Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Disqus doesn't use iframes. The content is displayed on page as HTML within a div tag.
We use Disqus for comments on the TranslateMedia blog.
http://www.translatemedia.com/400-million-chinese-cant-speak-mandarin.html/
If you view the source code you can see the comments in there.
My company has various offices around the world and we're in local search for most of them. This was done by submitting the site to Google Places for each location, including pages on the site for each office with a map, telephone number etc - all using structured data (http://schema.org/PostalAddress).
Google Places verifies your physical address by sending a postcard in the mail with a PIN which allows you to verify the existence of your business at that address so it's difficult to abuse.
Hi Raj
Chris is right. You'll be fine as long as you show the same content to both users and search engines. Presenting different content to users and search engines is what is commonly referred to as cloaking.
What you're referring to here is essentially a rewrite of the URL to make it search friendly. This is a common technique on sites using, for example, Apache's mod rewrite extension (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_rewrite.html).
The only issue is if search engines index both the search friendly and non-search-friendly URLs so I'd recommend placing a rel="canonical" tag on that page referencing the search friendly URL.
My understanding is that it's a factor but not a big one if you're already using a ccTLD and/or geotargeting.
I had an experience where we moved a site hosted in the UK to Amazon Web Services' data centre located in Ireland. The site was on a .com domain but used geotargeting for the UK. As far as we could tell, the server move did not have any effect on rankings on google.co.uk or google.ie.
I had another experience with a .co.uk domain - which was moved to 1&1 in Germany. This site did not use geotargeting. Again, we didn't notice any significant changes in UK rankings as a result of the move.
Hi Ilcho,
If you want to keep the link juice, you should definitely 301 all the URLs to relevant pages on your site.
However, I wouldn't redirect all of these to the homepage. Apparently internal 301s to the homepage are treated as 404s by Google
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsDeu5PUx2A
Yusuf
Hi
I was curious about this too. And then I found this
https://seomoz.zendesk.com/entries/20770156-Open-Site-Explorer-to-crawl-HTTPS
Looks like it was in development but had some issues. Hopefully it'll be available soon.
Hi Bob,
This effect is done using a background image.
The image being used is this one:
http://www.3dcart.com/images/5/main-panorama3.jpg
It has a width of 2500 and height of 444. This ensures that it takes up the whole screen on devices less than 2500px wide (which is most of them). The image has feathering on the left and right - which allows it to fade to the same as the black background on devices largest than 2500px.
The site specifies the image, width and background colour in their CSS file:
.panel0 {
height: 444px;
background: #18100d url(../images/5/main-panorama3.jpg) no-repeat center top;
}
and to display the background image - they use HTML similar to this:
[SOME STUFF]
I hope that helps.
I have a feeling this might be because Open Site Explorer reports on the number of Facebook likes on a given URL (e.g. your homepage) rather than the site as a whole - which is the 4k figure you're referring to.
Hi Mario,
I agree with Jeff. You need to move your site up a folder.
You could write rules that remove the '/coastal/' from the canonical URL for the Yoast plugin, 301 redirect /coastal/* to /* etc - but this is really messy.
It's fine to have your site on the root domain....it's no less secure.
Hi Asif
That page is being indexed
It's just not ranking that well.
Probably worth trying to obtain relevant, high quality links to that page. Also, does appear to have a lot of keyword stuffing (guitar classes appears over 20 times on the page). The listings could probably benefit from short descriptions rather than key phrase based tags.
Hi Vakantiehuizen,
If you're referring to an inbound link or page being indexed containing query string parameters e.g. example.com?utm_source=x, then yes...these may cause issues with duplicate content and SEO. If you have pages with these parameters on your site then you should use the rel="canonical" tag to specify the canonical URL that you'd like Google to rank. Also, you should never include these parameters for internal links on your site.
Although I don't know what you mean when you say "UTM tag link is not a natural link". Could you explain?
It might be on most pages but still be an error - for instance if you're using mod_rewrite and the dot has been placed in the rewrite rule then a single error could potentially affect many pages.
If these pages rank well and it's for purely aesthetic reasons that you'd like to remove the dot, then you may want to consider leaving the pages as they are since using a 301 redirect may result in a loss of some of the existing PageRank.
It seems to me that your developers are placing the 301 redirect rules in something like a .htaccess file. In this case, it is better to have fewer redirect rules to keep the size of the file down.
But why don't they store the original URL and new URL in a database - which can be queried and the appropriate 301 header initiated to allow the redirect to take place (if appropriate)? This way you could easily add a few thousand without any performance issues.
As far as the titles/urls are concerned, the system shouldn't change the URL every time the title changes. This will cause problems in the future. I'd ask the developers to change this.
I don't think you need to be overly concerned about this if you're already using rel="canonical".
We regularly receive inbound links with these parameters included in them.
The reason why this happens is that we included these parameters to track some of our email and social campaigns and sometimes people find these links and link to them. These are perfectly natural, just that the people that link to them might not know about these parameters and may think they are part of the URL and the links may not work without them.
Hi. Just looking at your backlinks, you only appear to have one external backlink which is from a directory.
http://www.hotvsnot.com/Home/Do-It-Yourself/
I would suggest trying to gain more links from high quality links related to your industry by producing great content that receives natural inbound links and/or getting in touch with site owners to see if you can contribute to their sites.
Hi Irving,
Sometimes the .htaccess files are hidden so you just need to change your FTP client to allow the viewing of hidden files
http://www.rackspace.com/knowledge_center/article/how-can-i-see-my-htaccess-file
After than, you should be able to view the contents of a .htaccess file by using notepad or any other text editor.
Hi Everett,
Thanks for your response.
I also believed that the rel=canonical merge the link profiles but so far all the evidence I've seen suggests that it doesn't.
Firstly - Jon Mueller from Google stated that the rel=canonical tag doesn't merge the link profile. That's talked about here.
http://moz.com/community/q/quick-rel-canonical-link-juice-question
Secondly, if I look at some examples, you'd expect pages with rel=canonical tags to have zero authority etc. reported for page alternatives in Open Site Explorer.
e.g. on the ASOS website there is a link to the men's section which uses a query string parameter.
http://www.asos.com/men/?via=top
The canonical url is
Both report different levels of authority. If the link profiles were merged, would you not expect either the same levels of authority reported or the non-canonical version to report no authority?
I understand that Moz tools don't work like Google so I'd like to hear from someone who can explain this.
Thanks,
Yusuf
Duplicate content is detrimental but the issue is relatively easy to solve. Just ensure you add rel="canonical" tags to the duplicate pages to allow Google to identify and rank the preferred page.
It always amazes me when clients ask for stuff when they don't even know why they would need it. I'm not sure it's even possible to link them, and even if it was....I don't see what value it could possibly provide without all the systems that the tags are intended allowing for integration between them.
The value of linking Webmaster Tools and Analytics is obvious. There's stuff happening off-site that you might want to know about (inbound links, impressions on search, etc) and have integrated into your analytics report...fair enough.
The same is not true of Google Tag Manager, which simply allows you to manage the various tags easily. These tags are normally related to allowing other systems to do stuff (such as collect data). It is these systems that need to be integrated, if possible (e.g. Analytics and Adwords).
Hi David,
Thanks for your response. That makes perfect sense.
I assumed that to be the case but thought it was worth checking before making any changes.
I suppose by adding appropriate hreflang="x" mark-up combined with the geo-targeting of root domain and subfolders - that should be enough to inform search engines of our intended geographical targets.
Strangely there wasn't a lot of information out there about this specific question - so thanks again.
Yusuf
Hi
You need to add an onclick event...
[Ask a Question](javascript:__doPostBack('ctl00$MainContent$AskQuestionButton',''))
and
but replace 'event action', 'event label' and 'event value' with values you can understand like 'top quote button', 'homepage' etc.
I guess it depends how much duplication there is. If the pages contain completely duplicate content with no unique content at all then the best move would be to noindex or nofollow them. Otherwise rel=canonical is probably fine.
