Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If you play with fire you'll get your fingers burnt.   Any paid for link must be no-followed and the guys who don't do that are playing a waiting game for Google to catch on.

That's the thing.  These sites are just random, out of context sites, with no ads.  I've crawled them and they are just middle of the road blog type sites (no comments), with few outbound links.  Really weird.

Where I can i've blocked in htaccess and hope if it is 'a problem' they get fed up before I do!

Looks like you have been injected with spam links.  Used MajesticSEO to show the attached (sample).

I'd be assertive in getting into GWT asap.  I guess those URLs don't exist but it is still a big no.

http://i.imgur.com/XFNY1ZG.gif

If you go with the client disavow that domain for sure.

I'm working on a site that has low traffic volumes due to its niche.  That's fine but we are daily getting referral traffic from unrelated domains without a link.  These visits are always 100% bounce which is impacting the overall click.through rate.  The domains are not the same and different ones come through all the time, so it is difficult to keep on top of.

Any ideas what could be going on here and an effective way of dealing with this?

I have not delved deeper but running the site through Screaming Frog you have a massive amount of malformed URLs that have 301 redirects - example: /summer-2013-belt-testing-requirements//

So it looks like you have an internal rewrite issue creating double slash that you then need 301s to correct.  You need to check your settings and htaccess file to troubleshoot the core problem.

Good news!

True!  

Without knowing the domain or any information in GWT nobody is going to be able to really help.

The only think I can think of is possibly .htaccess blocking Google.

Thanks Egol, you have some good points.  There has been too much focus on determining (second guessing) where the sweet spot is, hoping that one visitor bites.  Yes retargeting seems to me to be something to follow up.

I need to do some convincing so the site becomes an unmissable source for information.  It's tricky because each of the potential key players will have different information requirements, but we have to start somewhere.

I'm working for a client who is in a very tight niche.  They offer a service which can come as part of a new build or installation to an existing building.

The problem is the the traffic volumes are very targeted and very low, but a single sale can be very lucrative. Another problem is that it is very difficult to determine who the converting visitor will be as depending on the potential project it could be an owner, PM, architect, designer and on...  There are no clear cut decision makers, it's always on a case by case basis.

Because of this the client is baulking at any attempts to gather contact details because they are arguing it may not be the decision maker and in their industry they know it will cheese people off parting with contact details and it "may not be the right person anyway".

I am looking at encouraging exploring ideas based around a traditional newsletter, whitepaper, survey etc.  Has anyone else had experience in this kind of scenario where search volumes (organic, PPC) are low enough that the timeframes for testing any value become uncomfortably stretched and even then difficult to determine any general trends?

The right format means ensuring everywhere online that your business appears the address is identical.  The same goes for the telephone number.

So for example

Acme Ltd
Some Street
Bigtown
AB1 XYZ

is not the same as

Acme Ltd
Unit 1
Some Street
Bigtown
District
AB1 XYZ

or

Acme;
Some Street;
District;
AB1 XYZ

How that is coded into the html is not so important as long as the text is crawl-able and presented in an address format.

check you have a cumulative disavow file and not just overwritten the 1st disavow with the 2nd.

We need more information.  What is the domain?

You will lose the page to page 301 passing link value.

I would just point out to them the importance of maintaining/developing links at a deeper level in the site, even throw them a couple of example URLs if possible.  If they don't get it, turn the table and ask them to explain how doing a name server redirect will maintain the internally flowing link equity.

Yes you are perfectly right.  Any visitor will expect to land on a corresponding page, so they get what they want, there is trust and they don't jump of the site.  I would have thought having information on the page relating to the domain change puts people at rest.

Cut the rope and run!

To build links you need high authority (mixed with some lower authority), highly relevant in context sites that suit your niche.  Imagine how many thousands of niches there out there, now imagine that company has such a complex portfolio of opportunities it can cater for anyone who buys a 'package'.  It's not going to happen!  That would be like the holy grail.

You would be far better spending on time $200 for 1 single powerful link than spend $xxx + for the privilege of getting penalized.

You'd be better off investing time in:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkLFlaWxgJA
• http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo/growing-popularity-and-links
• http://moz.com/blog/category/link-building

yep, sound good.

I was working on a site last year and they switched a DNN module based on your scenario without letting me know, having already tested the existing module.  First I saw was when rankings and traffic wobbled.  In this case the text was lost in the javascript and accounted for about 25-30% of content on all their main pages. Nightmare!

You want Settings >> Show Advanced Settings >> (Privacy) Content Settings >> (Javascript) Do not allow any site to run javascript >> Finished.

Reload the site and check what you can see, or open up.

yes, if the date of the cache is prior.  So I would suggest disabling javascript in the browser reload the page and see if the expected text is displayed.  If not that's what Google misses.

...and yes Google should show all the text in the cache version (text only) if the cached version is subsequent to your amendment.

Either switch javascript off in the browser or search cache:www.yoursite and see if you spot any content missing.

yep, didn't even get to anchor text.  Absolutely right, this has been spanked for all the reasons you can get spanked.

Without delving too deeply it may be your link profile, especially if you have bombed in the past few days.

You have a lot of forum links. There are also directories and article submission sites.  One site in particular A Seek is a database of suppliers for products searched for.  If the product is not available there is no 404 page rather the same homepage view, so effectively you are part of what may look to Google as mass page 'advertising' as your link as well as all the other suppliers appears wholesale.  These all make up the backbone of your link profile and if not the cause I would be very nervous leaving as is.

No it isn't.  As I said -

RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off
RewriteRule (.*) https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]

This is saying that the condition is off - so non HTTPS URL calls then have the rewrite rule to switch to HTTPS.

It is a classic spam link.  It's on an unrelated site, with a link stuffed in the middle of nonsense/rubbish.  Without trying to sound harsh any site doing this deserves to be penalised.

Take time to look at and learn:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkLFlaWxgJA
• http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo/growing-popularity-and-links
• http://moz.com/blog/category/link-building

I would then revisit the links you have created and ask yourself the question "why this not good for seo?"

This is down to your link profile and dreadful spamming.  Here is one instance on a forum:

Why has God rigged things for all of us to for more here http://watchwrestling.co end in hell thanks to Satan�s great God given deception powers?

You need to seriously cleanse your link profile, disavow, and start working on some good quality strategies to develop links on high quality sites - and wait. I would guess you have been hit by the Penguin refresh that's been running for a few days.

It looks like you should be going for

RewriteCond %{HTTPS} off
RewriteRule (.*) https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]

This is saying that the condition is off - so non HTTPS URL calls then have the rewrite rule to switch to HTTPS

RewriteCond %{HTTPS} on  - is looking for HTTPS URL calls, so the opposite.

Test it and see what happens.  You can always restore your backup .htaccess if you hit problems.  Please be aware that your server set-up may mean this doesn't work and you'll have to delve deeper.

I agree with Don.  Google ultimately wants to see that not only are you an authority in your field, you go out of your way to give your visitor as much information as you can by means of linking to further resources.  Although personally I would avoid just dumping in Wikipedia links as they can be viewed as thinly veiled lazy links.

I know it's a tricky one.  Truthfully the companies do both share the same address - a parent engineering company with a specialist off-shoot of the parent as a separately trading business operating in one section of that big unit.  So it will have it's own telephone number and they both are manned and can both physically show they are operational as separate businesses, not just a shared postal address.

Chasing the domain authority for links is not really as straight forward as that.

1. Domain has DA of 50 but not really related, is starting to crack with poor content etc
2. Domain has DA of 15 is spot on in terms of directly related content and quality.  It's a new site and looks like it will develop.
3. A good link profile will have a natural mix of low to high DA, with an upturn for the most common 30-50 DA.  This will include a good sprinkling of no-follow.  When researching I tend to filter 25+ but keep an open mind on everything.

For cleaning up a profile you can't look at those measurements, you need to go into each site and manually check out it's content and history, its own link profile and make a judgement if you are in the right neighbourhood. Of course directories, 'comments' links and badly placed 'articles', thinly veiled paid for (do-follow) are much easier to weed out.

A client has two businesses running from the same address.  Both businesses will operate out of Unit 1.  Would it be safe to go for Unit 1 and Unit 1A.  Will that distinction be enough for Google local and has anyone had any specific experience with this issue?

thanks.  So I see I 'arrange' the page layout after tagging, in this case adding the appropriate
tags.

I'm starting to use schema on a site currently working on the business address in the footer.  What is the correct way to use data that has more than one line?

So for example the address is something like "Unit 1, Some Farm, Some Street..."

Unit 1, Some Farm

Some Street

or

Unit 1, Some Farm
Some Street

Just as menu options I don't see why those links would not be crawled.  What you can have problems with is if those elements expanded to reveal text and then it all depends how those elements are coded.  If there are controlled by javascript there is a possibility Google will not read.

So in that case using your example: googling  cache:http://www.tesco.com or disabling .js in the browser will indicate what can be crawled.

Take a look at page load speed - https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/

Webmaster Tools gives a retrospective indication of ranking and is not fresh.  You could use a tool such as CuteRank or there is Firefox extension you can track with.

Regarding your ranking, if the page is new you might find the ranking bounces around quite a bit.

Google will look for the first character.  So unless there is some hidden character in the form of an entity (which I don't think is possible anyway) spaces are no problem whatsoever.

also there is a small overhead with the initial https handshake which can impact time to first byte and page load speed.  Therefore session length and caching play an important part in determining the cost of using https.

yes agree - set as no-follow.

Thanks Jen, i'll take a look at that.  ScreamingFrog have also told me this is on the radar.

Maybe there are multiple URL variations created.  For example, URL parameters, which will create multiple URLs to be indexed in Google.

Thanks.  No I know they exist, I want to audit the links and image URLs- make sure they are correct, not 404 or 301/2.

Does anyone know of a tool to check open graph data, especially og:url and og:image?

I use the og object debugger in FB, but wanted to know if there is a tool to load all URLs or crawl the site in one go?

Possibly.  This is on DNN which seems to be like a big old clunky dinosaur.

What i'm not happy about is that the module running on javascript loses all content if javascript is not enabled in the browser.  I was under the impression it is not a good idea to work like that and if js not running all text should be visible.  Is that right?

Does anyone have any quantifiable evidence regarding text that is collapsed - when clicked the section expands and presents the text, against just having the text on view in the page.

That is, instead of having a FAQ with question followed by answer, there is a question which you click to expose/expand the answer.

Could the collapsed text be potentially detrimental to ranking?

Yes I know what you mean - the external links are not directly explained, but there are signals on the site to keep visitors shall we say relaxed. I don't like it but i'm not in the position to advise on that site at the moment.

It's possibly something on-site going on - same server for both as it's IIS (DNN).  If I overlay the GA organic results  for both sites they are identical (good and bad) apart from the second site being far more accentuated.

At least if we separate link wise then that will remove that possibility.

I'm looking for a bit of advice regarding links coming into main site from another site in the client portfolio.

The main site we are working on has been going great, organic traffic has grown considerably.  The past few weeks there has been a subtle decline including ranking for a few keywords down a little.

What I have noticed is that there is another site in the portfolio (that I am not working on) has had a steady tailspin in organic traffic since Jan and i've been informed it is a dying site in terms of the products offered.  This has some links in the main menu going directly to the main site. My gut feeling is to isolate the secondary site from the main (no-follow or remove links), but the impact on slightly dropped rankings on the main site is not directly related to those linked pages.  Would you go for it and isolate anyway?

Agree with Lesley - a sub-domain is a separate site and equal effort will have to go into optimizing and ranking both sites.

In reality although Google treats the sites as separate the subdomain aspect gives it away, along with a whois lookup - the link value isn't going to massive at all to leverage from.  In other words I would only use the sub-domain for a strong business purpose or for technical reasons, not as a mechanism to gain anything SEO wise. A stronger, well structured and growing central domain will always win.

I think I understand your process and reference to "paid", but even so that word always makes me feel a bit nervous.  So as a side note make sure you no-follow anything that can be "construed" as paid for.

From a cleansing point of view we have to take your word that all relevant links have been removed or disavowed, just having a couple of "dodgy" ones can hold the site back.  When removing links have you manually checked the remaining links - a tool is not really adequate in many cases?

This is an interesting issue that happened to someone - http://moz.com/community/q/disavow-links-leading-to-404

Also,are you sure your disavow file is accumulative and contains ALL URLs?

I don't know about the courses, but here is profile info for the man - http://searchenginewatch.com/author/1785/bill-hunt