Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Woops lol. Had no idea. Was always under the impression using a canonicalization tag was only used to prevent duplicate content issues. Thank you.

Cool. Maybe I'll contact the people who ordered each of those dragon patches and tell them they're included in the list. I could also add something on the bottom such as, "Want to change this list? Vote for your favorite in the comments." Thanks for all your great advice!

Thanks to both of you for your answers! appreciate it.

There is no advanage, but there is disadvanatges. There s the fact that now you have a 301 redirect to the new url. every 301 redirecte leaks link juice. there is also the conversion factor, where you really want clear clean data, haveing the .html makes things look that little bit messy. Most people rewite the other way for this reason, to get rid of the extentions. Try uising the old url, does it work? I dont use wopprdpress of develop in php, but php being a server side technology, the webserver will need to know that the page is php. So i assume what the dev has done is rewite the urls, so when .html is used, it rewrites to a url that the web server can understand. When you do a rewite you need to do a 301 redirect from the old url to the new url so that you dont get duplicate contnet, you can not have both redering the same content. UYou also need to change every internal link on the site so that they link directly to the new url, you dont want your internal links going thougth a 301 as they leak link juice, leaking link juice on internal links that you have full control over is an un-necessary waste. See http://thatsit.com.au/seo/tutorials/friendly-urls-using-url-rewrites-with-iis This is for Microsoft IIS serrver, but the concept is the same

Hi NicB1, We use Amazon CloudFront here at SEOmoz and it allows us to setup a CNAME for our CDN. So if you look at our images you will see we use a few different ones, such as cdn.seomoz.org, profile1.seomoz.org and profile2.seomoz.org. While I haven't done any studies on this, I can tell you that we have not seen a major change in image traffic in making the CDN switch a few months ago. I'd check with your CDN people and see if you can setup a CNAME and place it on a subdomain. Casey

Thanks to both of you for your responses! Quick question. I have just changed my post name after the page has been created since I want to have a different H1 tag but the permalink keeps the original post name. Does this cause any technical or SEO problems as far as you know? Thanks again

Hi Coolpink, from what I've understood from your question the potential panorama for your client can be this: .com for UK .us for USA both sites with almost identical content. If I was you, I would follow these best practices: On Google Webmaster Tools I'd specify that domain.com must geotarget UK only. Even though .com domains name are meant to be global, if you order Google to geotarget your site for a specific country, then it should follow your directive even if your domain is a generic domain name; Again on Google Webmaster Tools. I'd specify that the domain .us must geotarget the USA only territory. Be aware that .us is the Country Level Domain of United States (as .co.uk is the cTLD of UK), therefore Google should have to geotarget automatically domains with that termination to the USA. I don't know the nature of your client's site, but if it is an eCommerce, surely there local signals that you may or must use: currencies (Pounds and Dollars), Addresses, Phone Numbers. You write that cannot be merged the US and UK market also because of the regional spelling to change. This is a correct intuition, also in term of International SEO. So, when creating the new .us site, pay attention to this issue and remember to translate to American English those contents that were writting in British English (i.e.: analise > analize... ). These regional differences help a lot Google understanding the target of the site A good idea in order to reinforce the fact that the .com site is meant just for the UK market, it should be to add in this site the rel="alternate" hreflang="x" tag this way: <rel="alternate" hreflang="en-us" href="http://www.domain.us">(please go read not at the end)</rel="alternate"> BING > This page in the Bing’s  Webmaster Center Blog  (“How to tell Your Website’s Country and Language”) explains quite well what are the best practices to follow in order to have a site ranking in the regional versions of Bing. Actually the Metadata embedded in the document solution is the most important between the ones Bing suggests: should be the one to add in the .us site (target: USA) Note well: the rel="alternate" hreflang="x" is a "page level tag", not domain. That means that the home page will have: <rel="alternate" hreflang="en-us" href="http://www.domain.us">(as seen above)</rel="alternate"> That page "A" will have: <rel="alternate" hreflang="en-us" href="http://www.domain.us/page-equivalent-to-A"></rel="alternate"> and so on.

thank you for that. I am going through the links now to see how i can improve the linking on my site and to see how relevant the links are.

If you figure out a way to do this, you'd be rich! They don't seem to care who they touch, whether it's Apple or SEOmoz of the little site. When I search Google for [negative keywords seomoz] I get back the post that I wrote about negative keywords, and Google has rewritten the title to be "negative-keywords-for-positive-roi - SEOmoz". negative-keywords-for-positive-roi is the URL/post slug! If you use different phrases to search, you'll find the correct post title. Quite frustrating!

Hey guys - Good question here. You are right, JFKORN, that the scenario I described in my post was where content that should be accessible to Google was hidden behind Javascript. Of course, Google is now indexing Javascript and can parse it quite well, so I'm not sure it still holds true, but I still recommend, to be safe, to not serve content using Javascript. It seems to me, though, that you are asking the opposite. But what they are doing here seems to be legit to me. In my mind, it is not any different from simply using a collapsible DIV to put tabs onto a page, like on this page: http://www.rei.com/product/812097/black-diamond-posiwire-quickpack-quickdraw-set-package-of-6. I would actually say that it's fine to do this. But, be careful with the content because you do not want to get into "stuffing" the pages with keywords, which can hurt your rankings, even without an official penalty. I've seen this more as an assumed algorithmic penalty that then went away when the text was removed. So be careful, but I don't think you'd be doing anything greyhat here.

Norberto, It would be great if you could leave a link to your site so I could see your current navigation. You could categorise the pages based on the team therefore all pages relating to a particular team would be interlinked with one another. As Alan recommended if running WordPress a plugin such as YARRP will help to link related pages together automatically based on content, tags and categories. But linking your pages will help to flow link juice from old to new pages and help users navigate to related stories and fixtures.

Hi Charles, I believe it's 100% relevant to what the page is about. If for whatever reason obviously you don't believe an image would add to making the entire experience better than it may not matter however I know Google does take the way the page is constructed into account here's  some more info. http://www.pandia.com/marketing101/4-tips.html hope I was of help to you. Sincerely, Thomas

Yeah, normally I'd say to NOINDEX those user-generated search URLs, but since they're collecting traffic, I'd have to side with Alan - a canonical may be your best bet here. Technically, they aren't "true" duplicates, but you don't want the 1K pages in the index, you don't want to lose the traffic (which NOINDEX would do), and you don't want to kill those pages for users (which a 301 would do). Only thing I'd add is that, if some of these pages are generating most of the traffic (e.g. 10 pages = 90% of the traffic for these internal searches), you might want to make those permanent pages, like categories in your site architecture, and then 301 the custom URLs to those permanent pages.

It's a bit of a read, but I discuss a lot of on-page tag/tactics in this post, inspired by Panda: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/duplicate-content-in-a-post-panda-world If you're launching a very large site (like an e-commerce site) with 1000s of products, then a deep knowledge of on-page SEO can be critical. For most sites, though, that grow organically, you can learn as you go. As you start to track your own content and rankings, you'll begin to see what works and what doesn't. Early on in a site's life, a lot of on-page really just comes down to solid keyword research, a sensible site architecture/structure (navigation and internal links), controlling duplicate URLs, and writing decent TITLE tags. That'll take you a long way in the beginning.

Did you 301-redirect or canonical from the old site that was optimized previously for this term? You could be seeing an indirect impact of back-links to that old site (which wouldn't show as links to the current site, depending on how you redirected them).

I use the software a lot, and have never know it to be wrong, if you send me the url, (you can use private mesaging if you want) i am sure i will find it for you. if you look into it it will tell you where it is

Hi, Looks like you might have already figured it out cause it redirect properly? www.organic7thheaven.com/products/deepcleansing/miraclemud.asp Redirects to http://www.7thheavennaturals.com/products/deepcleansing/miraclemud.asp/ HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently => Connection => close Date => Fri, 13 Apr 2012 13:39:22 GMT Server => Microsoft-IIS/6.0 X-Powered-By => ASP.NET X-AspNet-Version => 2.0.50727 Location => http://www.7thheavennaturals.com/products/deepcleansing/miraclemud.asp Cache-Control => private Content-Length => 0 But the code would be (All one line formatting here is bad) Redirect 301 /products/deepcleansing/miraclemud.asp http://www.7thheavennaturals.com/products/deepcleansing/miraclemud.asp/ If you used the code Options +FollowSymLinks RewriteEngine on RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^(.)yourdomain.com [NC] RewriteRule ^(.)$ http://yournewdomain.com/$1 [R=301,L] SInce it appears you have the same directory structure, then technically this is a chain redirect, even though Google says this is "okay" it is preferred to do it page by page. Shane

Make sure and back up you .htaccess before making any changes... Options +FollowSymLinks RewriteEngine On RewriteRule ^(.*).asp$ $1.php [R=301,L] Would convert all asp to php but this would only work if you kept your directory structure the same Example Old Structure http://www.somedomain.com/about.asp New Structure http://www.somedomain.com/about.php If you did not you will need to do it manually for each page Redirect 301 /about.asp http://www.somedomain.com/about-Us.php If there are spaces, be sure to use quotes Redirect 301 "/about us.asp" http://www.somedomain.com/about-Us.php There could be other easier ways, but if I read correctly above, this would be my suggestions And of course as TIm suggests above, the proper SEO process would be manually for each page, redirecting to its proper counterpart (if it is indexed, and has links pointing to it or a User Experience page) Shane