Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This is not a problem, Marcus is correct. This canonical tag being added to each page takes care of anything extra that may be applied to the end of the URL. -Dan

Answered below as well, but wanted to drop this here in case anyone else is looking. WP has changed the location of what used to be "Privacy" under settings. The functionality (which blocks search engines from your wordpress installation) is now under Settings->Reading [Screenshot](Hi Mark Did you find it? I struggled too for a bit, but it's moved to Settings->Reading See this screenshot -Dan) -Dan

Hi, The inter-linking aggressively on the side can be dangerous in my opinion. However, there is nothing that says you are not going to help the search engine spiders to understand the internal structure of the page. I had enough in this case if you had to have a menu in the footer put up a strategy and might have selected a few links to important pages instead of having one to the menu. Many SEO people have different theories about this and it is a bit of testing and error. Sometimes internal linking can be extremely effective while some times, the internal linking, do more harm than good.

Thank you, I'll read the article.

Hi Chris, I've already done my fair bit of keyword research, over here zip codes are not used so much because the country I'm working with is fairly small, (Island State). Thus most searches I presume are directly on the name of the country itself, rather then the cities however due to 'duplicate' names of certain attractions accross the country I think it is best to include the name of city/village. Whilst these might bring some 'SEO' value I do not expect it to be that much when paired with the names of attractions, as major cities only recieve a few thousand searches a month just on the city-name. In which case a city-based page should hopefully work the SEO. What I'd like to do is ensure that for the readers both the title nad url make sense

They aren't guaranteed to appear, from http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=47334: We only show sitelinks for results when we think they'll be useful to the user. If the structure of your site doesn't allow our algorithms to find good sitelinks, or we don't think that the sitelinks for your site are relevant for the user's query, we won't show them. At the moment, sitelinks are automated. We're always working to improve our sitelinks algorithms, and we may incorporate webmaster input in the future. There are best practices you can follow, however, to improve the quality of your sitelinks. For example, for your site's internal links, make sure you use anchor text and alt text that's informative, compact, and avoids repetition. I realise that doesn't tell you why you previously had sitelinks and no longer do, but hopefully there's some info there that helps.

Hi Shubham - I see this domain cached on Dec 29: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Awww.glanceseo.com/ Was it a specific page you were inquiring about?

I would say not to worry about it, the reports should not be taken to the point of where you should fix every single error or warning, just take it as a sign of potential issues, if they are not a big deal in terms of real world seo, then don't sweat them. All the best

Hi Anver not all crawlers act the same, but in theory your blocks should work you can test it at phpWeby.com with different user agents.. Just an FYI I just hit ...kis.com/EmailaFriend.asp?ProductCode=HO_Wakeskis And was told it was able to be crawled by line 1 of robots.txt Looking at your robots.txt file I see user-agent:* listed twice. Also another solution in addition to blocking with robots.txt would be to include the rel="canonical" tag to the root page therefor pointing all dynamic urls back to EmailaFriend.asp Hope that helps, Don

As far as I am aware the canonical tag lets Google know that that page is the most useful and should get priority when being added to the index as Google sometimes ignores duplicate content pages, so this still does not stop the fact that it is duplicate content on your site.

I would like to follow-up with a question on this.  If we already have a blog, that is currently a completely separate URL - should we transition the blog back to the main site? The blog is currently only about 10-15% of the traffic of the main site, we do update it frequently.  I am thinking we might be better off moving it. Anyone been through this?  A few years back, a separate URL worked well, but I realize this does not help use much these days with google...if we were starting from scratch there would be no way we would be doing this. Thanks community!

thank you for that, that helps a lot

Do you mean that inputting an author bio was the same as putting in a meta description on a content page? I did go ahead and add author bios just in case.

Go with subdirectories over subdomains for the reasons already mentioned.  Also, a shorter URL is easier for consumers to remember so take that into consideration when coming up with your naming convention.

thanks for this, i will add a sitemap now