Ajax, as I am not sure at what levels ajax is readable and executable by bots.

Shane

No not client side, dreamweaver side - It works exactly like a .dwt - but used for repetitve code such as secondary navigation, or quick links.

I verified with my own site on seo-browser.com, and as anticipated all my .lbi placed code was viewable, just not the .lbi itself as it is commented out

It is not client side, and not server side - It is just a system of "Macros" i guess would be a way to explain.

When you drag an .lbi "asset" into page it automatically places code in .lbi into page real time, no processing other than in dreamweaver to keep sync data. (or at least it does if implemented correctly)

Hi,

The Actual call for the .lbi file is much like php - Although it is per page, not necessarily server side. And the HTML is actually dropped in using a call like

I currently use .lbi and .dwt HEAVILY ( although currently redesigning to use .php includes)

Is your question--- is the .lbi file followed?

Not if it is commented out, as the .lbi does no server side processing, it only drops the HTML or whatever code snippet is in the referenced .lbi live in dreamweaver, thus making it just embedded HTML (or whatever code was in .lbi)

Then - If you change the master .lbi any files that have  will also be changed (not seamlessly like .php includes) Dreamweaver keeps background notes, and sync data - that each time you make a change it profiles the site, finds any that have the referenced .lbi, and will change accordingly per page.

Shane

PS. After second read, it seems as if the content from .lbi is not being seen by seo-browser.com if this is true, then this IS NOT the norm, and there must be something wrong in the implementation - as the .lbi itself should be commented out to not be followed, but the code it places SHOULD be seen by bots