Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Both of those pages have canonical tags that point to https://lurento.com/city/ which 404s out.... I would start there.

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.

No problem at all

The vast majority of my clients are hotels.  Because of this I deal with rebranding all of the time (a property switching brands, a branded property dropping the brand to become independent etc...)  If you feel comfortable leaving your old and new domains I would be happy to take a look for you.  As Ikkie said, it could be any number of things.

I would say--and many may disagree with me--that if you are building a directory to honestly help users than that is great.  However, to do so on a subdomain of your company's website is very likely going to seem fishy.  I wouldn't do that, personally.

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'm sorry if I am giving bad news but 'some good links' just doesn't mean much.  What do your competitors have?  How relevant is your content?  There is just a lot more to it than links.....  give some more info and we can all look in to it.

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?

Just curious... if you uninstall the plugin does the page load speed return to what it was before the install?

High high PA and lower DA is simply because the DA is an average of each page's PA (at least that's how I understand it).  It may not be quite that simple with certain page's weighing more in the average but I believe that is the simplest way to look at it.

In my personal market it is very hard, if not impossible to get links to any page other than the home page so I use very thought out internal linking structures to spread authority throughout the website.  However, I do not believe I have ever seen a website who's Home Page Authority was not considerably higher than the over all DA - for instance, the site I am working on right now has a DA of 59 and a PA (on the home page) of 65 while the PA of one of the internal pages is 43...

So this is a little complicated (at least for me...)

We have a client who is having us rebuild and optimize about 350 pages of their website in our CMS.  However, the rest of the website will not be on our CMS.  We wanted to build these pages on a sub-domain that is pointed to our IPs so it could remain on our CMS--which the client wants.  However, they want the content on a sub-directory.  This would be fine but they will not point the main domain to us and for whatever reason this becomes impossible per their Dev team.

They have proposed using a Colo Load Balancer to deliver the content from our system (which will be on the sub domain) to their sub directory.

This seems very sketchy to me.  Possible duplicate content?  Would this be a sort of URL masking?  How would Google see this?  Has anyone ever even heard of doing anything like this?

That makes perfect sense.  Thank you very much

Hello Mozers.  It has been a while

OK - I run an open site explorer report, toggle over to 'Linking Domains' because I am more interested in the number of actual websites that link to my client rather than the number of links my client has (and of course what websites are linking) and although I have been doing this for years there is one little thing I am a bit confused about.

The report shows (from left to right) the 'Linking Root Domain", the "Domain Authority" for the linking domain and then the 'Number of Linking Root Domains" for each 'Linking Root Domain"  My question is (rather stupid, I am sure) is the number of linking root domains for each linking root domain the number of websites linking to them OR the number of websites to which they link?

The only tool I know of that does this for you is BrightEdge.  Otherwise doing it manually is probably the best way to go.  If there are other tools out there that do this I have no doubt someone here will know of it.

When you deleted the pages did you 301 the URls to relevant live pages or did they return 404 errors?  Did the deleted pages have a lot of links going to them?

Call me crazy but I still find myself using Google Trends to compare different iterations of like phrases.  It also gives related search suggestions...

Not really - the links you find that they have that are viable for you to pursue will be fairly obvious.  Just be diligent.  I do agree with Prestashop - because you are engaged in such a specific location citations will be very good for you.

Citations will help you rank for location specific queries as well.  Also - I do think you should work on your link building some more.  Do a competitive link analysis - you have competitors with much stronger link profiles.

Indeed.

I checked Rugs USA.  They are using Canonical Tags to point to a general page for like products.  They are also using the Schema Product tags that Irving suggested.  I do not believe they are taking a hit - they took the time to set it all up.

A criminal Justice Attorney can represent the State OR the accused.  They are simply an attorney trained in criminal law.  Yes - that category is correct although a bit broad.

...check the alt text.  It could be alt text to a common image.

Creating a meta description tag does not ensure that this is what Google will show.  If 'Google' believes there is a more relevant snippet to the query somewhere - anywhere - on your page, it will show that instead.

So - my question is this: Does the description that is being shown exist anywhere on the page, or is it some arbitrary snippet?

I am not huge on directories but here are some you should go for - I am sure there are more:

http://www.thebluebook.com/
http://www.homeadvisor.com/
http://www.nahb.org/
http://www.epa.gov/radon/rrnc/directory.html
http://www.builderdirectory.com/

I am guessing the algorithmic penalty.  Don't change your plans, just jump on them.  Content and good, relevant links.  I would also break up that interlinking if actually working on the other websites isn't something you are being paid to do.  Separate from them, rewrite the content on the website that is your main focus and start working on links (clients, material vendors - anything relevant you can get quickly).

Question - when you took them over did you get all three websites?

paragonbuildinggroup.com/, paragonroofinggroup.com and paragonpaintinggroup.com

There is some pretty bad duplicate content between the building group site and the roofing group site and with the sites interlinking as they do, I would say Google noticed pretty quick.

I know you are limited as to what can be done but I would say explain to your client that each website needs to have content relevant only to what that particular website is offering - no duplicate content.  If the building website wants to touch on roofing then link to the other website - that is fine.  Honestly, I would personally rather see all of this put together on one website with different sections for the different services - then the other domain names could just 301 to the relevant sections of the mother website.  Also - links.  the building group website needs them badly.  As far as what happened - there is no way to be 100% sure but I am guessing an algorithmic penalty - the way the three websites (that I found, there could be more) are set up could certainly look like an attempt to manipulate search results to the algorithms.  Honestly... it probably was an attempt to manipulate search results, an attempt by the last vendor.  Not a penalty for the duplicate content, mind you - but the duplicate content and interlinking etc... were probably signals that all added up to "hey, these websites are not following guide lines"  this was just a quick look though - I could be wrong.

Good job covering Windows as well as Linux.  

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?

When I run that domain through OSE I am getting much different stats than you have listed.  I am showing 309 total links from 14 root domains.

Agreed.  IMO the domain should be the Brand.  Sub-domains or directories for different locations makes perfect sense and flows well just be careful with duplicate content.  Don't just copy all of your content over and change the city or state.

Figured it out... I was using your name rather than your user.  You've got mail.

Andy - do you except private messages?  Tried to send one but it didn't appear to go through.

Missed that post as well!  I must be getting slow, LOL

Thanks for that - I missed that post.

I first noticed it the day before yesterday.  It looks like how Google has looked on my Nook HD for a while.  I am not saying it only happened two days ago - that is just when I noticed.  I am watching trends closely but I want Week over Week and Month over Month data before I can say if there have been notable drops or increases.  As it stands any changes have been negligible.

Indeed - everything I said goes equally for sub-domains.

We don't mean Google Local specifically - at least I didn't and I don't think Andy did as well (but I can not speak for him).  We mean If you, Andy and I all typed in 'airport transfers' in to Google, we would all get different results due to our being in totally different places in the world.

Now, we would all probably use whatever method we like to get unpersonalized/un-local results but most people wouldn't do that.  So although your client doesn't appear to rank for that term... maybe they do right in their area...

I could, of course, be totally wrong... just thought Andy's idea made sense.

I get what you are saying about separating the new content from the sales content but I think I would still go with the sub-directory.

You have well established domain names that Google associates with the well known brand - stick with it.  Your new pages will rank for the terms for which they are relevant and when they do, the relevant traffic will go straight to those pages, never having to even see the sales copy unless they choose to click in to it.

That is how I believe I would approach this.  New domains require building authority from the ground up - absolutely achievable, we all do it... but when you have an already established, totally relevant domain.... use it.

Kind of going back to where I believe Craig was heading... Even though the content will be very different will the products be the same or similar?  Will 'Site B' be selling masks?

I think where Craig was going was - will there be pages on 'Site B' that would be relevant enough that you actually redirect 'Site A' pages over to 'Site B' pages rather than to the 'Site A' home page?

If I have misrepresented your line of thinking, Craig, I apologize.

I think that is the most likely cause.

Thank you yet again for the great advice.  We have two major universities here in town...  This is a wonderful idea!

VP went for it.  We are on the hunt for a part timer whom I will personally train.  I am more of an on page guy but I did train with Eric Ward for 10 months (boss flipped the bill for that one!) and I do feel I have a very safe and organic approach.  So if I can instill these methods in to a part timer there is a great chance they will quickly become full time.

Any one know anyone in Jacksonville, Florida looking for a part time job, LOL?!?!

Thanks, brother.  All of your opinions are much appreciated!

That is great advice.  I walking to the VP's office now.

Thanks!