Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You've been extremely helpful. Thanks!

Use of the canonical link should solve all of your problems as far as how the search engines.  Bots that view the PF page will take the canonical directive and treat it like a 301 redirect and pass link equity etc. The other thing you need to consider is the use of rel next and prev for the article that you broke into parts if you consider this one big article broken up into parts.  That would be used to "connect" all the sections of your depression article to each other. Frankly, I do not know why you broke up this page into parts as the article is not that long as a whole  There is some data out there that longer articles get more links http://www.quicksprout.com/2012/12/20/the-science-behind-long-copy-how-more-content-increases-rankings-and-conversions/ One issue on the print pages is that you have a meta noindex tag. That tells Google to deindex the page and not to crawl it.  You do not need to use that tag as you are using the canonical to tell Google what the "parent" page.  If you are using the rel next prev on both the regular and paginated pages, I would advise canonicaling P1 to P1, P2 to P2 and the All to the All page vs canonical everything to the main page. You are basically telling Google two things. with rel next prev - here are the parts that make up the whole. with the canonical - if they look at the PF version, here is the "real" page they want to pay attention to.  This is what passes the link equity along to the proper pages.  If you are getting links into the "print all page" this is the key page to have canonical linked to the "real" page. What I would do is put this all into one page and then it is simple.  Just canonical the PF page to the actual page and remove the noindex meta tag off the PF page. If the above does not make sense, read each of the articles below about 3x and watch the video 3x it should help Here are the Google Pages on canonicals http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html and rel next prev http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-about-pagination-with-relnext-and.html Good luck!

I agree with Martijin and Mat It's jsut a scheme to sell the tool more, and nothing more than that. I wouldn't use the tool as it goes against the Guidelines

Thank you Devanur!

Hi Markas, Our community is generally good at answering questions, though this one is a little more broad than most questions, and is only two days old. If you don't get more responses after a few days, q new question that focuses just on one or two specific questions with examples, rather than asking for a general review of your site, may have better results. With a quick look of your site, I'm seeing search results indexed, and a lot of categories indexed as well. You might look at how many different ways the description for just one country is getting indexed. Google Webmaster Tools can provide good information about any warnings Google might have for you, and can highlight some issues such as duplicate content (as can the Moz crawl). Hope this helps!

Yes it is possible.  One of my sites took a medium size hit from Penguin 2.0 and it recovered fully and then some about 2 weeks ago.  Oddly the date for my recovery from Penguin seemed to coincidence with the easing of Panda (all my material is unique).  Not sure if that helps or makes things more confusing. Good luck.

Just curious if you have any Empirical evidence on that thought of it should be used as a last resort? I know that google cautions usage of it, but my hunch is that they are afraid of two situations. The person who disavows all links and hurts their positive link profile and the strategy of someone purposely building suspect links knowing he can remove them. I'd love your thoughts if you've seen harmful results of using the tool.

Thank you Thomas! I will take a look.

Thanks, Daniel! We have several clients who are regional based as well with 4 locations to sell/rent equipment or dentists with 2 or 3 offices around a city like Cleveland/Akron/Canton OH, etc. I appreciate you sharing your direct experience in how you handle it and love the idea of a drop down menu!

Highly agree with Chris! The video is mind blowing, I am currently using several ways to contact and few of them are: -          Emailing Prospects! (There is a proper way to write an email that gets a better rate of response. I write a post regarding that on moz if you want to check that out! http://moz.com/blog/how-to-write-email-to-get-a-better-response-rate -          VSnap – This idea is my Michael King and I have started using it and I believe this is super amazing! -          Social Outreach – This is tricky but powerful... I use twitter for this! Hope this helps!

Hey Steve, We don't have any plans to pull data from GWT for our index in the future. We are focused on creating a larger and more up-to-date index of our own as we go forward and we prefer not to rely on other companies for our index data, since they can choose to remove our access to their data down the line. We prefer to grow our own index over time, though we do know this can cause some growing pains. Let me know if you need help with anything else. Chiaryn

No -  Apps are neither crawled and nor indexed by search engines. Backlinks wont be of help As per Android Developer -  "When you develop a great app, Android users show their appreciation through ratings and reviews. They rate your app (out of 5 stars) after downloading it and can post a short description of their experience. When other users are considering your app, they look at the ratings and reviews as key benchmarks of the app’s quality.  Your app’s rating is one of the most important factors influencing its ranking in the various lists and search results in Google Play. It's also one of the key signals that the editorial staff looks for, when curating apps and games for promotion in the store." Refer on Visibility for Google Apps :- http://developer.android.com/distribute/googleplay/about/visibility.html

UBL imo is unimpressive, and in fact now they actually resell Yext as part of their offering. I've been using Yext for some of my clients, but I'm not completely sold. It seems like a nice "shortcut" to getting listed quickly, but I think nothing beats manual link building. If your business runs a lot of specials. then Yext is great for pushing out updates quickly to all the listings at once. I think that's the biggest benefit to using Yext. But if you don't change your information or your specials often, then you might as well just build the citations manually once, instead of incurring an annual fee.

sub-domains isolate the link value and don't allow for the flow of value into the main domain. It's best practice to use sub-folders instead on the main domain that allow for link value or 'juice' to spread through the site - thus - building trust. Unless a sub-domain could hold and contain it's own content to work apart from the primary root and gain trust and value, I would go the route above. Every situation needs to be clearly identified and reviewed.

Good link or bad link - has to do with a lot of what you'd expect. For example, a link from (I'm making up examples) Forbes.com would probably do a business a lot more good than a link from a site like mikesbuisnessknowledge.com. Or, links from .gov/.edu also are seen as better because there's criteria around what kind of institutions can have those URLs. One .gov link could be better than 100 links from OK sites.

I just found another 1100 links from 800+ domains! This is getting ridiculous!

Yes. I did keep in most of the old domains that had been in the original Disavow file. Since the things I learned after doing the original file showed that I had mistakenly disavowed a few domains that were OK, I did omit them from the new file. And I added some that had not been in the original. Nobody but Google knows for sure, but my understanding is that a particular Disavow only has an effect while that particular file is active on your Google Webmaster account. So if you delete it or upload a new one, then you will eventually see the old effect disappear and be replaced by the effect of having no or a different disavow file. I just wish the effect wasn't so slow on Google. The effect of disavowing linking domains in Bing Webmaster Tools seems to be very quick. But it's rarely needed there since Bing doesn't have nasty Pandas and Penguins to battle...

I think there has certainly been a decline in business for Middle-Eastern 'link building' companies. The reason for this is that automated link building has been cracked down on heavily by Google. Link building now costs a lot more to do and requires much greater resources, skills and expertise. I'm sure there are still companies in the Middle East that provide good services but just remember, with link building you get what you pay for. If you go in purely on price then you are asking for trouble in the future - do your research and have a look at companies local to yourself - that would be my advice. Being able to sit down and talk to your link building agency can be a great way to ensure that you understand the activities that they are carrying out and what you're getting for your money. Hope this helps.

I never pay a single penny to remove the links. I put all these sites in the disavow tool.

Alice, Most bloggers are not going to put a cross domain rel canonical tag on their page for you. I feel that would severely limit the effectiveness of the campaign by excluding those bloggers. However, putting the rel canonical tag on your page isn't going to hurt, and could be one more signal that you are the authoritative version of the content. Other signals would be that your page gets indexed first, and that the other pages are linking to you. There is a lot of duplicate content on the web, and Google isn't going to penalize every site with a little bit of content that can be found elsewhere. If they did that every news site from the New York Times to Boise Weekly would be penalized. Duplicate content is a real issue, especially when it comprises the bulk of your content strategy, but I don't think you have much to worry about in this particular case. The PDF or image version of the flyer is a great idea. I'd go with that and instruct the participants to explain the contest in their own words. You could even provide a share box below the flyer where they can copy the code to paste the flyer onto their site. You would want the href link to your page to be within that code so the flyer they paste links to your page. If you do this Google will have little doubt as to which page is the original source. Just don't get fancy with the anchor text.