Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thats Handy

Great! Thanks, I may take you up on that! -Brandon

GREAT answer, I think you clarified it for me.  The only advantage would be that I could add content to a blog easily but I would lose a lot of the functionality I get with DW.  I think for now I will stick with DW for my site and worry about a blog down the road (if I have trouble ranking).  In the future I think I will create WP site using DW's GUI.  I see there is a Lynda.com tutorial on it and it doesn't look terribly complicated. I will definitely check it out in the future (must be a reason everyone loves it) but for now I will go with what I know.

Thanks for your reply, I'll follow your advice and keep you updated.

lol... thanks for that report. Should we go back and read for the laughs?

Hi Alex, Related to Image Optimization Kasy Allen wrote a very nice post back in august 2011. Read it through, it will provide answers to your question Here is the link: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/is-optimizing-photos-more-important-than-you-think I hope that helped, Istvan

It matters depending on your audience and your off line marketing efforts. The best is to use http://site.com because it avoids many potential problems. For example with 301 redirects. Also technically it makes sense, why the hell host your site on a subdomain, it should be in the root??? But we do use www. because our audience is an old and traditional audience, so they think a site with out www. is not even a site. So to maintain UX patterns we use www. But in future we will switch to the more sensical root domain.

ah thanks 77% similar !!

cool thank you soo much again.  You have been a huge help.

I dont use comments either, i like to see nice easy to read html

Thanks so much!

Thanks Istvan.

We have made the change! http://burfieldcreative.co.uk/ We have put the redirects in place and carried out the domain change procedure with google. If anybody can check everything is in order  that would be most appreciated. Thanks for all your advice.

If the copy on both websites is going to be identical, then you'll have duplicate content, plain and simple. Even though I see how this would be troublesome, having unique content on both websites would be a requirement to avoid duplicate content issues.

If you put canonical tag on page "/abc-brand" it will also be on"/abc-brand?sessid=123". That would tell search engines that this is the same page and they would not consider them as duplicates

Thank you... There is no google webmaster account made yet , so i think nobody defined the "without www version" to be cannonical or so so far. If I follow your advice - will google replace the without www page in the index with the www version immediately or will the site be off the index temporarily?

One reason to change all URLs from _ to - is conformity. If you have some that are _ and some that are - the question is how will you remember which one to use, for a particular page? For that reason, I would convert them all. As for using a canonical tag, I don't know, you'd need to know what google and otehr search engines do with that information, if anything. I would also worry about what they will do with it in the future, because these things are liable to change. If it was me, I would change them all and redirect the stragglers.

Hi Joshua, I was speaking from a Local SEO perspective, but I didn't make that clear. Sorry about that. You write: "I just have a feeling that Google may see the subfolder landing pages as an attempt to game the Local listings" Now, typically, when dealing with local clients with multiple locations, I simply create a unique page for each of the locations - just a file, and no need to build out with subdomains or subfolders. It sounds like perhaps you are dealing with a client with more complex needs than this? I have searched to no avail for any reliable documentation which states that Google would view either subdomains or subfolders with suspicion or favor. I have never seen any discussion of a preference on their part. I'm not sure anyone but a Google Places rep would be able to offer you a reliable answer on this A final note - be aware that when you designate any URL other than the homepage URL of a website as being appropriate on a Place Page, Google's display is likely to show only the homepage URL, but when you click on the link, it takes you to the page specified. I'm sorry not to have a better answer to your question. I guess my answer is that there is an absence of data that Google would view either subfolders or subdomains as spammy in relation to Places.