Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi BobAnderson,

I do not think that will be an issue at all.

You would do well to set the internal targetting -> country to "united states" too.

I don't think the UK registration of the company will have an effect, unless you make a big song and dance about it on the web.

Best

Hi, we are migrating our website to https. We have a lot of 301s in htaccess that we need to keep, changing the destiny to the https version of the site. At the same time, we need to make new 301 redirects from the http url´s to https url´s
Our question is Could we combine this redirects in htaccess with a Schema redirect with 301 code? (Is it the same to use schema redirecs as using redirects in htaccess?)

This would be the situation:

Htaccess redirects:

A http url ->301-> B http url -> (we change this in htaccess and use:)-> A http url ->301->B https url

Schema redirect:

B http url ->301-> B https url

Thanks!

Hi everyone,
I am struggling to remember the correct term to describe a substring of a KW phrase.

For example- the KW "top online seo tools" is composed of the substrings:
top online seo tools top online seo tools
top online seo tools top online seo tools top online seo tools

There is a term that describes those "KWs within KWs", and I am going crazy trying to remember what it is...

Thanks!

Hi everyone,

I have a related question about personalisation too which is a variation on the theme but which I would appreciate some help with.

There is a project afoot within my company to "personalise" the user experience by presenting pages to users which better respond to their interests.

That is to say that, when a user visits our page about "tennis-shoes", the next time they visit the homepage they will be presented with a homepage which focusses on tennis-shoes.

So far so good.

However rather than personalising certain elements of the homepage, the idea is to intercept those users, and 301 them to an entirely different URL, completly hidden from Google, which will contain entirely different content focussing only on shoes.

The top navegation will remain the same.

This sounds like a massive breach of Quality Guidelines on at least two counts to me. It reeks of cloacking and "sneaky redirects", and I am very concerned this will do us way more harm than good.

I'm guessing that the correct way of going about this would be to either generate a great "shoes" page and allow users to navigate to it, visit it, and do whatever they want with it, or to personalise the homepage including some dynamic elements on the same URL, without hiding things from Google or frustrating users by not allowing them to access the page they are trying to access.

Any feedback from the community would be a great help.

Thanks a lot!

Hi Anthony,

Thanks very much for your help. What you suggest sounds reasonable. Many thanks for the help!

Best

Hi there,

Although we do plan to migrate our entire site to https, we currently have only one page on our site which we want to migrate to https, as it has passwords and wotnot on it.

Lets say it is httpS://www.example.com/login/

I am not really sure how to go about migrating just one page though.
I am guessing that we need to:

• make sure that httpS://www.example.com/login/ is the only page that exists on httpS://
• replace any link to the httpS://www.example.com/login/ version on the http:// version
• remove httpS://www.example.com/login/ from the http://www.example.com/sitemap.xml
• create a httpS://www.example.com/sitemap.xml on httpS:// which only references the one page (httpS://www.example.com/login/)
• 301 http://www.example.com/login/ to https://www.example.com/login/
• submit both sitemaps to Google so they know whats up.
• fetch http://www.example.com/login/ so that google finds the redirect.

Anything else?? :S

Not too sure about this one.

Many thanks for your help.

Thanks a lot for your reply Stephan!

I would be super intertesting to read a little more around the subject. Do you have any studies or cases you might refer me to which describe the flow of link equity to "page C" from "Page A"?

Many thanks

Hi Mozzers,

I was musing about rel=canonical this morning and it occurred to me that I didnt have a good answer to the following question:

• How does applying a rel=canonical on page A referencing page B as the canonical version affect the treatment of the links on page A?

I am thinking of whether those links would get counted twice, or in the case of ver-near-duplicates which may have an extra sentence which includes an extra link, whther that extra link would count towards the internal link graph or not.

I suspect that google would basically ignore all the content on page A and only look to page B taking into account only page Bs  links.

Any thoughts?

Thanks!

Hi Carl,

There is no SEO advatage to using one of the (not-so) new TLDs. Theoretically there is no SEO dis-advantage either.

John Mueller made Google's position on this quite clear back in the day-
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2015/07/googles-handling-of-new-top-level.html

Essentially, John states that new TLDs are like old TLDs- they are simply TLDs. Having keywords in the TLD presents no advantage. Having place names in the TLD give nos geographic emphasis.

Personally, I feel there is a bit of a UX issue with these new TLDs in the sense that users are not accustomed to them, and as a result don't feel to comfortable using them. From that point of view I think they represent a significant disadvantage. If I were to see a www.example.clothing printed on a business card, I think I would have to do a double-take before understanding it is a website, and I work in the industry. Maybe thats just me...

Hope that helps!

Hi Tertiary Education,

From the way you describe it your pages are being considered duplicate content becuase they are so very similiar, that is to say that they are near-duplicates if not actual duplicates.

It sounds like the content on those pages is somewhat thin- is there anything else on the page apart from the map? If the answer is "no", or "not much", then consider padding them out with (quality) content that serves your audience. I think this is what Patrick is referring to with his suggestions (forgive me if I am mis-interpreting you Patrick!), and I think he is absolutely right. Other things to consider as creating unique title and descriptions for each page (I mention it in case you have over looked it).

By adding valuable differentiated, content to those pages you will be differentiating one from the other as well as providing value to your users. As Moz sees these changes it should stop flagging them as duplicates, and as google re-indexes the pages it will begin to appreciate the differences between them and gradually index them as non-duplicate content.

Hope that helps

Hi Bernadette,

Thanks for your input.

I guess my question, put more succunctly would be- when does "personalisation" cross the line to become "cloaking"? And how to avoid Google confusing between the two. By definition personalisation involves showing one set of content to one set of users, and at least one other set of content to at least one other set of users.

I totally understand that essentially Google will only see one set of content as a "first time" user, but given than that content will not be the same as the content all other users see, I can see that at some point Google might mis-interpret this as a maliciouos technique. Maybe my concern lies in y ignorance over exactly HOW cloacking is carried out technically.

Thanks

Hi Mozians,

My firm is looking to present different content to different users depending on whether they are new, return visitors, return customers etc...

I am concerned how this would work in practice as far as Google is concrened- how would react to the fact that the bot would see different content to some users. It has the slight whiff of cloacking about it to me, but I also get that in this case it would be a UX thing that would genuinely be of benefit to users, and clearly wouldn't be intended to manipulate search rankings at all.

Is there a way of acheiving this "personalisation" in such a way that Google understands thay you are doint it? I am thinking about some kind of markup that "declares" the different versions of the page. Basically I want to be as transparent about it as possible so as to avoid un-intended consequences.

Many thanks indeed!

Thanks for the help everyone!

Hi fellow Mozians,

I have come up with a doubt today which I would appreciate your thoughts on.

I have always been convinced that the disavowal tool can be used at any time as part of your backlink monitoring activities- if you see a dodgy backlink coming in you should add it to your disavowal file if you can't get it removed (which you probably can't). That is to say that the disavowal tool can be used pre-emptively to make sure a dodgy link does do your site any harm.

However, this belief of mine has taken a bit of a beating this morning as another SEO suggested that the disavowal tool only has en effect if acompanied by a reconsideratiosn request, and that you can only file a reconsideration request if you have some kind of manual action. This logic describes that you can only disavowal when you have  a penalty.

This theory was backed up by this moz article from May 2013:
https://moz.com/blog/google-disavow-tool
The comments didnt do much to settle my doubts.

This Mat Cutts video, from November 2013 seems to confirm my belief however:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=86&v=eFJZXpnsRsc

It seems perfectly reasonable that Google does allow pre-emptive disavowal-ing, not just because of the whole negative seo issue, but just because nasty links do happen naturally. Not all SEOs spend all their waking hours building links which they know they will have to disavowal later shoudl a penalty hit at some point, and it seems reasonable that an SEO should be able to say- "Link XYZ is nothing to do with me!" before Google excercises retribution.

If, for example you get hired working for a company that HAD a penalty due to spammy link building in the past that has been lifted; but you see that Google periodically discovers the occasional spammy link it seems fair that you should be able to tell google that you want to voluntarily remove any "credit" that that link is giving you today, so as to avoid a penalty tomorrow.

Your help would be much appreciated.

Many thanks indeed.

watch?time_continue=86&v=eFJZXpnsRsc