Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I am wondering the best way to mark up an event page with multiple occurrences. For example, we have an event that happens over the course of 4 sequential weekends:
9/28-9/29
10/5-10/6
10/12-10/13
10/19-10/20 Our website allows us to enter multiple occurrences that results in a single event listing page which outputs all dates (to eliminate duplicate content, titles, metas, etc.) but allows each occurrence to output individually on our events calendar in the respective individual date. Each time the event is shown, it links to the same listing page. I am wondering if we can add event schema on a single listing multiple times to cover each occurrence. In the above example, we would have 4 schemas on the listing page for each date range/weekend. In our current schema, we end up with a start and end date identified as 9/28-10/20 but it is not clear that the event is just happening on the weekends with gaps in between. Any suggestions are welcome however, we are really trying to NOT list each as an individual event on the website both for the duplicate content issue and the extra burden on our client that lists events for a very large geographic area.

I manage a variety of small local programs that are located in areas that are more known by the region than they are by the town (the Adirondacks and the Catskills to be specific). In the past, the local algorithm understood that when the query was related to the region, it would show a variety of results from that region. It seems that for the Catskills they have changed the algorithm to pinpoint the center of the region and only show results that are in the near vacinity of that pinpoint, rather than a variety of results from the region. The Adirondacks however is still showing a variety of results. For those of you not familiar, the Adirondack are 9,375 square miles and the Catskills are 5,892 square miles and are both very rural mountain regions and popular travel destinations. Google clearly understands that these regions are geographically oriented and shows a local pack for relevant results such as "Catskills Resorts" or "Catskills Restaurants", but over the past few weeks, they have started only showing 2 results for the query Catskills resorts, both located near Shandaken, NY becasue that is where Google has deemed the marker for the Catskills is (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Catskill+Mountains/@42.009289,-74.3996212,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x89dc665668f82f31:0x3b012376423b8efa!8m2!3d42.0092908!4d-74.3821116) In reality, there are hundreds of resorts within the Catskills. (Note there is a Catskill, NY within the Catskills, however Google is not even confusing this town with the region). Does anyone have ideas on how to get Google to understand that the Catskills are more than Shandaken, NY? I feel like we suddenly have no hope of ranking locally and most of the businesses I manage are located in very small towns that people are not specifically searching for.

We oversee a variety of regional, county, and town level tourism websites, each with hundreds (or even thousands) of places/businesses represented with individual pages. Each page contains a link back to the place's main web presence if available. My fear is that a large portion of these linked to sites are low quality, and may even be spammy. With our budgets there is no way to sort through them and assign nofollows as needed. There are also a number of broken links that we try to stay on top of but at times some slip through due to the sheer number of pages. I am thinking about adding a nofollow to these outbound links across the board. This would not be all outbound links on the website, just the website links on the listing pages. I would love to know peoples thoughts on this.

I have about 10 campaigns and 5 custom reports scheduled to run monthly for each campaign. Most of them have been running for years without issue, however, this month the majority have not run. There is an option to download past reports, yet the August 1st date is not highlighted. Anyone else having this issue or have a solution? There is one exception to this, a new campaign that had custom reports made with this design. They have a "action" button rather than "download past reports. Within this drop down is a option to download past PDFs. Is there a way this can just be downloaded without opening, like the previous reports?

I manage a large website that hosts 1000's of business listings that comprise an area that covers 7 state counties. Currently a category page (such as lodging)  hosts a group of listings which then link to it's own page. From these pages links are present directly to the business it represents. The client is proposing that we change all listings to link to the representative county website and remove the individual pages. This essentially would create 1000's of external links to 7 different websites and remove 1000's of pages from our site.
Does anyone have thoughts on how adding 1000's of links (potentially upwards of 3000) to only 7 websites (that I would deem relevant links) would affect SEO? I know if 1000's of links are added pointing to 1000's of websites the site can be considered a link farm, but I can't find any info online that speaks of a case like this.

In today's Whiteboard Friday (Keyword Targeting, Density, and Cannibalization), Rands makes a comment about updating content on pages that have dated URLs and states: "If I were advising him on SEO, I'd urge him to maintain a single page called "Best Seattle Coffee" or "Best Seattle Espresso" and update that annually (changing the title to 2012, 2013, 2014, etc but leaving the URL the same). I'd also urge him to take the prior year's content and put that on a new URL like "/coffee-from-2012" (or the like)." What are the opinions from an SEO perspective to update pages that have dates in the URL to reflect new content? Does this confuse the search engines if they see one date in the URL but another in the page copy? If this content is from a blog and they are listed / displayed based on chronological order, this fresh content would be buried. Obviously internal links and other ways to promote the content would be beneficial but Is it a bad UX to move this page to the top of the "list" when it clearly has an older date associated with this fresh content?

Does anyone have any insights on toggle menu's or collapsible navigation structure and if its good/bad for Search?