Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree with Lesley, I really wouldn't use Page rank as your main metric moz has some good metrics or majestic to give you another option.

Thanks again for all the help. I'm trailing things slowly. I don't want to change lots of things again and not know which actually helped. I'll post my ranking ranges again in a week or too and let you know what I found to be the solution. Thanks again to Miriam & Peter.

Thanks - I was not aware of that.

Thanks Michael.

Here's the link http://wordpress.org/plugins/wordpress-seo/

The one thing I would add to your list of criteria, if you choose to go that route, is to look at Google Analytics landing pages and make sure the individual profiles don't any inbound search traffic.

Since the "important pages" have been removed "by request" leads me to believe somebody with access to your GWT has manually requested to remove the site from Google via the URL removal tool.  You should be able to see who has access to your GWT and who removed the URLs within GWT. Just go to "Google Index" then "URL Removal" then click on the select box to the right to see the URLs that have been removed by others. You should be able to resubmit the site/URLs to Google afterwards.

It's hard to diagnose the problem without seeing it. Does the Fetch As Google results show any errors or report anything but "Success"? The report just shows you what Google is seeing so look for anything missing from the page. Usually if it can fetch, then Google can see your site. Double check there isn't a noindex added into the meta somewhere.

Your question is: "When i already change all of them, How much effect to ours old index ?" I think there are some translation issues here since English is not your first language. If I understand your question correctly... If you have changed the redirects so URL-a.html now 301 redirects to URL-b.html then URL-a.html should eventually drop out of the index. All of its page-rank will then be given to URL-b.html, which should eventually begin ranking near where URL-a.html once was. Some page-rank may be lost in a redirect, but not much. Often when Google says there are too many redirects it isn't because you are redirecting to different pages (e.g. URL-a.html goes to URL-b.html goes to URL-c.html). Instead, it is often because the redirects are set up in a kind of loop so there never really is an end to it. One example would be if http://yoursite.com redirected to http://www.yoursite.com/, which redirected to http://yoursite.com. Just make sure that is not the problem. You should check your redirects using an HTTP status code tool like these: http://tools.seobook.com/server-header-checker/ http://httpstatus.io/

That is a debatable question. In my opinion, I seriously doubt Google would have a problem figuring out that this is the same page. I don't think it would cause you to lose any pagerank. However, if you just put a rel canonical tag on that page it should take care of it without even needing to worry about the redirect.

Here is the link again. http://www.seobook.com/video-google-seo-friendly-page-titles If it doesn't work, just copy from here and paste into your browser.

I feel like a complete tool! Thanks for taking a look....

I didn't think there would be an extension for this but i just found one and it worked perfect for 301 redirection. http://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/optimise-web-mass-301-redirects-1589.html In case anyone is interested:)

Hi There, As the other people have said here, 2 weeks isn't very long for Google to sort this out, though I know it feels like a really long time. While Google and Bing say they will treat 302's as 301's if they think it's a mistake, but I haven't really seen this happen. Whenever I do a URL migration, I always submit a sitemap with the old URLs to help Google pick up the 301's faster. In your situation, I'd definitely submit an xml sitemap of as many old URLs as you can find to help Google pick up the updated redirects ASAP. Do you have any old files that you could pull URLs from (I know you don't have an old xml sitemap, but maybe a csv or something like that)? Good luck!

Hi JBlank, My solution to this is to ask whether you actually should be using the switchboard tags on all your desktop pages? Switchboard tags (which are basically a special version of rel=canonical for mobile), are meant to indicate to a search engine that the two pages contain (near-)duplicate content, but that it's ok because one is a mobile version of the other. If the content is not substantially the same, you don't need to have a switchboard tag (just like with the normal rel=canonical). So my recommendation: are any of your mobile pages direct or near-direct duplicates of your desktop pages? If so, use the switchboard tags for those desktop pages. You should also implement redirects in both directions based on user agent so that people land on the version most relevant to them. (And include the option to switch to the other version). for the other desktop pages, which may relate to certain mobile pages but which are not at risk of being classed as duplicate content, you can simply ignore them, and allow mobile users to land on a non-mobile-friendly page; or you can redirect mobile visitors to the most relevant page on the mobile site (again, with the option to switch to the 'full site'). If you actually have multiple desktop pages which are so similar that they could both have a rel=alternate tag to the same mobile page, that's probably a separate issue. If you're concerned about ranking for deep desktop content in mobile search, I'm afraid the most sustainable solution is to develop that content into a more mobile-friendly format. Hope that helps!

Correct on both counts

That seems to be the issue - You can make separate accounts for each instead of profiles

Thanks Wissem and Mike, GWT gives now a good response, so it works! Cheerz,

Oh I'm sorry I clearly misunderstood the question. I have not seen any studies or testing done on this, but I have to assume that they are ignored by spiders entirely. I certainly don't think they are more damaging than a 404 would be. A 404 tends to be ignored and only registered if a certain amount of time passes and the page is still not found. Google doesn't make it a habit to instantly remove URLs unless you ask them to. At the very worst, the 403/404 error would de-index that particular URL but this should not affect the rankings of your other pages and your actual site. And I think it'll take at least a good 30 days before Google will stop crawling those. That said, it shouldn't be crawling them at all if there aren't any links pointing to them either internally or externally. And if there are links pointing to the pages in question, you should be redirecting them via 301. That is of course if they are links you want. Hope this was more helpful.