Welcome to the Q&A Forum

The sponsors on the right are friendly sites within the same area. They also have links/banners on their sites for us. We do not sell links. With that said, i did link building with the websites i have on the right. Nothing black/grey.

Gazzerman, Thanks for the link and informative answer... Really appreciate it!

The titles of those pages are Telecom and Sports, respectively. Neither title really tells either Google or the searcher what the pages are about. Telecom could be a page for a telecom service company or telecom equipment. Sports could be a sporting goods store or a guide to sport programs on television. You are not making it easy for Google to know what category you belong in. For your website, it looks like "Career Options in Telecom" or "Career Counseling for Sports" or something of that nature would do a better job in identifying what your site is about.

Interesting question.  I've never dealt with a problem like this, so you should probably take my advice with a grain of salt.  The issue has come up in the forum before: http://moz.com/community/q/duplicate-content-from-multiple-sources-cross-domain.   Matt Cutts also posted about this last year. I imagine that your clients want all of their domains to rank, and to pull in traffic, so using NOINDEX is not an option.  The simplest option would be to find a way to add some unique content to the pages - although again, at scale this might be a significant amount of work. More billable hours, that's all. So, my plan of action would be to determine if this is really an issue in terms of ranking for the client (it might not be), and if it is, use the backend of their sites to display unique content on each site.  It probably wouldn't hurt if the sites looked a little bit different from each other. Hope that helps. watch?v=Vi-wkEeOKxM

Thanks Justin and Bruce, I think I will try and push for the "limited view until signed in" solution.  The HTTP/ HTTPS one just feels a bit too much like a dirty hack that will end up hurting in some way, at some point! Thanks for your responses.

If you can, then modify those links and direct them to the main domain. If not, don't put much effort...rather, I would advice you to invest that time in creating new more relevant links which can help you more Also,  there is no difference between a 301 and a link in terms of PageRank dilution. According to Matt, if you have many redirects, like chains of them from one url to another to another, that is a known bad thing. But one or so won't hurt you. Here is video link where Matt has answered the question- What percentage of PageRank is lost through a 301 redirect?- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Filv4pP-1nw

Thank you Ken and Andy for instant reply and information, i will just put only meta desc to every page per your recommendations. Thank you again

Hi Denise, A couple of points here. First, it's not that you necessarily need the same number of pages on your mobile site as your non-mobile site, it's that any content that you have on your non-mobile site should be represented somewhere on your mobile site. It's possible that your competitors are ranking with their desktop sites because they're targeting content that you are missing with your mobile site, and maybe on your desktop site as well. Second, yes and no. Your mobile site is a separate site, but if you connect your mobile pages to their corresponding desktop pages with rel=alternate and canonical tags, Google should transfer some of that link equity for you. Google breaks it down here: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/smartphone-sites/details Good luck! Kristina

Here is a helpful discussion on the same topic that took place in June 2011 and is still relevant. http://moz.com/community/q/how-long-is-it-safe-to-use-a-302-redirect If it doesn't answer your question, just elaborate further below.

Hey guys! I agree with James and Bruce. We have a client that ran into a similar issue about a year ago where he was issued a manual penalty on his site, from work performed prior to us of course ; ). While we were working to correct the issue, we developed a new site (on a new URL) that began ranking fairly well with little effort. Once the penalty was removed from the older site, we simply kept the two sites separate and focused our efforts primarily on the older site. This proved to be an effective strategy in our situation since the new site didn't have much authority or credibility. It was ranking well so the client decided to leave it on its own and not redirect or connect it to the older site in any way. So in my experience, I would have to agree that using the older domain would be best. Of course assuming that the site (content, URL structure, UX, link profile and social signals) is at a higher level than the newer site. Regarding the redirect from the new site to the old, this is totally a judgement call you will have to make based on the amount and quality of off-site (links & social mentions) between the two sites. IMO the on-page and UX stuff can and should always be tweaked and improved upon. So I don't think that should really be a deciding factor. Hope this helps in one way or another!

No problem - that's what this community is all about

Yes, it is good when there is a clear Google guideline to follow. I'm happy for your quick win!

Maybe I'm missing something -- but I've never seen the benefit of tags to the end-user (at least as most site authors use them.) Tags are often displayed and authors often over tag. Many authors confuse tags with SEO page titles and come up with really bad ones. They also confuse tags with categories. I've tried and failed in the past to educate multi-author sites on the distinction between all these. Again, maybe I'm missing something -- but I just don't see tags as that important in the grand scheme of things. I focus my attention on ensuring posts are done in accordance with a regular schedule on agreed-upon topics in agreed-upon categories. We display by category, recency, and popularity. So who needs tags?

This feels like looking for permission to take a short cut and I personally cannot justify that. I would highly recommend to take the time to make the pages correctly and not even worry about duplicate content or Panda. None of use can tell you if it will "work" or if it'll be seen as duplicate content or when it'll be hit by panda, but if it's auto-generated, I can promise it'll be hit at some point. However, the worst you can do is test it. Take the top 10% of make/model deal pages and create them how you want. Do it like you're talking and see how they perform. I'm not talking a few weeks, I mean a few months. All the while, be developing the content for some of those pages. This way, if it works and people like the pages, they are relevant produced the way you want to do it now, the short way, then you can produce the other pages that way. At that point however, your top make/model pages will have unique content that you can put up. So a few months later, you'll have 10% of your deals pages with unique content and the rest automated. Then start working on the next top 10%. Keep going until they are all done.

Do you say Google will think its spamy and won't propagate any link juice or just like a few. ** No, not spamy - but so many people are doing that and those links should not count and send out PR anyway - since those are not "natural" links. You won't get into issues for those - is just that google won't count them. There was an incident a few years back with a WordPress theme provider that had a similar link in the footer and the theme got very popular and so they got a lot of links. At that stage they got into issues as those links where "seen" as spamy - but after google "fixed" that case now they also have a algorithmic rule to treat them as they should but without hiting the target site - as again - a lot of people are doing that, it make sense and they are not SEOs to add "nofollow" so Google is taking care of that on their own. in that case wouldent it be better to dofollow only the home link? ** In my opinion that will look spamy - since it's clear you need to cut down from the site wide links but still have those links on your SEO "campaign" Personally I would leave them as they are - it make sense to have them as you said those are bringing in referral traffic and some might even "count" and send some PR your way.

Dennis - thanks for passing along this info - very useful. Let me read over what you've suggested - hopefully my confusion will dim! Thanks!

Just copy a couple sentences and paste them in Google surrounded by quotes. i.e. "content"

Thanks, I'll go check it out