Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
I'd impliment rel=rev and rel=next on the pages to imply that their paginated, with the first page mentioned being the first in the chain.
rel=canonical then should point to the actual url, not the view-all page.
I think that is the 'correct' implimention for paginated content since rel=prev and rel=next were introduced.
If any of those sub pages had links, are ranking e.t.c., then you're definatly going to have to look into 301s at the very least.
Any more then that I would think it best to give a more specific example or link.
For a simple quick way, I would use a bulleted indented list. Works at a glance, is less demanding then a diagram.
Something like (taking your list as an example and moving all the level 2s up a level, I'm sure you don't want www.url.com/Home/About-us)
Google is definatly OK with this, Bing aparently might have issues, but the only way around that would be implimenting it for all the dupe pages but not the original (which is less trivial to detect, or impossable, and why google allows it)
Due to the nature of the objection (Bing claims your telling it that the page is a duplicate of itself, see the article John linked), I would actualy expect Bing to change that in the future to something more sensable if true.
Overall, I would impliment it on every page just to prevent all those links to it with random tracking paramiters e.t.c. that people could throw on.
Since most people leave them off, and most people link that way and it's easyer to set up I have site wide slash removals.
You get a 301 regardless if people link to you wrongly, so be carful when giving out the url and internal linking you use the right on either way.
I'm also not convinced that the article quoted is right in saying that the server does a 301 when you leave it off. It certainly has to do an extra lookup stage to find the right file(look for file, not find, look for directory with defualt document), but theres no 301 header returned.
Last I came accross such an issue I mostly started with making the 'easy' changes that reduced the number the most.
In the last case, it was implimenting a 301 to the www version of the site (cutting the errors in half) and putting a canonical on one search page.
This got the number down to the point where it was easyer to make decisions on 'Is it worth making friendlyer urls' and discover more intresting places dup content was being generated.
It's one of these things I would always aim for 0 where I can. It usualy means that the url or site structure can be improved sugnificantly, or it's such an easy fix that it's hard to justify not doing.
There are meny crawl tools out there, but Xenu is the one I would recomend for this. It will crawl your site, and then at the end ask for your ftp details so it can specificaly check for ophaned pages. That should make the report you need.
*edit - here's the link: http://home.snafu.de/tilman/xenulink.html
First an aside, duplicate content is often a rather large problem, so i would try using some url re-writes or meta-robots to see if you can improve on that.
Other then that, the penguin update and other updates around it were largly aimed at inbound links. It's likly a lot of your links are of less value, or your link profile is now seeming 'less natural'
I would work out where you have lost the traffic (keyword rankings and what they were bringing in) and then see if you've gotten any per page penelties e.t.c.
If you got penalised for a major keyword for example, you may be able to restore your previous traffic levels.
If it's accross the bored ranking drops I would work on improving your link profile in general.
If it's a traffic drop with no ranking drops, your probably seeing a seasonal variation, or something has effected your clickthrough rates (is there a new effective competitor with a better adword or Organic meta description?)
I think thats most of the bases covered. Anything more precise then that would require some data analysis.
Oh, on too meny links, I wouldn't worry about it at all unless that page has vanished from the SERPS. 106 links isn't a huge amount on a blog.
Changeing any url to any other url without a proper 301 on the old url can have adverse effects, as old links then go to 404 pages. I wouldn't expect however there to be a gain or loss for that inconsistancy in your url structure, save in people linking to .html by mistake.
Also as a slightly less SEO related note, for best ux, try getting rid of the .filetypes entirely, and in the homepages case rid of the index too. This mostly helps with the homepage, reducing the odds of needing a 301 for the link to reach you correctly.
I'd rel-canonical if you can, as theres still nothing stopping links to them being indexed. It might stop Rodger/Google from crawling them, but the potential indexation issues won't go away. Otherwise perhaps no-index them.
I'd usualy go as far to do re-prev and rel-next for the paginated searches as well.
If that is on a product page, then you should have a product description that would make each page unique, so duplicate errors is surprising.
If that information is it's own page, I would find a way of intergrating it with existing ones.
I would look into the reactions of consumers who realise you own all the websites.
If it looks unnatural, you might have trust issues and effect conversion. If I for example didn't see a major brand trying to sell me a certain product in the surps, I would be wondering if theres something funny going on with them.
Might be a non-issue, but thats the only other 'trap' that comes to mind.
I'm taking a bit of a guess at your question that by 'peru' you mean page. And by that you mean 'What position on the serach results page I appear on'. If I am wrong, then feel free to ignore this responce!
In order to find you true position, you need to be using a de-personalised search (Google tends to rank things you serch for or visit a lot higher based on your browsing habits!). Generaly the easyest way of doing this is using google crome, selecting the 'new incognito window' via the spanner option, and using that window to perform your search.
The rank tracker on SEOMoz uses a very similar method, and you may well find doing it this way that you are not actualy in the top 50. In which case you will need to look up an external tool,or go through the pages yourself.
I hope that answers you question.
Quite the reverse, I would say not to do so. There is certainly no benifit to you, and in the case the algo decided your no-follow link was the more relivent one you would lose all the potential link power for that page to the other page.
No-Follow is supposed to be used only for links to sites you do not wish to be assossiated with, and paid links. Using it for internal navigation isn't something that has been common since page rank sculpting stoped working.
Meny directories are still providing link juice, and it tends to be the least spammy ones.
I would say the best rule of thumb is any directory you would sign up due to the potential value of traffic from it is going to be relitivly safe to go for as it will be providing real value and thus less likly to be crushed by google.
Directories for links sake is more risky.
If the large number of keywords were natural (An SEO agency talking about SEO in a large blog post for example, might mention it meny times naturaly) then I wouldn't worry about it.
If you have been artifically stuffing your documents with keywords, I would be more concerned about how it reads to a human long before worrying about google. People tend to not to trust obviously keyword stuffed content.
The 'keyword stuffing' has been a reccomendation long before the coming update. I do remember there being a blog post here and a similar QA question on over optimisation where removing 2-3 instances of a keyword massivly improved rankings - Showing that it has been possable to be penalised for over-optimisation for a long time now.
One of the blog posts can be found here - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/lessons-learned-by-an-over-optimizer-14730
Hope this helps.
If you have lots of duplicate content, the chances are your url structure is causing it in which case the problem will return with every blog post, so deleting is probably not the answer.
Check the obvious things like is it caused by having a www. and non-www. version, if it accessable via diffrent capatalisation, and fix any related issues.
The other common things to check are tag and catagory pages which can easly end up looking exactly the same. Fix what you can before deleting the content, else you risk masking the problem.
Normaly I hear without, but have not seen any conclusive studys. I normaly see the non - outranking the same phrase with, but thats antidotal evidence.
This is where I would go with best practices for usability/branding, where at the very least short urls tend to work better.
Having an exact match via -'s can also look spammy at times. Though that might just be because of the sheer number of spammy sites that do.
I would prerform the serch yourself in a chrome incognito browser and just looks at the serps.
Is there for exampe, a pack of 6 results taking up that first slot, essentaly making you poition 7+?
Are all the other results dis-similar to you? In which case you might not be what people are searching for.
If your getting impressions, are in the right slot, and theres nothing else odd, compare your meta description to the number 1. People might just be looking at you and thinking you are providing somethign else.
I can't quite anser how google uses it, but after looking at this recently, I was suprised at the large portion of the adult workforce has a reltivly low reading comprehension. Make sure your target audiance can read your content, then worry about google second. You might find that this alone restricts you to the point where theres not enough wiggle room to worry about the score.
Is 95 hits a typo? Because if not your traffics dropped closer to 84%, and I would say it's penguin with a dead cert and advise reading some of the posts on recovery floating around.
Either way I would identify which keywords you have lost the most traffic on and review your link profile. Right now large % of exact match anchors seem to be a strong signal Penguin is in play.
Most of those methods are not foolproof. Using other computers, IP adreses and clearing your search history are not going to get you de-personalised results.
If you're going to look yourself, start a new 'incognito' window in Google Crome, and you should get completely de-personalised results.
If your still showing on page 1, double check your report. Make sure the search engine is set to google UK, and thta you are using the keyword exactly (letter for letter)
If all that fails, if your willing to provide the keyword, Someone here could probably try to confirm what you are experiancing.
If I remember there /was/ a good reason one way or the other for using cookieless domains and such to optimise image delivery e.t.c., it can only be done with your website on one and images on the other, but I can not remember which was around it was, and what senerio brings it about at the moment.
I prefur the www. version mostly due to all our competitors using it, so we look 'odd' when next to them. People expect to see the www.
There's the manual request in Web Master Tools.
Though that they're indexed and not the 301 of the page seems odd. Make sure there is a crawlable link to each page somewhere in your site, perhaps even make sure they are still in your sitemap, and not blocked by robots.txt. That should allow google to re-crawl the pages and realise they have been 301.
Also check how the 301 is implimented. Make sure theres not some kind of masking that is redirecting users and not google. Also make sure it is a 301 and not a 302.
If you try SEOMoz's Rank tool(http://www.seomoz.org/rank-tracker), it is showing you correctly. I'd use that to manualy get your rankings for your upcoming report.
The tracker and reports are only run once a week, so they will probably reflect you correctly at that time as well.
What's most likly to have happoned is that when it was last checking your position in the SERPs fluxuated and it missed you. We've had a page or two drop out of the rankings briefly at times and it isn't something to worry about unless it persists.
One other way of looking at this, especaly if you have a short domain is that a shorter url uses up less of character limits on social sites, forum sigs, or any other senario where you might otherwise have to use a url shortener to post the link.
It's a slight benifit, but it may mean the diffrence between sharing yourname.com or goog.gl/code, the former of which is usualy prefurable for brand reconition at least.
From a navigation point of view, being able to erase the end of a url and end up at a parent is excelent for UX. As is not having to recall a file type (the .htm)
It wouldn't thus entirely surpise me if google favoured such a structure.
I expect however, google infurs such relationships from your onsite interlinking more. - Breadcumbs for example would probably have more effect. (I do belive there is a markup for them in webmaster tools, or at least was one being beta'd recently)
I personaly wouldn't do such a change less there were other issues being fixed at the same time. (Improving UX would count). Make sure of course to do you 301's and change the internal links if you do.
In that case, I've seen a few people try it with no notable diffrence. Pre-Penguin there were a few cases here were removing several instances of a keyword in the body seemed to dramaticaly improve rankings, but thats more removing keyword stuffing then optimising your page to apear unoptimised.
Right now, if your keyword can be there and it reads naturally, then I don't see much reason for it not to be there. In contrast, if you whole page is about blue widgets ad the heading /doesn't/ include blue widgets, you'll be confusing people. People also link using the heading/title occassionaly, so you should pull off a few genuinely natural links with that heading.
At least as far as penguin goes, it seems much more link anchor oriented right now.
.NET is not a CMS system. It is a language your CMS is written in. (As in you can have the same menu in english and also in french, you could in theory have the same CMS in .php and .NET).
You'd need to give the name of the CMS if you want advice on it's suitability.
Honestly, your developer should be able to 301 from URL a to b without loops based on the info provided so far.
Looking at the footer of your website, I see "Powered by Communications3000
C3MS"
From a quick look of the site it links to I'm guessing it's something your webdevelopers have put together rather then an 'Off The shelf" cms so to speak.
I would recomend you find an SEO who knows both SEO and some .Net who could communicate with you and your developers to see if it is indeed impossable to do a 301, or if your developers are making excuses/misunderstanding the request/e.t.c.
That would probably give a better understanding of the situation.
As everyone else has said it /does/ sound rather odd that a 301 can't be implimented between the various ways of doing it.