Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi all,

I have a Twitter account. I have some data i receive from a third party. When new data arrives (these are football lineups) I want to post this to my Twitter. The data arrives approximately 60-30 minutes before matches start. So if I use twitterfeed i can get the data checked each 30 minutes - but this can result in tweets with data for matches that already started.

How can i post my data automatically...and almost instantly upon reception?

Not sure if this issue is for the MOZ forum, but I am pretty certain that there are some good developers out there that could help me?

-Rasmus

I don't see any other possibility other than Google has taken the domain name and upper cased the first letter.

I don't have this brand name any where - not on the site, in the HTML or in webmaster tools.

Hi,

Thanks for the input. My site is not a wordpress - it is hand built PHP with hundreds of thousands of lines. I took the long way.

I will try and search for this. But it seems they have just taken domain name and set first letter upper case. One of our competitors i see has the same tendency in SERPs.

-Rasmus

Hi all,

I am experiencing that Google puts our domain name at the end of the titles in SERPs. So if ia have a title: "See our super cool website", Google would show "See our super cool website - Betxpert.com" in the SERPs

Well. This is okay. Apart from the fact that i myself often put the brand name in the title AND the fact that Google mispells the site name. The brand is BetXpert with a upper case X...so when i get a SERP with "See our super cool website - BetXpert - Betxpert.com" I am annoyed

Any one out the know how to tell Google the EXACT brand name, such that they do not set a value the site owner does not want to have?

-Rasmus

The menu is on ALL pages. Is this a problem?

I feel that the link is relevant for any new user coming to the site. Will not seem spammy, i think.

One follow up question.

A couple of years ago, i removed links to our reviews from our menu because i was afraid it would seem spammy. But as far as i can see, all the pages in our menu have good Page Authority. Would it be a good "trick" to put the bookmaker reviews back in the menu in order to give the pages more of the internal link juice?

-Rasmus

Well, perhaps it is due to the affiliation with gambling. But, the pages outranking us, are also in affiliation with gambling.

Will try a little work towards link building and try to internally pass the link juice from the articles to the reviews.

Thank you for the replies!

I have an affiliate site where we have reviews of bookmakers, which are optimized for the bookmakers name as a key word. We have seen a drop in rankings and at this point we are out ranked by a lot of pages including our own.

We also have a community forum and write news and articles about the the bookmakers. The thing is, that these forum threads and articles often out rank our review pages, which are the pages we need people to land on in order to convert.

This page: http://www.betxpert.com/bookmakere/bet365 is optimized for "bet365" and is at this point outranked by http://www.betxpert.com/artikel/ny-funktion-hos-bet365-afslut-vaeddemaal-foer-tid.

This page actually links to the review.

What should i do in order to increase ranks for my pages?

Make the forum threads and articles crappy for the key word?

Would it help to add a canonical link to the articles?

Would it help to remove the meta tag for update time of the review, such that Google does not downrank for not being recent?

-Rasmus

I have a website where i register outbound clicks on some affiliate links. But when crawlers and search engines pass my site i get clicks registered which are not customer clicks.

How can I identify these clicks and not save records of them?

-Rasmus

Hi all,

I have a PHP function which i use to make all links clickable. Problem is, if some one writes a link in a a-tag, the URL inside the href value is made clickable. Not good.

Can someone perhaps help me with the issue?

Function:

function makeClickableLinks($text)
{
$text = preg_replace('/<//', ' $text = preg_replace('(
)', '
', $text);
$text = preg_replace('!((https?://www.|https?://|www.)(([a-z0-9-]+.)+[a-z]{2,6})(/\S+|/)*)!ie', '"[".shortenurl("\1")."]("".(strtolower('$2'))"', $text);
$text = str_replace('( <a href',="" '<a="" $text);<br="">$text = str_replace(')" target', '" target', $text);
$text = str_replace('):" target', '" target', $text);
$text = str_replace(')..." target', '" target', $text);
$text = str_replace(').." target', '" target', $text);
$text = str_replace(')." target', '" target', $text);
return $text;
}</a>

<a href',="" '<a="" $text);<br="">Pleeeeease heeelp Can't fix it on my own - been at it for ages.

-Rasmus</a>

Hi all,

I stumbled upon an issue on my site.

We have a video section:

www.holdnyt.dk/video

htaccess rule:

RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule ^video index.php?area=video [L,QSA]

Problem is that these URLs give the same content:
www.holdnyt.dk/anystring/video
www.holdnyt.dk/whatsoever/video

Any one with a take on whats wrong with the htaccess line?

-Rasmus

Hi,

I am not an expert on the subject, but a quick search gave the following good input here on SEOmoz:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/building-a-video-seo-strategy

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/youtube-ranking-factors-whiteboard-friday

Hope this can help!

-Rasmus

I would go with the latter.

Remember that the keyword, meta title, description and h1-tag on the pages should be as distinguishable as possible AND be as descriptive as possible.

Also, you should consider if the page for the brown leather bag is more or less equal to the page for a black leather bag. If the only difference is a couple of words I would consider a canonical link for each color to the "main color" page. Duplicate content would make it hard for you to rank.

Hope this helps!

-Rasmus

If you do as Fransisco says, and move the entire site correctly...you should just go to Google Webmaster tools and move the URLs there.

If you have GWT approved for both domains, you just follow the guide in there to move the site from a Google perspective.

Sean: I think a whole lot. We collect news on sport and make it easy for our users to get the quick overview without visiting 10+ sites. By making widgets for external sites with links to news about a single team or sport, this would be of good value for the site receiving the widget. We then get a link at the bottom of the widget "Provided by Holdnyt.dk" for instance. Or "More news about [team-name]".

It would be okay link building i would say - and also give some clicks.

Or what do you think?

Hi all,

I am looking to create som widgets for external sites with some of my data, off course with links to my site.

But if i make a php file with some content, and another site iframes that php file, would I get link juice from this?

If not, any suggestions to how i could get my data on to another site AND get the juice?

-Rasmus

The search "skader og karantæner premier league" has no searches according to adwords, while "skader premier league" has 260 local monthly searches, and "karantæner premier league" has 110 monthly.

So the way to go should be seperate pages per keyword.

Hi,

I have a question about good keyword practice. I have a page:

http://www.holdnyt.dk/skader-karantaener/fodbold/england-premier-league

It lists all injuries ("skader" in danish) and suspensions ("karantaener" in danish) for the english premier league in football/soccer.

On the page one can choose to show only injuries OR suspensions, which have their own URLs:

http://www.holdnyt.dk/skader-karantaener/fodbold/england-premier-league/skader

http://www.holdnyt.dk/skader-karantaener/fodbold/england-premier-league/karantaener

My question is - what is best. To optimize the first URL (the more general one) to fit both of the following keywords:
"skader premier league" and "karantaener premier league"

OR should i focus on optimizing the two latter URLs, the more specfiic to target the two keywords.

Regards,

Rasmus

Hi all,

I have a question, which I can not figure out the answer to.

I have a web site which collects sporting news articles so that users need only to go to one site to check news about a subject instead of going to all sorts of sites. On the site I simply link out (to over 300 sources).

My question is: The links (I have thousands and thousands per day) should they be follow or nofollow? Do I gain anything by having them set to follow. Or do I lose anything by setting them to nofollow?

The site is http://www.holdnyt.dk - if you want to see how many links are per page and so on.

-Rasmus

And another question.

If i have a file named filename.php I can not make and use a css file named filename.css. The names clash in some way.

Hi,

I have the following line in my .htaccess:
RewriteRule privacy stdpage.php?slug=privacy [L]

So if you go to the www.mysite.com/privacy it takes the stdpage.php with the argument above.

But if you go to www.mysite.com/privacysssssssss catches the same file.

How can I prevent this? It will give me multiple URLs with the exact same content. I have a 404 page which i would like to show instead when the match is not 100%.

-Rasmus

Thank you. I have done so. No need to not get the juice

I mean that in webmaster tools Google has some links lige http://www.betxpert.com/links/football.asp which a URL from the old site. There are a lot of these registeret with an 500 error in GWT.

The link section would be a collection of good links for sports bettors. Partner links, interesting statistical links. Not a whole lot of crappy links

You say to be careful? Why and how?

-Rasmus

Hi all,

I am currently thinking about adding a link section to my site. In 2010 I released a new version of the site, where one of the main differences to the old site was that a link section was left out.

Now i see in webmaster tools that a lot of old links are still indexed but has a 500 error.

My question is:

1. Will my site in general benefit from having a link sections with relevant links for the users - in terms of SEO?

2. Will my site benefit from creating a link section and having all the old link section URLs in google redirected to the new section?

Best regards,

Rasmus

Hi,

We are on the verge of selling some of our content articles to a business partner. But my concern is about the content appearing severeal places on the web. It will most likely be labelled as duplicate content. The articles have links to our site, so link building-wise it would be great to benefit from these.

What would the best solution be?

1. If I ask the partner to set pages to noindex - google will not label it as duplicate content.

2. If the partner sets the pages with a canonical link to our page, will this be okay SEO wise?

-Rasmus

10 on google.dk - so it could use a bit of improvement.

Well, actually. We have lots of visitors, and the blog/forwarding site would probably not serve much other purpose than SEO and a bit trafficing.

But if i was to create some content on a blog for link building to my main site, would it be beneficiary to do it on a domain with a keyword in the domain name or does it not matter?

Hi all,

I am currently working on link building to our site http://www.betxpert.com which has a number of keywords I am targeting. I have become aware that domains with the keywords are available. We (in Danish) target the phrase "ekpert tips" and the domain www.eksperttips.dk is available.

Would it be a good thing for us, to register this domain and do one of the following things:

a) DNS forward traffic to our main site

b) Build a small blog with minor content and linking to the main site with text links with the tekst "ekspert tips"?

c) Simply do nothing, save the money and spend it otherwise...

Hope someone can give me a sound advice.

Best regards,

Rasmus

Exactly - I want to show some information for the users coming from Google

Great - thank you!

Hi all,

I am trying to optimize our landing pages in order to getting new visitors to make an action instead of leaving. But in order to so, I need to be able to identify when a user comes from a Google search and when a user does not.

Can anyone help me? The site is written in PHP.

Best regards,

Rasmus

Hi,

I have earlier had a post about this, but still I am in doubt. I posted: http://www.seomoz.org/q/page-not-being-indexed

The keyword "betsafe" in that question has now "bounced" back and is now the page shown in SERPS for the search keyword. This is great, however I don't know why. By checking the URL in OSE i have discovered that the page has in-links from SEOmoz.org. Which comes from the above questions thread.

Can it really be, that these 2 links from SEOmoz forum has done the difference? We appareantly have zero links from other sites to the URL, despite actually having them on another site.

Now we are having trouble with keyword: "bet365" which should show page http://www.betxpert.com/bookmakere/bet365 but does not (on google.dk).

I have optimized the page as far as I can stretch it without doing in in an unnatural way. Only thing left to do is bring down number of links.

What is your advice? Should I simply try to link build for the URL with the keyword - and then it will beat our other pages which seem to steal the SERPS?

-Rasmus

So! Have now made some changes.

I have removed the large number of links at the bottom and a single widget on the right. It seems to have lowerede the level of noise on the page.

We brandish our articles with keywords (but mostly new ones since the feature is new) such that only relevant articles are linked (in a widget which appears when relevant articles are found).

This change should cut it, right?

-Rasmus

Hi,

We have a whole lot of articles on our site. In total 5232 actually.

The web crawler tells me that in the articles we have a lot of duplicate content. Which is sort of nonsense, since each article is unique. Ah, some might have some common paragraphs because they are recurring news about a weekly competition.

But, an example:

http://www.betxpert.com/artikler/bookmakere/brandvarme-ailton-snupper-topscorerprisen

AND

http://www.betxpert.com/artikler/bookmakere/opdaterede-odds-pa-sportschef-situationen-pa-vestegnen

These are "duplicate content", however the two article texts are not the same. The menu, and the widgets are all the same, but highly relevant to the article.

So what should I do? How can i rid myself of these errors?

-Rasmus

I am not able to click on the link? I get an SEOmoz page?

Can you post the link again and make sure that that it is clickable to the correct address?

Also, when you are at it, post the method of redirect. Is it .htaccess or is it done in the code?

If done correctly, then yes you should be forwarded. So something is not correct.

-Rasmus

As the title says:

Do anchor links pointing to bottom/top of page count as link?

This page:

http://www.betxpert.com/forum/bookmakere/vis/ladbrokes-kommentar

I has over 300 links, but I don't see that many links. Is it the "#15" and the top/bottom of page anchors that count?

Is this harmful in terms of link juice?

-Rasmus

The example you are giving has 130 links in total. The recommendation is maximum 100.

Also, the page you link to seems to have a lot of links compared to the total amount of text. I could be seen as a bit spammy....og at the least a bit "linky"

Read this blog on the issue: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-many-links-is-too-many

Regards,

Rasmus

I have had a similar question once, where I asked the same about nofollow:

http://www.seomoz.org/q/will-a-mega-menu-on-all-pages-dilute-the-link-juice

In the thread the following was posted:

Should I consider setting "nofollow" for some of the links on other pages than the homepage?

Definitely not. When you nofollow a link, you do not save any link juice. You stop the link juice of flowing to the link but it does not flow to other links on your page.

Best regards,

Rasmus

I can assure you that it really does matter. I am currently working on bringing down the number of links on our page, since we have a (too) extensive menu at the top of the page. It has almost 100 links alone. And as far as I can see our index pages and pages in general do not accumulate as much pagerank as one should think.

When the SEO gurus say a maximum of 100 links on a page, they mean it. And it matters

Another thread on the matter: http://www.seomoz.org/q/will-a-mega-menu-on-all-pages-dilute-the-link-juice

Best regards,

Rasmus

Yes I would say so. Choose one and go with it.

You can set your .htaccess file to redirect non www to www. If you can access a page with and without www then google will index both and issue you with a duplicate content warning.

Only difference is see is that the page:
http://bbguard.com.ve

Has a rel value:
http://bbguard.com.ve/

In the eyes of a search engine I am not sure that these URLs are identical. I would make them match exactly.

Are you only having this problem for the home page or are you getting warnings for other pages?

Best regards,

Rasmus

Hi all,

I have a matter i would like a discussion about, since I am looking for a good solution.

First the case:

I have a site with a large community based discussion board. We daily have 40 to 80 active forum threads with average of 200 posts. As it is right now each thread page shows, at the bottom of the thread, the 20 threads with latest activity.

From a SEO point of view this is not the best solution, since all thread pages passes link juice to the latest 20 threads. However, the threads change daily so the juice is sprayed around all over the place.

What I want to do is related forum threads, such that each thread at the bottom shows up to 10 threads which could be of interest to the reader. In this way one thread will have more or less the same threads at the bottom at all time, unless the relevancy is better for other threads, causing som minor changes to happen over time.

The question is, how can one do this?

In the backend, the forum has two tables. One holding threads and one holding posts relating to the threads. All in all the system has 66.500 threads, and in total 469.000 posts. Every thread has a title, and the posts are of varying length.

The threads have categories, but they are not so distinct that a thread in one category can not be related to a thread in another category. So I would like to make the relevancy from the title of the thread and the content of the forum posts.

As of yet I have not come up with a good solution, and i will look forward to reading any feedback for this.

I will answer any questions as fast as possible, to get a good discussion goint here.

Best regards,

Rasmus

I have a site with 100K pages and our sitemap has about 100 entries I think.

In my opinion you should not shorten the process. It is important to do it correctly, and it depends on the site at hand.

Now, I do not now which website this is regarding, so hard to give advice about a specfic case.

But what I would do is include the home page and all navigational sections (sub section indexes). Other than that include the most important pages for your company and the central ones which change often.

These things you probably already know. I have not heard of quick way of just making a sitemap for a large site. It requires attention. But i guess, that if you really want to do it quickly and really do not want to put in the effort and thaught to make quality sitemap you could probably just take the 100 most visited pages for your site in the last year. In their you should find the most important pages?

Regards,

Rasmus

Ah!

I've found it!

You have a canonical link on each page?

| rel="canonical" href="http://www.syrahetcompagnie.com/Default.asp" /> |

This is not so good, as it is on http://www.syrahetcompagnie.com/vins-vallee-du-rhone-nord.htm AND http://www.syrahetcompagnie.com/PBHotNews.asp?PBMInit=1

If you remove that (and keep it on the start page) you should experience a whole lot of indexing in the following days

Best regards

Rasmus

You are correct. I've just found this page:

http://www.robotstxt.org/robotstxt.html

It says:

User-agent: *

Disallow:

Allows all robots to all pages.So that was my mistake. I am truly sorry for the confusion.

I will have a look at it later to see if I can find a good explanation...