Welcome to the Q&A Forum

hmmm. There is a choice for "Primary Author" and then it says you can override the setting on individual archive pages.  Other than that, I can't see anything that would go towards answering your question. I recommend going to http://www.authorsure.com to see if there is any documentation on that. The guy who created the plugin, Russell Jamieson, is a really nice guy and is very helpful. He has a page on Google+ where you can get support. Good luck!

Honestly, none of these URL structures is going to have an impact on your rankings, but my preference would be for www.website.com/apples?page=2. The more important thing is to make sure that you have your canonical tags and rel=next/prev implemented properly.

Thank you Sorina!

Hi there Kyle, Thanks for writing in!  Sorry for the delay, I was able to take a look at the data on the tests that I ran and to look at your crawl.  From what I can tell, these are the things I noticed: Our crawler is pulling up your internal links, if you check out your crawl diagnostic from your "Crawl Diagnostic" tab (export to CSV), you will find that we are pulling your internal links, they are under "link count." The internal links count we are displaying 0 is because that data is based off of our Mozcape index, so pages that we have not indexed yet will display "0" links, which is something that can be misleading since if we have no data for that page, then technically we didn't crawl the links. Our Mozcape index found some of your higher index pages, you can check them out here: www.opensiteexplorer.org/pages?site=www.powertoolworld.co.uk%2F In terms of why your pages isn't passing authority, I don't have a straight answer for that.  Since Google can index more of your pages than us, they are looking at a more broader picture than OSE, so the metrics in OSE should be used as a secondary stat rather than as your primary source. I hope that helps! Let me know if you have any questions here or in our help ticket Best, Peter SEOmoz Help Team.

The process we use with several clients follows this flow is the product out of stock temporarily? -Yes, leave page up but remove from category pages is product out of stock permenantly? -Yes, redirect to category page and remove category page links (if not done automatically).

further to this you could look at having the image above some text and the text describes the image -- using z-index to layer them - hope that makes a little sense... if not google z-index

Thank you for your fast reply. The old domain name is a .nl and the new domain is a .com in my country .nl ranks little better than the .com. So also this will count, but i also think ill do a 301 redirect from old domain to new domain. I might help a little, it has indeed been expired. Though it is old and still has PA and DA. Kind regards, Menno ps. i made it discussion because i am also curious on other opinions

It looks like in your blog you have a block that includes a link to the trackback URL (look for the green icon): http://www.portlandpersonalinjuryaccidentlawyer.com/blog/page/105/ You can remove this from your theme's template by editing the code in Appearance->Editor. You can probably remove the whole block that the trackback link is contained in, since it's probably not doing much for you SEO-wise.

Claudio, To get a definite answer to your question, simply go to Google Webmaster Tools and send a reconsideration request. They will notify you if you are still penalized or there was no action taken on your account.

I don't believe any. Like Jesse said, change it and move on (Google is fairly forgiving).

I would agree that H1s are stronger than tags for SEO, but they're still pretty minor on-page indications. Of much greater impact would be to better-optimize the meta-title for the page, which is one of the strongest on-page SEO factors. Right now it's just the company name "Uniko Manufacturing Limited"  Much better would be "Uniko Manufacturing Limited - Wholesale Sign and Display Industry Supply" or something similar. Also, the page has no meta-description, which could severely handicap it when it does appear in search results. The meta-description does not help with ranking, but it's like a mini-ad for the page right in the search results to all ow you try to convince a searcher to click on your page instead of someone else's. Better to focus on the highest impact optimizations first, rather than just the easiest. Hope that makes sense? Paul

Makes sense - thanks Carson! I have often wondered if "powered by" type links hurt. They help referrals, but i think hurt search. I think i will throw a nofollow up there so not all spam/regular sites link back to the main, and make them more into silos

Gregster, I assume that you have found an answer to your question by now. However, I wanted to offer up what looks to be an extremely in depth and comprehensive walkthrough on Magento SEO from yoast.com. They have several sections on duplicate content, as well as a canonical plugin you may find useful. http://yoast.com/articles/magento-seo/ Best of Luck!

I wouldn't use both 301s and rel=canonicals for the same purpose. It's fine to have 301s to redirect non-www URLs, and then canonicals for other problems, but I wouldn't double them up for the same issue. The 301s are the proper solution here. Your 301s don't seem to be triggering. Did you remove this code? Unfortunately, diagnosing someone's rewrites in .htaccess is incredibly difficult without direct access. How does Google crawl your site? It looks like all of the products are only available by submitting a form (pulldowns). Google can't take that action, which could be causing major problems with your PageRank flow internally. You need paths that Google can use to reach the actual products. Honestly, form selects menus aren't typically a good solution for users, either.

What I mean is that these pages rank in pages 2 and 3 for their main keyword without backlinks.

Thanks for all the help.

I think your point is valid here.  I think we need to break down canonical a bit for this one to make sense.  The canonical tag is not a redirect.  It is a suggestion, not a directive.  http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394 In this case you are correct.  The site owner is telling Google that he wants the www version to be displayed in Google SERPs.  And if you go and search for xquisite events you will find that the first several results are using the www just like he requested.  What is strange here is that the site owner has a 301 redirect pointing the www to the non.  It seems to me that the site owner accidentally used the canonical on the wrong page.  Instead of placing it on the pages he did not want to be primarily indexed he did the inverse. Based on his redirects his REAL primary pages are non www but his canonical usage is suggesting the opposite.  Hope this helps.

Thank you for your answer and suggestions. Google indexed the one without the context, but I think the one with context should be better. 301 redirect is not possible since we want the article to show up in other categories and keep the visitors in the section he was before the click.

Hey, The obvious points seem to have been covered already: no correlation with traffic drops on known algorithm change dates no manual penalty Can you provide a little more info so we can dig into this? A link to your site An example of a page (or pages) that won't rank for a given term There are a lot of moving parts here and you could be the victim of sites that linked to you being deindexed or penalised, of some kind of phrase specific drop but without more data we are simply guessing here. I would do the following: 1. Dig into your analytics and take a look at the drop date. Compare this to the algorithm dates here on SEOMoz or use the super cool panguintool.com to see all updates and algorithm changes overlaid over your anlaytics. 2. Taking anything gleaned from the above review the traffic drop in your analytics. Look at the period two weeks before and after the drop (you indicated it was sudden?) - look at the landing pages, the keywords, what are the big changes? This again gives you more intel to further your investigation. Is the entire drop tied into a couple of keywords that are now performing more poorly. 3. Audit your site - how is the accessibility? How well is it indexed? Is there duplication? Other technical problems? There is a good self audit post on here that will get you started: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-perform-the-worlds-greatest-seo-audit 4. Audit your back links - where have they come from? What are they like? Editorial? Directories? Are the linking sites indexed or do they appear to have been penalised? Use some of the tools out there like Link Detective and Link Detox from Link Research Tools to give you some more intel. There will a reason for this but without a link it is impossible to give anything other than general advice. If the link is sensitive fire me a PM. I will still feedback here in the public forum for all to benefit but I will maintain your anonymity if that's important. If you can drop a link, you will benefit from several SEO super sleuths taking a look so I would always recommend that. Anyhow, I hope that helps! Marcus

Dr. Pete has a good post about this topic at http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-many-links-is-too-many that should help.