Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks!

It relates to elements that are floated. Options are left, right, both or none. So if you have "clear:left" then this element can not have any floated elements to it's left and would therefore be bumped to the next line.

The product 1 image doesn't seem to exist. Are you sure you don't have it cached in some browsers? Follow this link and press F5 to see if it loads - it doesn't for me.

http://www.just-insulation.com/007-graphics/popular/01-prod.png

There are no links to this site. I also had a quick look at ahrefs.com and there are zero links (also searched for with and without www). If you've only submitted to a few directories then it's possible they weren't approved.

I would also recommend moving hosts. Shared hosting is so cheap these days, If you look around you can find decent hosts who are much quicker than GoDaddy and are still very well priced (I don't use WordPress though so don't have any recommendations for you).

I agree with Mike, this is the article I was going to point you towards.

So in summary: You can stop yourself from passing page rank to another site by adding a nofollow but you cannot save yourself from losing link juice by adding nofollow. This has been the case for several years already (If you go on what Google is saying).

No this isn't a problem because all the www requests for your site are being correctly 301 redirected to the non www version. But all the links being built for the www version will also count for the non www version.

Lynn posted a link where lit looks like you are losing links but have a look at this version:

https://ahrefs.com/site-explorer/overview/subdomains/www.ppp.net.nz

It looks like your SEO is building links to www.ppp.net.nz instead of ppp.net.nz and the link acquisition rate shown above is definitely going to look unnatural.

Low quality links are not worth the hassle. if you are building 40 a day that is most likely going to end up in links that you have to try remove in the future which is much, much harder work. I've spent months cleaning up a link profile before Google lifted the penalty.

I would be very concerned with this strategy. If they are building 40 links per day then these are almost certainly going to be low quality and artificial looking links. The anchor text of a link is not the only way that Google judges if a link is artificial or not. You could be digging yourself into a much bigger hole. I also think the general consensus is that branding should be higher than 50%, maybe around the 70% - 80% mark.

Personally I would focus on obtaining some high quality, authoritative links and at the same time try to remove as many of the spam links as possible.

I have experienced the same situation with specific keywords where there were too many external exact match anchor text links. Removing these links where possible is slowly fixing the problem.

Subdomains and root domains are not necessarily always owned by the same person and therefore will not always be given the same penalties. As Scott mentioned, they are seen as different sites.

e.g. If I create a new WordPress account and create me.wordpress.com and then build a black hat site which gets penalized, this is not going to affect you.wordpress.com or  www.wordpress.com.

My opinion is that freelancer.com is not a good place to find quality SEO services. The problem is that developers are competing against low cost workers in places like India which is forcing everyone to drive their prices down and the end result is that the quality of work delivered suffers too. Everyone is trying to turn a quick profit by doing as little as possible.

I would agree with the above comments, this is not a quality SEO package as it is mostly based on strategies that used to work but have drastically been devalued by search engines recently (do some research on Google Penguin for instance) and is more likely to get your website penalised in future. I have sadly had the experience of trying to recover from these penalties and trust me when I say it's not something you want to go through.

Why do these guys have great reviews? it could be a number of reasons. As mentioned already the reviews are not all genuine. Another major reason is that the majority of the users buying SEO services do not understand that what they bought was low quality! They see the work has been delivered quickly and are happy and offer a good review, they may even have an initial improvement in rankings. What the review may not tell you is that they picked up a penalty months down the line when the work is paid for and Google has caught on (it's happened to me).

What would I recommend  The sad truth is that today when buying SEO services you need to become fairly SEO savvy yourself because there are still far too many black hat SEO's trying to make quick money who will offer you these services. Spend time on this forum, read the articles and become familiar with which tactics are future proof and which tactics are now considered black hat and dangerous. This way to can judge for yourself if a proposal is offering you value. Try find a local agency or freelancer who you can talk to easily or meet in person rather than someone who will do quick work and then you will never be able to contact again. Link building is an expensive game now because there is no quick, safe and easy way to get results any more!  If you have a low budget then go after one quality link pre month rather than 100's of rubbish links. You need to find the right people who have the skills to get your content in front of the right people in your industry and build natural links.

It's probably not what you wanted to hear but hope that helps in some way.

Do you want to give me the old url to double check for you? You can personal message me if you don't want it to be public.

If you used the remove URL tool to only remove page 1 from the index then that's why it won't be ranking, I'm guessing page 2 wasn't removed using this tool? I don't think the canonical tag would help you in this situation as you're now telling Google that page 2 is the same as a page you've already told them not to index!

Just to confirm, when you used the redirect checker did you put in the old url and it says 301? It's worth using the fetch as GoogleBot tool inside Webmaster tools and then adding the old url to be crawled again so that they can see it has been moved permanently. If the 301 was only implemented properly 2 weeks ago there is still the chance it will come back!

It sounds like you went about this in the wrong way. What you should have done first is 301 redirect the old url to the new url and then update all you sites links to also point to the new url. You have used webmaster tools to specifically tell Google not to index that page and therefore it has lost all of it's authority (the 301 would have passed most of the authority on from the start)

Use this tool and insert your old url and make sure the header returned definitely says "301 Moved permanently". How long ago was the 301 implemented? It may still recover once Google picks up the redirect.

In Umbraco you have total control over you html, meta tags, page names etc. so there's not anything that should cause you SEO issues. You may find this link interesting though, there are a few packages you can install to make life easier.

http://blog.mattbrailsford.com/2010/07/15/10-essential-umbraco-packages-for-seo/

Thanks Greg.

Sangeeta, At the moment these are your top anchor text terms:

• transcription services - 882 links
• transcription services - 601 links
• transcribe - 402 links
• gmr transcription - 335 links
• transcription company - 177 links
• digital transcription - 173 links
• www.gmrtranscription.com - 166 links
• audio transcription - 164 links

As mentioned already though, many of these are sitewide so you should be able to address the percentages fairly easily by contacting some of these sites and asking for the links to be changed.

Is your website www.gmrtranscription.com?

If yes then it's very possible you have been hit by one of the recent updates which target over optimised backlink profiles. You have over 800 links with the exact anchor text "transcription services", which your most linked term, many of these are also sitewide. These links do not look natural to search engines and I would recommend that you try and get them changed.

A natural link profile would mostly contain your brand name or url and then have a wide variety of other terms. I think you need to try to address this balance.

Hi Nocolai,

No problem. Yes, having the link from only the homepage should help. This often happens when a website uses the same template for the whole site which means the link becomes a sitewide link and looks unnatural to search engines. Double check that there is also some anchor text or an image because it didn't look like there was any when I checked. If they are adverts then the links should use nofollow.

I can certainly feel your pain as I have also recently trying to get links removed.

One thing I have noticed is that you have about 18000 links pointing to your site with no anchor text. I had a quick look at a few of these links and they look like this:

<a <span="">id</a><a <span="">="flags" class="dk" href="</a>http://www.texaspoker.dk" title="Texaspoker.dk" target="_blank">

Do you know what the purpose of these links are? As there is no anchor text the links probably aren't visible to users and they are also not nofollowed, these look very spammy and I would get them changed if possible.

I would agree with targeting Mountainbike.com or  www.Mountainbike.com

There is also the chance that an external website is linking to you  incorrectly in which case you you you could contact them and ask them to change it. As Moosa suggested a 301 redirect would be the simplest solution.

Have you tried the telephone number listed in Whois?

Vicente, Francisco   fco.vicente.oc@gmail.com
      NA
      20 de Noviembre
      Mexico, Mexico 12365
      Mexico
      +52.55516489

Have a look at this article from matt Cutts

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/how-many-links-per-page/

The original reason for the 100 link recommendation was due to technical limitations but this is no longer the case, 100 is still a general rule of thumb though. There are certainly times when you need to have more than 100 links, look at Google Plus for instance where the do what you describe above and load further content as the user scrolls down.

Keep in mind though that the amount of value each link can pass on depends on the total number of links on your page so you still wouldn't want to go crazy and link to every page on your website from each page. You mention that all links will not be included in the source code though so you shouldn't have the problem of over diluting the link value. Just make sure that all the links that appear when scrolling are included in a sitemap so they can be crawled.

No problem Andrew.

It depends where in the basket area they are. Keep in mind that the search engines won't submit forms or get into any secure areas so those pages would not be worth changing.

Hi Andrew,

Are you referring to the rel=canonical under the notices section? If so then this is not a problem, it's just showing that there are canonical tags implemented for these pages. You don't need to change anything.

No you shouldn't have to if you are building links naturally. What was your strategy for acquiring 200 links per day?

You don't, your IP address may be recorded by the site you have submitted the link to but not by Google.

However, if you are using proxies then you are probably doing something questionable in the first place and there is a chance you will get into trouble anyway. Especially if you are creating 200 links per day, they will notice this as it wouldn't look natural. It sounds like you may need to focus on a more natural link building strategy if you want your site to stay in the SERPS long term.

I would agree with Aran, show all your content first then hide it in the page load event. I wouldn't actually comment out the content, I would rather use "display:none" on the container div. Showing and hiding content sections with AJAX is very common these days so it shouldn't be a problem, provided it's done correctly.

As long as you keep it up to date there should only be advantages. I use a free program called GsiteCrawler which runs once a week (automated with task scheduler) so it causes me zero maintenance time and I always have an up to date list of URL's for the search engines.

They are probably referring to the office application macros which are scripts that run inside word documents, excel spreadsheet etc. If this is the case then the language you would need to learn is VBA, there are tons of tutorials online you can search for.

As goodlegaladvice suggested, this is probably for creating reports and analytical data etc. If this is the most important thing that they are doing then I would ask for a more detailed explanation of their work!

Agreed 100%, don't nofollow internal links, let your PR flow normally.

In the blog post that Highland mentions it says that the latest index consists mostly of crawls done in May, so any linkbuilding done after that won't be showing yet.

What about using this Irving? Have you tried it before?

The problem with Google is that it's difficult to know whether it is a page level penalty or an anchor text filter that you are triggering from the exact match anchor text abuse. You could try creating a new page for those keywords but there is the chance that they still stop any page from ranking well for that term because of the anchor text (this has happened to me before). Let's hope Google follows Bings lead and comes up with a link removal tool!

Worth a try though.

It's just a notice telling you that a canonical tag _has _been implemented, it's not an error or warning.

Hi,

It would depend on the authority of the existing site, the more authoritative and important the site is perceived to be the quicker Google would crawl your new pages and update it's index. It could take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. You could check your Webmaster Tools to get an idea of the average crawl rate for your site.

The problem is that you lose all previous authority to your existing URL's as any inbound links that arrive at a 404 do not pass link value into your site. You would also have a negative customer experience for anyone following an external link and arriving on a 404 page.

You should do both.

Implement the 301 to catch any link strength coming in from external pages and send it to your correct URL. Always link to your root URL in your internal navigation as linking to index.html and then relying on the 301 to redirect to the correct URL will leak a small amount of link juice every time.

HI,

If you can provide your URL then I can check the redirects for you, or you can try the 3 url's using this tool

http://www.internetofficer.com/seo-tool/redirect-check/

It sounds like the 301 hasn't been implemented correctly as SEOMoz should pick that up.

If you are referring to the latest OpenSiteExplorer index then have a look here:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/july-mozscape-update

Annoyingly the latest index is about half the size of the one before it so this could explain the loss in links. They say if you had a large amount of lower quality links you could see a big difference in total links as many of these are not indexed anymore.

Adding on to what has been said already, you can't assume that your competitors are going to be standing still while you work on your SEO. To move up you have to be throwing more at it then they are, which is very difficult to measure.

if your need .net hosting I would recommend these guys:

http://aspnethosting.co.uk/

I've got 3 websites there and the servers are incredibly fast, even on £5 per month hosting plans.

On page optimisation is important but will only get you so far. OpenSiteExplorer is only showing 18 external links at the moment so I'm afraid you will need to do a lot more linkbuilding to see better results!

Great, glad to help!

No problem. Sorry, another thing to check is that the title isn't too long, I think it needs to be less than about 70 characters.

I have seen them do this with over optimised title tags, especially where there are several terms separated with a pipe symbol. When this has happened to me I have rewritten them into one or two natural sounding sentences using my key phrases - Google then started showing the correct title.

I don't know the exact reason for this but I had a similar problem on one of my websites.

When I searched for my brand name Google would show only my brand name as the title but for long tail phrases it would show the actual title. I also had a title tag similar to yours where there was a list of key phrases separated by a pipe symbol. I changed this to look more natural by using these phrases in two well written sentences rather than a list of phrases and Google now shows the correct title for all searches.

I would recommend trying to rewrite your title tags in this way and see if it makes any difference. Since the recent Google updates many people are now suggesting to naturalise title tags rather than having a list of keywords as was popular before (which could be viewed as over optimisation).

Did you read through all the comments? There is a lot of useful information in there. Here is another article by Rand shortly after the update that describes how this will affect websites:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/google-says-yes-you-can-still-sculpt-pagerank-no-you-cant-do-it-with-nofollow

Here's a simplified example: Say you have a page with 10 links on it, this page is essentially passing on 10 points of Page Rank (PR) to other pages on your site. If you nofollow 3 of the links you are only passing on 7 points to the rest of your site, the remaining 3 points evaporate. If you have 500 pages on your site and you nofollow just 3 links on each page then how much of your PR are you wasting in total?

This is why Matt recommends that you let your PR flow freely through your site. PR sculpting using this strategy used to work before they made this change in 2009.

Of course this is still down to interpretation and how much you believe what Google says, obviously they don't give away too many secrets. This question gets asked in this forum every week and I would say the vast majority of the SEO experts here  advise against this practice.

I hope that helps

Todd is right, this won't save your PR from leaking. This strategy died years ago. Have a look at a similar topic here:

http://www.seomoz.org/q/duplicate-internal-links-on-page-any-benefit-to-nofollow

or here Matt Cutts describes how 'Page Rank Sculpting' no longer works:

http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/

Sure, it's a tough decision as you never know how close you are to a penalty unfortunately.

I wouldn't go about changing the existing links on clients sites if you'r still ranking for these terms now but keep this in mind for any new links you acquire. Maybe link with just your brand name for most of them and then throw in the odd anchor text variation every now and then. You just need to avoid a tipping point where your profile starts to look suspicious.

It sounds like many are concerned about this issue recently. It's a definite possibility that you could get an over optimisation penalty for the anchor text match and you could stop ranking for that term. I think the strategy going forward is probably to link back using your brand name or url only. If possible it would also be better if you can find a place for the link on your clients site that is not part of the main template so it doesn't cause a site wide link.

Consider changing your link to something like this:

Web Design by Jump