Welcome to the Q&A Forum

We had the exact same issue! I had the developer fix the 302 redirect that I found, but I am sure there are more errors in the redirects, so we are in the process of getting a full technical audit done so that we can fix any other errors. After you fixed the 302 redirects, how long did it take for the search engines to correctly index your site? Was there anything that you did that helped speed up the process?

I have no evidence of this but maybe Google is taking into account your clickthrough rate. If people search "ProtonMail", and almost always go to the login page they might have bumped it up.

Hello! I just came across your question. Here is a recent Moz post of mine on how to use log files for technical SEO -- the example screenshots are from the SEO dashboard in Logz.io. Feel free to sign-up at our site and test our public beta to see if it works for you. Disclosure: Yes, I work for the company.

Yeah, Kate's right. I don't think you can go wrong, and unless you have redirects that disagree with your preferred version, go with the non-www. If you're using standard www and non-www redirects use the one that shows up in the search bar for the site or area of the site that you're submitting. We have a site in Google News that is www. and the news is non-www. For no reason, but we haven't bothered fixing it. We were included on the non-www. So it's possible and likely that both would work fine, but I know for sure that the one that shows up in the URL of your feed works best.

Robots.txt!  That makes sense.  I'll do that. Thanks for your response.

Maybe it is also possible to do a donation page on the domain like Patrick said (whats a great idea) and get a frame/ iframe of the donation form onto that page? Sorry Alan allreay said it =(  Maybe I should read all comments

DA is Moz's estimate of the importance of domains in relation to each other. Google does this themselves, so it's not that they "see" DA, but they have something similar. As long as you don't expect the content from the vendor to bring you organic traffic, you should be okay. You said you have the canonical in place to them, so as long as that is there, there should be no impact from algorithm updates. You wouldn't be penalized for this.

Hi there I recommend taking a look at Rand's Subdomains vs. Subfolders, Rel Canonical vs. 301, and How to Structure Links for SEO - Whiteboard Friday. It's a great resource on this subject! Hope this helps! Good luck!

thank you!

^ Yes, great EGOL!

Thanks Daniel - this does help clarify things!

Hi Lina What Google wants is unique markup and tagging for that image. It relies on things like image optimization (for SEO), Schema markup, and image sitemaps to assist in understanding the photo better and what it represents so it can be returned in search results. You can learn more about reverse image search here. Hope this helps! Good luck!

It is 301 redirected. Why is there a loss of PA and Root Domains?

No problem, let us know how it goes!

Good stuff, and good tip about the cached test only version. I hadn't heard that one before, and it looks like I might use it plenty. Thanks!

What I know is that since almost one year Google is able to deal with duplicated content in a multilingual or multicountry environment if the hreflang is well implemented. Moreover... if you were using the rel="canonical", you were practically quitting to your Spanish home page (in this specific case) any possibility to even being present in the index, because you would be telling Google: "Don't consider this URL, but just the canonical one". This is one of the reasons why Google quit all mention of the rel="canonical" in the hreflang help pages.

Hi There This seems like a way to do custom 301 redirects - http://stackoverflow.com/questions/24795465/use-301-redirect-in-google-blogger-blogspot - is that method possible for you?

If you're saying you'd put some (not all), of your most profitable product pages directly below the root domain (in the first folder) then I can see how that would work. But if you're talking about putting all 50,000 product pages directly below the root, no. That would distribute your link juice too broadly and confuse visitors and search engines. Seems to me (and I could certainly be wrong), only big, established and recognized brands go the route you're suggesting.

Thanks for the quick response, Patrick. Why, if this robots.txt file is incorrect, does it yield no errors on other sites we use this on? Cheers, Lewis