Welcome to the Q&A Forum

My personal guideline is to make it sound as natural as possible. William and Alan are correct, what you're doing isn't against any rules, and footer links don't hold up as much value - especially because their on the bottom of the page. Maybe you could do a list that says something like: See More Reviews: Category XCategory Y Category Z To me, that doesn't sound spammy or clogged up at all. Also, just keep in mind that the more links you have on a page, the less page rank they carry onto other pages of your site.

No problem, glad I could help! Sometime it's helpful to have an extra set of eyes looking at a site's seo. Let me know if you need any additional help, and the results after your changes.

"Would I get more of a boost in rankings to pages of my site by placing links in the text of my articles on my site to other pages on my site?" As Spencer says, you're talking about internal linking with generally comes with a slightly different set of rules to inbound / outbound links to and from third-party websites. Feel free to link to relevant parts of your site from articles, but do so where and when it appears natural, and don't overdo it. That is, don't link to a product every time you use the product's name or mention something to do with the product's function. Imagine if Moz linked to its blog home page from every page on the website that mentioned a blog in text. It would look manipulative and spammy.

yerp, the hack is cloaking the links and only showing them to bots. In the future, you would want to do a "Fetch as Google" from within webmaster tools to see what Google sees.

perfect, thank you so much

Hi Joanne, I don't think it's just the spammy titles, I also think it's the length of the titles, best below 55 char. I would suggest something simpler and but the title's you suggested as Meta Description instead. "Coconut Oil - <you company="" name="">" would be sufficient as a title.</you> If the domain is an Australian domain then you don't need Australia in the title, also you may want to restrict your audience to Australia perhaps, dependent on your market. Good Luck

Hi, Our understanding is that the first link found in the code will "count" as far as the passing of PageRank and the anchor text used. The other links on the page will likely be used to count towards the total links on the page, meaning that there could be some "dilution", but as alrockn says - this set-up is very common for e-commerce and should not mean that you are actively harming the distribution of PageRank throughout the site or to the individual product pages.

Hi, Andy says, there is no magical number for this. We just can't say. The "100 links per page" advice stems from statements made in 2009, 2010 - Matt Cutts has recently said that this limit no longer applies: http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-we-dropped-the-100-links-per-page-guideline-but-we-may-take-action-if-it-is-too-spammy-178197 That post and its video are probably the closest you will get to a clear answer on this. There was another thread more recently (2014) where this is further confirmed but I am having trouble finding it.

We just went through this exact process with a website.  We agonized over whether to do the move since the .html pages were ranking and converting well. In the end the client wanted it so we decided to make the switch, this is what we did: 1.) Took all well ranking .html pages and 301 to their new version in apache .htaccess file, example code Redirect 301 domain-name/old-page.html domain-name/new-page/ 2.) Installed the SEO plugin by Yoast and made sure to tune all title/meta info for each page 3.) Made the change and stayed patient. We saw a traffic drop for 9 days following the move.  Then on the 10th day we got close to pre-move levels, and 2 full weeks later we were back at pre-move levels with improved average site time, bounce rate and conversions. *we are almost 2 months into the move now and traffic is higher than ever.

Hi Samuel, It does to an extent. Is there any way to automatically populate a NxM matrix (keywords x URLs) though?  I'm curious how each page ranks for each keyword right now. I'm just starting out in measuring our rankings on two sites that I want to make better. I'm also just starting my learning with regard to SEO - so this request may somewhat naive. My thinking is that if I were able to have moz setup some initial monitors for a set of keywords (e.g: please scan my pages, and monitor the set of keywords N across each found page M) I'd get the ability to see where my pages are at, across the board, without having to enter N x M combinations myself. In my case I know I have a limited set of keywords and a limited set of pages. The NxM idea above I guess is me being lazy.  I'm also pretty sure I'd remove pages from that list as I discover the keyword/page combinations I want to focus on. I'd just thought it would be an interesting starting point.

For starters, I'd add the NOODP NOYDIR meta robots tags to your pages.  That tends to do a pretty good job of keeping Google in line (i.e. using your meta descriptions and page titles in the SERPs). Recently I've noticed that Google will often attempt to extract your company name and prepend your page title with it. e.g. if your page title is "Purple Widgets - ACME Inc." and your URL is www.acmeinc.com, Google will show "Acmeinc: Purple Widgets" in the SERPs for your headline.  This seems to be new as of a few months ago, and NOODP NOYDIR doesn't seem to stop it like it used to.  But I'd try NOODP NOYDIR because it does USUALLY still seem to have the effect you're looking for.

As long as the search engine can read all the text, I see no issues.  Modern designers put text in multiple tabs or partially hidden until expanded all the time these to create a better user experience.  It is generally only hidden from the user using css and is fully visible in the code.

I understand. Dealing with cart systems can be very time consuming, depending on how many products you have listed. Look at what your baseline keywords are, and then add the filters from there. For example, you might want to include "teddy bear"  if that is a more popular phrase in trends and keyword planner, then add your color filters from there. Make sure your product description gives enough detail to back up your page title. One other thing you may want to investigate. If you are using a cms, see if there is a plug-in or component available that marks up your product info in rich snippets automatically. This will help your listings stand out, while saving you a ton of time. Best of luck!

grt thanks Dennis yes that what i meant

You're welcome, Beehive, and good luck with the work ahead.

Thnaks for commenting Alrockn ! it definately fits the content of the page, just worried about it increasing kw rich word count & repeating key phrase sentence. but if i understadn u correctly then so long as fits content which it does then should be ok ?

There is honestly no need to worry about having "no keywords" in a post. Google is much more sophisticated than that - and besides, a post like: "today I went out on a 16 mile bike ride over the chilterns using my Garmin 705, After the first 8 miles I used my hydropak and then continued on up the 3 mile incline which was helped by the quickshift speedwheel, I find that with all riding my ipod helps me and when I finally reached mile point I stopped and refilled the hydropak. " ... includes a whole lot of keywords relevant to cycling, location, accessories, etc. The internet and Google's index would be a very small place if it discredited websites with small entries or entries without keyword-rich text, as well. I can't imagine a world in which these would hurt you in the slightest.

Thx Jane- No I wasn't aware of that.  I don't get it because I put canonical tags right under the Head and I used the code below to do it.  I will check again but am unsure how to fix it I don't even know how to fix coding on the Http://cheaptubes.com site.  It seems like when I add content to the canonical site it updates all of them.   Thx for pointing out errors, you are giving me something to fix and improve.

I would definitely go for a combination of descriptive for users and descriptive for bots, in that you're not losing valuable real estate in your title tags but you're not misleading anyone as to what is on the page. In general, you can create very well-optimised titles for SEO purposes without compromising usability - a title tag that simply reads "The Boston" isn't nearly as user-friendly as a title that says (for instance) "Modern black leather sectional Boston sofa with bookcase" (totally made up example using your title from above). The second is better for SEO and for human users - it's actually remarkably common how those two things are one in the same, given that Google wants to return results that are best for users

No, you should not have any issues with dilluting the source URL, and not pass link juice to the other pages. Here is a short list of ways I've used the span link. For links that only run JavaScript when they are clicked. They don't load a new page into the browser. The same thing can be done with href="javascript:..." within an A tag. With the span link, however, any JavaScript that affects the A tags on a page will not affect the span link. For links that only run JavaScript when a mouse hovers over it. They're not supposed to load a new page when the link is clicked. The span link in this case is so much more elegant. An A tag must have an href attribute and, if the link is used only for an onmouseover, the href must be constructed to do nothing when the link is clicked. Hide from spiders that another web page is being linked to. Perhaps you wish to link to another website for the convenience of your visitors. Yet, the other website is not in the same category as yours and you don't want certain search engines to think your site is similar to that other. Or, you simply don't want to provide link juice to the other site. Source: http://www.willmaster.com/library/web-development/linking-without-an-a-tag.php