Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree. I've been in touch about the developer's work now. It's simply not good practice, yet. I've heard that Bing is more definite in its advice on H1 than Google.

Thanks for feedback AWCthreads - tis a good question - ho hum - he's just not using them right. I've had this problem with people putting in hidden tags too. They're just not taking Google, etc., into account. Almost screamed as I counted through them yesterday hee hee.

Thanks Jennifer. Yup, doing all that too. I'm paying him on contract and part of the prob is if he's using H1s so much it could end up in a lot of expensive re-programming. I'm gonna stamp my feet I think. I often wonder whether anyone's tested the impact of such heavy use of H1s. We need an SEO Moz testing lab ;-).

Thanks for your input too AWCthreads Some good points there...

Thanks David, Ryan, EGOL, Nakul - really useful feedback

I think I'm erring on the side of caution really, quite simply because any risk is too much risk. I'll read up on HTML5 some more Ryan as it sounds like it's changing thing a great deal. I've noticed the developer's used about 18 per page, for all headings. which seems quite strange, and possibly incorrect even in HTML5. I mean, blog posts headings to tweet headings to... just about every heading.

Hi,

My very well known and widely respected developer is using multiple H1 tags I see - they like using them in their code and they argue multiple H1s conform with HTML5 standards. They are resisting a recode to one H1 tag per page.

However, I know this is clearly an issue in Bing, so I don't want to risk it with Google. Any thoughts on whether it's best to avoid multiple H1 tags in Google (any evidence and reasoning would be great - I can then put that to my developer...)

Many thanks for your help, Luke

That's really useful (and interesting) Erica - thanks so much

Hi Mozzers, I have a question...

I'm planning to add a blog summary/twitter feed throughout my website (onto every main content page) and then started worrying about duplicate content.

What is best practice here?

Let me know - thanks, Luke

PS. I sat down and re: blog feed... thought that perhaps it would help if I fed different blog posts through to different pages (which I could then edit so I could add<a></a> text different from that in blog). Not sure about twitter.

Thanks Marcus - that's very useful. I am using Wordpress as it happens   Off to do some reading...

It's a difficult one. I mean, my site (a restaurant/bar) gets a large proportion of its traffic from relevant directories. Actually, 40% of the backlinks to my site are from (mainly) relevant directories. Will it incur penalty? Well, most links to the site are non-directory backlinks, so I think you have to maintain a mix.

Thanks eyepaq and Jeffrey. I agree with you guys totally. Strange how many SEOs do spammy stuff these days. From a sustainability perspective, I guess there's a risk Google may flag spammy close-repeat page titles in the future too?

How often is it safe to change page titles too, without upsetting Google? I've heard of people experiencing problems because Google can flag regular changes (or perhaps this is simply an urban myth of some kind ;-))

Thanks again, Luke

Just reviewed a blog integrated with my website, and have noticed duplicate content - the blog homepage includes blogpost summaries (not a major issue as now set up so only put in opening paragraphy then anchor text to full blog post).

Then that's a full blog blog post if you click for more - then that's carbon copied over in the archive. So one near exact duplicate.

Is this something worth taking action on with nocrawl tags, etc., on archive duplicates of blog posts, or shouldn't I be to hung-up on this? I'm a scientist by training, so tend to go further and further once I get going...

I always put this sitewide these days, other than pages like directions and contact. Web developers hate it, but I find the share/etc., info from each individual page really useful - ie the pages that aren't engaging with customers are worked on until they DO.

I've heard talk that some users find like counters insulting. Along the lines of 'how dare you ask me for a like' yet whenever I've done site-wide stuff, I've seen improved stats - both visitor numbers and engagement.

Thanks eyepaq yes that sure makes sense, and helps 

I was wondering about that - the 'in' - I mean might you pick up more long-tail results without the in? Or perhaps it doesn't make much difference one way or the other...

Last time this happened, I identified the SEO agency, got some advice from a specialist lawyer, and then issued a take-down request in the strongest terms (though with bad backlinks being replaced with good backlinks). It worked.

Hiya Mozzers!

A pal who works in SEO has suggested I add the following type  <title>tag structure to my pages:<br /><br />Bars in New York - Bars New York [no brand name]</p> <p>Pizzas in New York - Pizzas New York [no brand name]</p> <p>Firstly, I think this looks spammy, secondly, can't understand the logic of both combinations, thirdly, my understanding is brand name lessens importance of keyphrases, but it's still important from a branding point of view.</p> <p>Fourthly, is this sustainable? I mean, Google could identify this as spammy in the future, with penalty, no? Any feedback on these points would be very useful.</p> <p>Also, he said that I should play around with title tags on an ongoing basis, but I haven't changed any single title tag more than once/6 months for fear of being flagged for manipulative SEO practice by Google. Guidance here would be great as well.</p> <p>Thanking you in advance, Luke</p></title>

Hi Mozzers,

It's been requested that a top level page on a website I'm working on should be removed.

It concerns me firstly because there are some nice links coming into that page.

I'm also worried because website director has suggested the menu option for that page should simply be removed from all navigation, so you can't find the 'removed' page via his website, but it remains as an indexed page passing linkjuice to website. Is that a risky approach from an SEO perspective?

What's the best approach to this?

Thanks in advance! Luke

Thanks Simon for the great answers, and thanks Casey for your interesting question too. Much appreciated

Hi, I'm just starting a backlinking campaign on a new website and am focussing on one deep page for client  - focussing a lot of good quality backlinks on that one page.

I'm aware that most of the other pages, including homepage, lack good backlinks.

Can I go ahead and focus powerful backlinks on that one 'deep' page without a problem, or may that approach result in negative impacts on other pages' SERPs.

Yes, I agree with you Alan. It's just not worth the risk, it really isn't. The developer might think it is, but it's not his website. Thanks for your advice!

Just spoken to the developer, who I know, and they told me it's fine as they're not keyword stuffing and Main Navigation and Footer are simply there for accessiblity reasons (screenreaders, etc). Any thoughts on that?

I'm just looking at a website with <h2class="hidden">Main Navigation and <h2class="hidden">Footer inserted on each page, and am wondering about the SEO implications. 
 <a></a><a></a><a></a><a></a></h2class="hidden"></h2class="hidden">

Great answer jassy - and thanks for the links.

I suppose I was trying to work out how you Google is figuring out which of my web pages are actually being interacted with. How it measures that, takes it into account. I was assuming through links to those pages, and you've confirmed that.

Another thing I've been wondering about is whether those facebook, Google plus and twitter counters you see on websites - are they being used to provide an 'interaction' / 'importance' signal to Google in a clearer way?

I've submitted 3 sites over the last 18 months, and all 3 were accepted within 6-12 months.

Hello Mozzers,

I'm looking at Social Media Marketing and wondering what counts for most in terms of SEO - (A) shares and likes from specific web pages, or (B) followers, likes, etc., on social media profile pages? What does Google measure vis-a-vis your website?

Also, regarding Twitter, if a twitterer forwards on a tweet manually (by inserting RT) - and his RT is then shared, does that count for anything, or is it better for clients if RTweeters simply press the RT button.

And should I include URLs in tweets, facebook posts, etc? And do backlinks help beyond increasing website visitor numbers - do any of the social media marketing tools pass juice back to websites via backlinks? Thanks in advance :), Luke

Take a look at what major PR companies do for their clients - the kind of features, case studies, etc., they get published on and offline. Take a look at case studies on PR company websites, and also check out award winning PR campaigns via PR awards sites.

Thanks for reply John - appreciated. Pretty infuriating isn't it, huh. To be honest, I think the SEO industry needs a minimum standard, a code of conduct that's policed in some way. There really is so much awful stuff being carried out in the name of SEO. From what I've seen, the SEO agencies I've come across do it (1) Because it's easy (2) Because they can show their clients quick results.

Thanks Robert - moving on with a positive focus is good advice. That said, I really have little idea how dangerous the kind of linkbuilding I've described really is. What level of risk my client has been exposed to. Hope Google doesn't hit them on those backlinks, that's for sure.

I regularly work on websites to which previous SEOs have built questionable backlinks.

This morning I've just been analysing some backlinks - found 40 odd were coming from 20 odd websites which all had the same gentleman as personal registrant, who happens to be the boss of an SEO company.

The SEO company name is mentioned in registrant details too, and often on the websites in question (including weblinks from some of these 20 odd websites to the SEO company). I did note the IP addresses / hosting for these websites did vary though, as did the postal address of the individual in question, perhaps throwing Google off the scent a bit.

I should add that these websites are virtually all tourism related/themed, with up to a few dozen backlinks per page - usually articles. It's very clear they are backlinking to keyphrases.

Now, this kinda thing<a></a> sets the alarm bells ringing. Firstly, this looks like an infringement of Google Webmaster Guidelines. Secondly, it doesn't sound like a White Hat technique for building links! Am I correct?

I guess it might be denied they are partner pages due to the quality of content, perhaps, which isn't as spammy as it might've been. However, I suggest these are at least paid links because there is no other clear way of getting content on these pages, as far as I can see.<a></a><a></a>

Should I demand these backlinks are taken down? What level of risk is posed do you think? I don't want this website to suffer a Google penalty at some point, particularly not after I've started work on it.

Thanks and I look forward to hearing from you.