Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Afraid I don't have any experience with Processwire. I would try looking through their modules/plug-ins to see if there is something for pagination tags. If don't have any luck there, I would try contacting their support or forums.

Hi Carson Thank you for replying and the indepth answers. I did read somewhere that dublicate content on your own website isnt too bad but im glad you have helped me clear things up. So would you change cat urls to no or leave them to yes for now till google can see all the canoical tags on products? Thanks Mike

Thanks for the response both.  That answers my question

You're pretty much right! I'd just add a few summary points for clarification: 1. 301-redirect old URLs to the new ones 2. Change any rel=canonical tags on the old pages so that the tags reference the new URLs 3. Add rel=canonical tags to the pages on the new site and make sure that they point to those same pages 4. Inform anyone linking to the old pages that the URLs have changed. 5. Check items on the pages such as media and images so that the URLs of those items themselves are hosted on the new domain and not the old one I would not delete the old pages (at least not right away) because you never know how long it will take Google to understand that their locations have changed. Only delete them unless you have a pressing need to do so. If you have any other questions, let me know!

Google has recently made this super easy: check out the rel="alternative" or "href lang" tag, as it is often called. You can provide the "same" content for UK, US, Aus and not run into duplicate content problems. The same goes for Spanish in lots of countries, French, German for Germany and Austria, etc. Very handy.

Fantastic news! Well done

Do "/houses" and "/houses?page=1" have exactly the same content? I'd definitely want to see rel=canonical on the "page=1" version - those are just duplicates. Google has expressly said that they don't want you to canonical pages 2, 3, etc. back to page 1. That doesn't mean it never works, just that it's a bit dicey. As Chris said, rel=prev/next is another option. Theoretically, it would allow all of the results pages to rank, but let Google know they're a series and not count them against you as thin content. In practice, even my enterprise SEO colleagues have mixed feelings. There's just very limited evidence regarding how effective it is. It is low-risk. The other option is to go a bit more old-school and META NOINDEX anything with "page=", and just let the original version get indexed and rank. This can help prevent any dilution and would also solve your "page=1" issue. The biggest risk here is if that cut off PR flow across your site or if you had links to the paginated results. In most cases, that's unlikely (people don't link to or tweet page 17 of your search results), but it's a case-by-case thing. Unfortunately, the "best" solution can be very situational, and even Google isn't very clear about it.

Hemblem, Although you're redesigning the site, I actually don't recommend using a 302 redirect during the 'redesign' process, as it can have disastrous effects on search engine rankings. I would prefer that you keep the current website up and running: and then 301 redirecting the appropriate pages when the site is ready to go live. I realize that you want to do, but I have seen too many websites have problems getting things straightened out with the search engines to do what you're suggesting.

Hi Dylan, I haven't worked much with the technical side of Shopify, so wasn't aware of this. Very prohibitive though. I hope you can get this sorted OK. -Andy

Yeah - do this!

The only thing I would say is that the Google alerts would have to be set up using a fake email account! Interesting scenario. Luckily I have a Sculpture who hides me from the internet!

If the images are being indexed just fine, even though they are "four folders deep", why would you change that? It would be like trying to fix something that is working perfectly, you may end up with something you didn't expect... (reindexing all images could remove them from the index for a while... it won't do any harm, but as you said, they are just fine where they are now). Hope that helps!

Thank you guys for your contributions! Much appreciated!

Ok.

It probably doesn't matter much if you have a sitemap submitted for http, although you can delete it if you want. is it the SAME sitemap as for the https site? And are your metrics coming in the same? There is no advantage other than if you need to look at any data specific to http.

Thank you guys! Very helpful answers. Take care

Thanks for the replay Marc, that clears up my confusion. I had chance to ask John Mueller (from Google) what to do about spammy backlinks and he automatically assumed I was up to no good.  I've never bought a crappy link in my life.  Previously hired SEOs and/or unscrupulous competition were likely the culprits.  We can take accountability for ignorantly hiring shady link builders but apologizing for being a victim of negative SEO is flat out ludicrous.

Great, thanks Gyorgy for the advice.

Hi, If possible, you can definitely 301 redirect these domains. There does not need to be active websites on the domains to do this - a redirect will tell Google that the site's content has moved to the new location, and to assign the majority of the authority from the old site / domain to the new location. It would be beneficial if you were putting something relevant to the supplementary sites' content on the new / hub site so that it's truly a case of content having moved - Google will often dull the benefit of a 301 if there is no sign that real content has moved from one location to another. This is partially to stop people from buying expired domains and redirecting them for the SEO benefit alone. If you're unable to do this however, it's still a good move to redirect the closed sites so that any SEO benefit and any type-in traffic is directed to the best location. Redirection also means that the closed sites will drop out of Google's index quickly and any relevant rankings they had that could belong to the existing site should change to the existing site quickly as well.

No problem at all -Andy