Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks everybody!

1. Have you submitted the new pages via a sitemap/fetch as Google? Could be they are still trying to crawl all the old pages. 2. Have you manually checked some of the pages to see if the redirect is working? If they are, could be you have an error in your reporting through GWT (it's not perfect, and will often give warnings about old pages, even those you 301) Once you submit the pages, and have verified your pages are redirecting properly let it run it's course. Be sure to double check in analytics that you are not losing traffic due to any non-functioning redirects.

If it were me I would use something like web-sniffer.net to try to simulate google bot and see what that does. I would also verify that the file is on the server by looking in the ftp for it. If it is, then I would look in the htaccess file and see if there is anything set regarding it. Someone might have it set up to only let bots view the file, which in itself is not really a bad idea.

Hello again I've just seen in our GWT that we have a message "Googlebot encountered an extremely high number of URLs on your site" It is from 4 days ago only. I don't understand why we have this message. As we haven't change the number of pages. And in fact, as we have put gathered some pages very similar with a canonical url for the most important of them each time, Google should "see" less pages than before... Any idea about what happen? And what to do to fix it quickly? Regards

Technically the disavow acts like a nofollow, so unless you think they might turn into "followed" at some point, you do not need to disavow them. It can take 6+ months for a disavow to take effect too. So if it was submitted only recently, it might need some more time.

I would strongly recommend using schema creator or Google data-highlighter or microdatagenerator.com http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=uploaded:8004fd1b864bd1586879eaf3856d1a1c need to get rid of the outdated  data vocabulary http://data-vocabulary.org/product  outdated for http://schema.org/product  works on everything up to date you want the schema to look like this below the format that is universal on all search engines is able to be created with either schema–creator.com or microdatacreator.com Manufactured by: itemprop="name" itemprop="name">Vollrath Model: 40862itemprop="description">Product ID: sku:VOL40862 http://schema-creator.org/ works on Google , bing & Yahoo http://blog.raventools.com/an-seos-guide-to-schema-org/ http://schema-creator.org/product.php works on Google , bing & Yahoo http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2012/12/introducing-data-highlighter-for-event.html http://www.microdatagenerator.com/ works on Google , bing & Yahoo https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/146750?hl=en works on Google http://www.productontology.org/ http://moz.com/blog/schema-examples http://www.seerinteractive.com/blog/googles-data-highlighter-and-a-view-into-the-future-of-seo http://www.searchenginejournal.com/schema-101-how-to-implement-schema-org-markups-to-improve-seo-results/58210/ http://moz.com/webinars/microformats-real-life-use-cases http://searchengineland.com/see-entities-web-page-tools-help-194710 http://www.bing.com/webmaster/help/products-and-offers-markup-138d0977 http://www.whoisip.co.za/source/www.etundra.com/restaurant-equipment/refrigeration/display-cases/coutnertop/vollrath-40862-36-inch-cubed-glass-refrigerated-display-cabinet/ or view-source:https://www.etundra.com/restaurant-equipment/refrigeration/display-cases/coutnertop/vollrath-40862-36-inch-cubed-glass-refrigerated-display-cabinet/ itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Product" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Product"> 36" Cubed Glass Refrigerated Display CabinetVollrathitemprop="brand" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Brand" itemprop="manufacturer" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Organization"> Manufactured by: itemprop="name" itemprop="name">VollrathModel: 40862itemprop="description">Product ID: sku:VOL408625 based on 5 reviewsitemprop="offers" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer" itemprop="offers" itemscope="" itemtype="http://schema.org/Offer">itemprop="price" itemprop="price">3,915.80 New [ type: http://schema.org/product property: | url: | Refrigerated Display Cabinet Vollrath | | url: | 36" Cubed Glass Refrigerated Display Cabinet | | name: | 36" Cubed Glass Refrigerated Display Cabinet | | brand: | Item 1 | | brand: | Item 2 | | model: | 40862 | | description: | Product ID: sku:VOL40862 | | productid: | sku:VOL40862 | | aggregaterating: | Item 3 | | offers: | Item 4 | | name: | 36 | | image: | http://schema.org/Product | | url: | https://www.etundra.com/images/products/372x372/restaurant-equipment/refrigeration/display-cases/coutnertop/vollrath-40862-36-inch-cubed-glass-refrigerated-display-cabinet/vol40862-1.jpg | |](https://www.etundra.com/images/products/372x372/restaurant-equipment/refrigeration/display-cases/coutnertop/vollrath-40862-36-inch-cubed-glass-refrigerated-display-cabinet/vol40862-1.jpg) P1gtMht.png ke18lB0.png

"So, if these guys don't even have their own queries nailed down then they either are not very good at this or the cost isn't worth it even for them." Sounds legit. This seems to be a bait and switch service directed at those unfamilar with seo to get them intrigued. Gotta love those pesky seo emails selling dreams every day! We get quite a few of them here. Most go straight to the trash folder. Wonder what they tell the client when it doesnt work and they don't show up in auto suggest? lol

worked like a charm!  Thanks!

I am assuming that you are using Cpanel on the host for the site. Just add the second domain as an addon domain. Because of the way that things are set up in Cpanel and the way it handles redirects, the crawlers will not realize the local directory structure that one site is sitting in the sub folder of another site. They will be viewed as if they are two different sites on different servers. So you would handle the robtos.txt like they were on two different servers and just disregard anything about one being in the sub folder of another.

I too also have this option checked in volusion seo settings "Enable full URL for Home Page Canonical Link (include /default.asp)"  Is this option suppose to be checked for optimal SEO performance?

Thanks - will do so.

For Google its "page not found" because you are declaring on the http header as a 404 page. But for user if waits for 10 secs will get redirected to the home page. But do you really think any user will stay on the page with no content for 10 seconds? I suggest you reduce the redirection time. Hope this helps.

Thanks Dana. Honestly, we have a lot of experience dealing with site migrations - I read dozens of posts and we've implemented our own step-by=step guidelines for successful site migration. As you can see, sometimes even when you do everything by the book you can encounter some unexpected issues.

This Google search lists a bunch of possibilities. Good luck!

I would say it depends on whether an entity is detected. Imagine there is a company named "Real SEO." Google crawls a website that mentions them. Google sees the word "real" and then the word "seo." Normally, Google would see that "real" is an adjective that is modifying the noun "seo." So normally, this would be viewed as two separate, distinct words. However, in this example, "real seo" is a brand and an "entity." So, even though the two words are first viewed separately, Google has become smart enough to figure out that when those two separate words are found in that order, then they are together referring to a single "thing." For more on entities in search, I'd read the Moz posts here, here, here, and here.

I did a quick research and both of these are offered as HP products. Are you sure it's the same product renamed? Also I notice that you have video tutorials. If it's just a name change and the interface and everything remains the same then I think you can keep the video tutorials and mention ALM in the text/title/meta description etc. If the interface, tools and options all have changed then it's better to create new set of pages and videos because the old pages wont provide any value to the new users.

Thanks alot, Samual. I will look into this. Thanks!

A couple more thoughts here, based on your revised question. You'll want to figure out how those links to the rogue subdomain have been generated, so you don't just move them over to the new CMS (such as if it's in body text that gets wholesale copied without being examined). If those old subdomains are not needed at all anymore, I'd get them removed entirely if you can, or at the very least blocked in robots.txt. You can verify each subdomain as its own site in Google Webmaster Tools, then request removal of those subdomains if the content is gone or if it's excluded in robots.txt. You might suggest to the dev team that they password-protect things like this so they don't get accidentally crawled in the future, use robots.txt to block, etc. If you have known dev subdomains that are needed, and you know about them as the SEO and make sure they have robots.txt on them, you might want to use a code monitoring service like https://www.polepositionweb.com/roi/codemonitor/ to monitor the contents of the robots.txt file. It will let you know if the file has been changed or removed (good idea for the main site too). I've seen dev sites copied over to live sites, and the robots.txt copied over too, so everything is now blocked on the new live site. I've also seen dev sites with a data refresh from the live site, and the robots.txt from the live site is now on the dev site, and the dev site gets indexed.

I believe the actual calculation comes from Google's internal PR measure, so if you used Toolbar PR, it would be scaled in appropriately. For example, a page with TBPR=4 would only pass 33% more equity than a page with TBPR=3 (if you treat TBPR as linear), whereas it should actually be an order of magnitude higher (we're not sure what power Google uses). Technically, you can't calculate PR without the entire link-graph, since the maximum values are set from the link graph, and the calculation is iterative. On a small scale, you could just pick a log scale to use and approximate what happens. I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Beyond a tutorial view, so many factors are laid on top of PR, that even if you could calculate the true values, they would only tell you a small part of the story.