For anyone who may care - this appears to have worked out really well.  So far way better than expected.  Very competitive market and we are on page 1 for most of our most important phrasing.... cool.

Yeah, trust me, I have strongly advised against it.  They don't use us for design, just marketing, and the company they use for design (while, admittedly, very, very good) was almost done with this before we were brought in to the loop about the redesign.  Down the road I hope to convince them to add more pages etc... but for now this is what I have to work with.  I am hoping the rel=canonical will take care of the duplicate content issues while perhaps giving a bit more authority to the content sections of the one page design.  This is something I have not done before, however, and I wanted to bounce it off my peers.  Thank you for the response!  I'll come back and post how it goes in a few months.

I have a client who is moving to a one page website design.  So, content from the inner pages is being condensed in to sections on the 'home' page.  There will be a navigation that anchor links to each relevant section.  I am wondering if I should leave the old pages and use rel=canonical to point them to their relevant sections on the new 'home' page rather than 301 them.  Thoughts?

I agree with you completely.  When you get more information please post it.  I am curious.

Just curious - it wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it is secure would it?  I have never used Moz tools on a secure website before... so this made me wonder.

We have tested sub-folders vs. sub-domains with international clients in the same region of the same country - each received very similar SEO (on-page, links etc...) and found that neither appeared to work better than the other as far as ranking went.  However I am not clear on what they mean by 'mapped to the TLD'.  Are they saying that each language variant  has its own TLD and that the sub-folder from the main TLD will redirect to it?

Wouldn't it be logical then that if Google is doing it.... you don't have to?

We had a sub domain website (very small... four or five pages) that was blocked via the robots.txt file for two or three years.  When we decided to have it indexed I did just what you did; fetch via GWT and clicked the button to add it to the index.  This worked and then the next day... or maybe two days later, it was gone.  I did this a couple of times...

It didn't hit the index and stick for two weeks.  But since then everything has been just fine.

Attempting to check your website from my office and I get this::

Malicious website blocked

http://bmgapt.com/

| Rating: | Dangerous | Verified fraudulent page or threat source. |

What You Can Do:

This could be our software but this isn't something I have gotten before.  You might make sure your website hasn't been hacked.... I know this doesnt really answer your question but it might be worth looking in to.

Describe your question in detail. The more information you give, the better! It helps give context for a great answer.

We had a sub domain website (very small... four or five pages) that was blocked via the robots.txt file for two or three years.  When we decided to have it indexed I did just what you did; fetch via GWT and clicked the button to add it to the index.  This worked and then the next day... or maybe two days later, it was gone.  I did this a couple of times...

It didn't hit the index and stick for two weeks.  But since then everything has been just fine.

Wouldn't it be logical then that if Google is doing it.... you don't have to?

Hello Tuan,

It is important to remember that the PR you see is just toolbar PR and is not the internal PageRank that Google uses in their ranking formula – no one has access to that.  Their Toolbar PR is high because of their large number of backlinks and content.

In looking at the website you provided the URL for, I see that there are dozens and dozens of completely unrelated, almost random looking, links in the website’s footer.  You do not want to be associated with this website – it will get noticed if it hasn’t already.  It is obvious that they sell links; this is exactly the type of thing Google looks for when hunting for link farms.

Hope this helps,

Vizergy

Hi Michael,

From my experience a sub-domain isn’t going to benefit much from the main site’s authority therefore needing a major link building campaign of its own.  I would say, if this is going to be a one page per franchise project rather than multiple pages of content, you might be better off with the sub-folder. That would allow the page to benefit more from the authority the main site has already gained.

I am not saying you won’t need to build links but I believe the necessary work would be less.

My two cents  Cheers

I completely agree.  I have had very similar projects.  Good luck!

Where I work we provide both template and custom solutions with templates being, obviously, more affordable.  Although we do very well with the customs our templates sell far more and of those there are, of course, templates that sell better than others.

We have never had any issues between websites that decide on the same templates.  Never.

Due to my practical experience with different properties using the same templates I have to say that I disagree with the assertion that the html and css (and jquery and everything else) that goes in to the template construct would be considered duplicate content.  I have always believed, and still do, that "duplicate content" refers only to the subject matter that is published on the website.  Nothing else.

Cesar,

That is what it means, yes.  However, I have seen my Titles change (meaning they have crawled) but the snapshot not change so even though they say that they cache it with every crawl I think they miss sometimes.

I agree with you completely.  When you get more information please post it.  I am curious.

We have tested sub-folders vs. sub-domains with international clients in the same region of the same country - each received very similar SEO (on-page, links etc...) and found that neither appeared to work better than the other as far as ranking went.  However I am not clear on what they mean by 'mapped to the TLD'.  Are they saying that each language variant  has its own TLD and that the sub-folder from the main TLD will redirect to it?

Yeah, trust me, I have strongly advised against it.  They don't use us for design, just marketing, and the company they use for design (while, admittedly, very, very good) was almost done with this before we were brought in to the loop about the redesign.  Down the road I hope to convince them to add more pages etc... but for now this is what I have to work with.  I am hoping the rel=canonical will take care of the duplicate content issues while perhaps giving a bit more authority to the content sections of the one page design.  This is something I have not done before, however, and I wanted to bounce it off my peers.  Thank you for the response!  I'll come back and post how it goes in a few months.