It's tempting but I'm well off the idea of site directories for a while. I think they can add value in the form of IP diversity, but I'm staying clear for a while
I'd hoped that RSS directories would be different!
Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
It's tempting but I'm well off the idea of site directories for a while. I think they can add value in the form of IP diversity, but I'm staying clear for a while
I'd hoped that RSS directories would be different!
Other than technorati and alltop what are the best RSS directories to use and submit feeds to?
Naghirniac - thanks
I think you may be right, but it's seems so, so easy to submit to RSS directories and therefore potentially easy to give compeitors a shed load of 'crappy' links.
At least with site directories you have to complete more than one field!
to as many RSS feed directories as possible?
Or would this have a similar negative impact that you'd get from submitting a site to loads to "potentially spammy" site directories?
Ooo, doesn't sound great.
Do you think if I was to do this it would be better to convert the whole site to HTTPS and enforce it site wide?
(I actually posted a private question on this as well hoping you'd answer it, but you've done it here! - can I close the private one??)
Thanks
Thanks for answering Dr. Pete
The reason I want to build links to the https version is because I plan to redirect the non secure homepage to the secure one.
The home page captures some customer details, so I don't think it makes sense to have the non secure version available as well.
If that makes sense.
Yeah, twiends is ok for gaining 'rubbish' followers, but I'm looking to promote content and drive links - Getting a sponsored tweet from someone in the right field, seems like a good idea, but I need some more convincing!
Vizergy - thanks for that. I have problems trusting anything that Mr. Cutts says, but it makes sense.
What's the forums opinion on using Sponsored Tweets (i.e, sponsoredtweets.com) to drive traffic,links and/or followers?
Has anyone had any experience with it they can share?
Scenario:
Two sites, exactly the same with a form to capture customer details on the home page (e.g. name, address).
Would Google rank a site that uses HTTPS over a site that uses HTTP?
From what I've heard, they would trust the HTTPS site more than HTTP and therefore rank it higher.
Forum opinions?
Say I've got a site that can be accessed using either protocal (i.e. HTTP and HTTPS), but most (if not all of the links) are pointing to the HTTP versions. Will it cause a problem if I start link building to HTTPS versions?
In other words does google see http://mysite.com as the same page as https://mysite.com?
Thanks
I think I may do the same. Although the site doesn't have many thin pages, I'm gonna get rid of any that might seem unnecessary and see what happens from there.
I've really gone off Pandas
All of them pretty much. Competitive keywords have dropped and so have any long tails. Pretty bad state of affairs!
Naghirniac - thanks for your answer.
Granted, but which is the best for SEO?
I'm thinking, surely I can just do a simple 301?
Hi everyone,
I'm looking to redirect all http requests to https for a site's homepage. It only needs to be for the homepage, not site wide.
What's the best method of doing this without losing pagerank or ranking?
I'm using IIS7.5 so I've been looking at a URL Rewrite or possibly this ASP.Net solution;
http://www.xdevsoftware.com/blog/post/Redirect-from-Http-to-Https-in-ASPNET.aspx
Or is a simple 301 or 302 (for some reason Microsoft's site says to do a 302 re-direct, though I'm not sure if this is great from an SEO perspective?) re-direct from http version to the https version the best method?
Also if the solution retained the URL query string that would be even better!
Any help appreciated! Thanks
Yes, tell me about it. This site is back to the same place it was about a year ago.
It's even more frustrating to see competitors using completely black hat and spammy tactics and still sitting in positions #1 #2 and #3
Well mainly, a site that was ranking top 4 for it's target keyword has dropped to page 2.
It's also lost site wide ranking for numerous other keywords.
As it's site wide, it seems pretty clear to me that the Panda has struck again.... Blasted Panda!
Similar story for you?
or indeed any other other 40 changes Google have announced?
http://insidesearch.blogspot.com/2012/02/search-quality-highlights-40-changes.html
Unfortunately I have in a bad way. Almost exactly a year after it first happened with Panda!
I'm Angry!
Since starting this thread, it's apparent that Panda 3.3 is the culprit here
Hmmm, interesting reading.
That could be the cause then - I assume it's live!
Thanks for the info Marcus.
I suppose dodgy is the wrong word, "un-natural looking" would probably be better.
The site doesn't have loads of dodgy links, there's some for sure, but most of it's links are from guest or sponsored posts - so I guess this could look potentially un-natural.
That's what my thoughts were, but I'm thinking if one more dodogy link was all that was needed to trigger an algorithmic penalty that it could be the cause....?
I'm at a bit of a loss as to what's caused it otherwise!
Yeah, could be a penalty as it's definitely site wide. But I've been in this situation before and the site recovered after building a few 'quality' links.
Does anyone know if one "potentially dodgy" link can trigger an algorithmic penalty? or should I be looking at other potential factors?
I also bought a site wide side bar graphic advert recently (which incidentely hasn't been nofollowed), but it's from a reputable, decent site - is this more likely to have caused the problem?
I suspect (Although find it hard to beleive!) that a recently aquired link may have affected the rankings of one of my sites for all of it's keywords.
Should I get this link removed asap or leave it and see if things recover?
To me, it just smacks of un-nautral if the link gets removed straight away.
Hi Marcus,
Thanks for responding, the site is guarantorloanscompany.co.uk
Dropped for all it's keywords!
The only thing I can think is that it might be to do with a link I acquired late last week that is pointing to some new content, so I'm tempted to get that removed. However, it seems a bit extreme to just be that!
Does anyone know if there's been an algorithmic update for google.co.uk in the last couple of days?
My site has dropped 15 places or more for all of it's terms and I'm trying to work out the cause!!!
Thanks.
That's the problem! Although some do surprisingly!
Google's wise to this though and so if it sees that you have a good number of quality links, it won't penalise you for it. Otherwise a competitor could just build spammy links on your behalf and ruin your ranking!
You should probably start a new Thread for this Tina - you'll get more responses.
The only way to remove bad links really is to contact the site owners where the bad links reside and ask them to remove them! There's no quick fix unfortunately.
You can use opensiteexplorer to seek out the links which are bad, then you'll need to go through them one by one, seek out the contact details for the site admin (using WHOis if necessary) and then ask for the link to be taken down.
If you have spammy links, you should also concentrate on creating QUALITY links at the same time. Google will usually ignore most spammy links as long as you have a reasonable number of good links in your profile as well.
Hope that helps.
Yes, that seems a fair point.
I'll go ahead with the ticker and hope for the best!
Thanks for your help on this one.
Dr. Pete
Good to see your face in here
Thanks for confirming my worst suspicions! I'll be staying clear of that method then.
It's use was essentially just to flash up a short text decription and a link to new site content (to fit in a fairly small space), like a news ticker.
Do you think a javascript style news ticker, like the one at the top here would be better?
http://sandbox.scriptiny.com/contentslider/slider.html
It removes the need to set style="display: none;" however, some text starts off outside of the "news ticker" limits and so is technically invisible to begin with.
Thanks again.
Rob,
You're right, it's rubbish for navigation, but it's what is required in this instance.
There's 'real' navigation as well, this is just a feed to catch the visitor's eye and throw up new pages or content that might be of interest.
Thanks
Ah, Hello Mozzers, it's been a while since I was here.
Wanted to run something by you...
I'm looking to incorporate some fading text using Javascript onto a site homepage using the method described here;
http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades/
so, my question is; does anyone think that Google might see this text as a possible dark hat SEO anchor text manipulation (similar to hidden links)?
The text will contain various links (4 or 5) that will cycle through one another, fading in and out, but to a bot the text may appear initially invisible, like so;
style="display: none;"><a href="">Link Here</a>
All links will be internal.
My gut instinct is that I'm just being stupid here, but I wanted to stay on the side of caution with this one!
Thanks for your time
http://blog.thomascsherman.com/2009/08/text-slideshow-or-any-content-with-fades
Gyi - the fear has subsided for the time being!
Thanks for the response
Thanks Keri. Well put
I've taken it on board
Yes, that's a fair point.
My caution is because in the past, the blog didn't link out to other sites at all. Now I've just started creating posts with external links in them.
As long as this won't be detrimental in anyway, I'll carry on
I know that google's traditional stance on this is that any paid links should be nofollowed, so I just don't want google to think that these might be paid links which haven't been nofollowed... and therefore impose a penalty for this.
I need my memory refreshed here!
Say, I've got a blog and some of the posts have links to recommended external sites and content. Should these be nofollowed?
They're not paid links or anything like that, simply things relevant to the post.
If you're competing on a local basis and not looking to rise up the serps for a general keyword then you may see some traffic from people searching the Yahoo directory for a local listing, so therefore, probably go regional.
If you're targetting specfic keywords and hoping this will boost your ranking, then I would probably opt for the generic category.
You can also request for the site to be placed in up to 2 categories after submission here;
http://add.yahoo.com/fast/change/
So, once you're in, submit the request to the category you didn't pick as well
I would see no reason why that would be a problem for Yahoo.
It's worth bearing in mind that you typically want your listing to be as shallow as you can get it in the directory as possible. Deep links don't have as much link juice passed to them and are also less likely to be crawled on a frequent basis.
Is there a more shallow generic law category you can put the site in rather than deep in the regional listings? (This is assuming you're seeking the seo benefit of the link rather than people actually searching the Yahoo! directory?)