Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You can noindex them but in my opinion and experience small things like that are not worth the trouble. I suggest moving on and working on something that is more impactful to the site. Messing around with something that has little consequence is not worth it...especially if you might ruin something if you don't know what you are doing.

If you check out Rand's Intro to SEO slideshare (http://www.slideshare.net/randfish/introduction-to-seo-5003433) slide 46 and 47 talk about URL structure and specifically sub-domains. As Rob said you do want to sub-folder structures and avoid sub-domains. Hopefully you are old enough to remember when websites like lycos.com were big and people could make their own websites. These were all hosted on subdomains like moz.tripod.lycos.com and because of this structure search engines needed to see subdomains as separate websites. For this reason they have separate grading, change the flow of link juice and can easily count as duplicate content. Sub-domains are best utilized for information that is distinct enough. Like in the moz example Rands personal blog could theoretically sit at rand.moz.com as its a separate theme, different content, etc it would just loose out on the  flow of value. Once again Rob is right about using 301 redirects to move your subdomains into folders. Now moving on to the more specific nature of your question "Are fourth level sub-domains any worse than third level sub-domains" I am going to suggest that when asking such a question you've already lost a big chunk of the SEO/inbound marketing battle. The question you are framing is "I know it isn't good - but is it any worse?" Well even if it's not any worse you already know that it's not great and you should be taking structural steps to build on a sites accessibility, user functionality and it's SEO. If you find yourself asking "Is X any worse?" "How bad is Y?" "Can I get away with Z?" then you should immediately stop pursuing that idea and try and find a different method. In this case that method is sub-folders and a 301 migration, but remember the framing of your questions and your over all directional strategy need to change to really drive home your campaigns!

Thank you Adam, Very good answer, thats what I needed Please let me know if I understood good: Should I replace the /contact.php in the example to my real address /en/contact? And basically I should put the below condition. Should I write this code for each url i want to redirect? so that it would be like if /en/contact, then  rel="canonical" /contact else /contact if /en/about-us, then  rel="canonical" /about-us else /about-us etc?

just got a quote and the company said that they would charge for backing up the site, now i have put the details below but not sure how much i would be charged per month. the site would be www.in2town.co.uk and another 20 sites would go onto the dedicated server. can anyone tell me on average what i maybe charged before i agree to this deal In regards to backup - without knowing how much data needs to be backed up an easy starting point is look at a per GB of backup model and this will be charged at: £0.50 per GB of data backup per month. This is run on a 7 day cycle (including full system state and daily incrementals) and UKFast will take care of the restoration for you.

Thanks Shane, That was very simple and to the point.  I am doing SEO on a php site where there's a header and a footer and I didin't know how to add the canoical tag to the header correctly and the On page.  Thanks again. Benny

Hello Tguide, To get around the long load time you could use a view all page as the canonical page and rely on a script to load more content as the user scrolls down. Sites like Twitter and Pinterest do this almost infinitely. Look up infinite scrolling and lazy loading as good places to start. However, this may be difficult to implement for some sites. If you are worried about load time for a view all page you can use rel next and rel prev tags on your paginated pages. This should work just fine in most cases. Moz will continue to tell you about the duplicate titles and descriptions, but you can ignore that warning if you have set up rel next prev or view all canonical correctly.

I hope your right David, I hope this doesn't screw organic ctr% I would like to think people who click the drop down bar would have clicked the pla anyway before it was there.

No problem - if you have any more questions then just drop me an email (my email is on my profile page). Good luck!

That's funny Ryan as I just looked at one of our account that I know has structured data and saw the same thing, a dip then a rise. http://imgur.com/nxJmzCX Sounds like a bug in Google's side, which was my first guess, I only got more interested when I read the forums and people said they also had a drop in rankings. Having looked into it, it sounds like those who got a drop in traffic are likely being impacted by updates around that time which was nothing to do with the data issue. I'm going to mark the question as resolved but I'll add any details I find out. Craig nxJmzCX

thanks for the comments chaps.  Im still in 2 minds about the best thing to do...

Hi, Yes it is ok and secure. Adding users with these restrictions basically gives them read access rights to the relevant accounts but they cannot change settings, add/delete users or generally cause any unforeseen trouble!

Sure - you have urls that are being blocked by robots - you have this line in your robots.txt - Disallow: /questions/search It is thus preventing urls from within that folder, questions, which start with the word search from being crawled. What are you trying to accomplish with this block? If it's the folder search, within questions, it should be /questions/search/. And the other warning is telling you these pages take a long time to load - check your server or these individual pages and see why that is taking so long.

Did you use http://sucuri.net/ to test your site? So these 2 sites pulling data from mine and other sites is illegal? No who ever put them in your site code if you can't find them & you link out to them How can that be my site is hacked for them to just pull data and show on the page? If you have them in your websites template Why is a hosting change suggested? I thought you meant you were being hacked and I listed very secure very fast WordPress hosting 4. Would this be a good for us or not? What is meant was is this good for us in any ranking factors or should we go ahead and ask those sites to remove us from there listing? Would this be wrong in Goggle's eye? Site speed & Security Along not going to deal with your site if  hacked for issues with WordPress hosting https://www.zippykid.com/ https://www.zippykid.com/benefits/speed-fast-wordpress-host/ is now part of googles  Algorithm matters quite a bit http://moz.com/blog/site-speed-are-you-fast-does-it-matter Hope this helps, Thomas

Hi Sam, have PM'd you.

Hi pikka, While rel=”next” is used much more commonly based on search engine research for this query, the two do appear to be interchangeable for all intents and purposes. For best practice, it would be recommended to use the more common term rel=”next” just for safety’s sake, but I would not worry about any other terms using the apostrophes just yet.

Thanks EGOL. I will get that removed as well. I got a new link from this site in footer 2 days back. There are about 20 pages in that site. I have an option to request the same link in this single page.  Should I request from single page? Thanks.

Hi Fabio, what did you end up settling on?

thanks jesse, You now got me right Sorry if I was unclear.. yes, i will try monitoring all changes.. nothing happened by now only with keywords, so Im trying to slowly implement more optimization (starting from internal links and external forward links). I hope I will get somewhere with results, and I ll be more than happy to share with all you mozzers Thanks again. Eugenio

yes, this could be related to the footer. though if you have over 500k pages indexed I assume you do have duplicate content issues anyway.

Hi, I can share from my personal experience, we had noindex to images earlier - though it was much lower as against yours as just 1500 images. after removing noindex from it - there was no issue at all The images started showing in google images after 2 weeks and almost after 6 weeks - we could start seeing most of them. You are doing correct by using Alt attribute, only thing is naming the image correctly (for ex, if someone searches for honda city then image should contain name as honda-city.jpg or like this along with Alt text)