Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the advice! That sounds like a good plan B if I can't get the developers to change the image to text. This is definitely one of the most avoidable yet most frustrating on page issues I encounter. I guess it's time to update my documentation for development.

Without an in-depth look into your analytics the information you have provided leads me to believe the following is occurring since you specifically mention that you are not running any ppc ads.  When Google Analytics is reporting on source/medium the value that is shown direct / none of course refers to any visit that has been tracking that they could not identify a referring domain that started the visit.  There are numerous reasons as to why a referring domain can be lost for a visitor 1.Somebody really did type in the address or used a bookmark to get to your page 2.They clicked on a link in an email from a non web based email clients (typically Outlook, Eudora, Thunderbird, etc.) 3.The link was in a document 4.The link originates at a secure (https:) page and your page is not secure (http) 5.Spiders and bots were working from a list of URLs from a previous crawl (this one mostly applies to server logs, rarely to JavaScript based tracking) 6.Spiders and bots may be programmed to suppress the referrer information (this one mostly applies to server logs, rarely to JavaScript based tracking) 7.The visitor is using IE and the link to your site was in Javascript.  Javascript links to your site include those that open your site in a new browser window, or any kind of javascript redirect.  Many banners’ links are programmed this way. 8.The visitor is using IE and the link to your site is from within a Flash application (there are a lot of ways to do this in Flash so there may be exceptions I would always recommend adding a Ad Campaign tracking variable to any CTA) 9.Your landing page redirects to another page via a 301 permanent server-side redirect 10.The link was on an intranet or some other web site behind a proxy or corporate gateway that was set up to strip referrers from requests 11.The visitor has made changes to their browser that suppresses the referrer information 12.Another site has put your page content into an iFrame and coded the frame to suppress the referrer, in order to make it difficult for you to find out who is framing your content

Hi Keri Thanks for your input. As far as I’m aware DNN can't handle URLs without the file extensions, always seemed a bit behind when it came to SEO and is definitely not the most SEO friendly CMS out there. Would like to get rid of the file extenstion as it just seems a bit more use friendly from the start and as you righly said this will shorten the url a bit as well. Thanks again,

Hi Todd, Cannonical Tags plays a crucial role.There are Custom Magento Cannonical tags.However there are New Cannonical Tag's Url For Magento. I hope that your query had been solved.

Thanks a bunch for confirming this for me, I thought this was just odd and wanted to make sure there wasn't some kind of pertinent reason for using such a technique.

If possible, I would have your linking teams keep using the clean URLs and canonicalize your URLs to the clean version (since this is easiest for users to see and understand). But if you can't use rel=canonical for whatever reason, certainly have the link teams link to the correct URL! For number 2, push hard for the 301 redirects to the appropriate destination pages.

It's really tough to predict. I think Eyepaq covered the basics well - you'll consolidate your link-juice, but you may harm your UK-specific ranking slightly. Whether the consolidation offsets the loss really depends a lot on your link profile, how Google treats your UK site (sometimes, English content, even across countries, is seen as partially duplicated), and your market focus. If 80%+ of your market is US-based, you're not ranking that well in the UK, and you don't have the resources to really push two domains, my gut reaction would be to favor consolidation. If you have two separate marketing efforts int he two countries and half or more of your sales are UK-based, then you'd be taking a real risk. I would check out the newish rel="alternate" hreflang="..." option: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=189077 It's specifically for helping same-language content rank correctly across regions, and Google seems to be pushing it publicly.

Hi Arthur, I'm glad my response was helpful and - ouch - I hear you on the merging headache! Don't forget, help has improved in the Google Places Help Forum, which is actually moving to a new location. In case you don't have the new link, here it is: http://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/forum/#!forum/maps You may already have tried this, but if you haven't, the Top Contributors there or even Vanessa Schneider of Google might be able to manually help you with troubleshooting the merging issue. Note - I say 'might' because merging issues are really hard to remedy and you can get them fixed only to have them come back again. Here's some good news. There is a chance that with the recent Venice update in Local, your organic rankings may be becoming even more powerful. You might like to read this: http://marketing-blog.catalystemarketing.com/google-venice-update-local-seo.html I sincerely wish you luck with disentangling merges. I do Local SEO, but I confess, I don't take on merges because they are such a pain in the neck. If you get into a position where you need help, you may be able to hire a Local SEO who specializes in dupes and merging. Just a thought. Cheers! Miriam

Pagination is a tough issue, and there's no one right answer (Google can't even agree with itself). If you're not experiencing ranking problems, then rel=prev/next is probably a good solution. It's a "soft" signal, IMO, and will help Google sort things out. If you begin to have trouble, I tend to use META NOINDEX,FOLLOW on pages 2, 3, etc. In the vast majority of cases, these paginated results have no SEO value and no inbound links, so they add no value to the index. It really depends a lot on the scope of the problem.

Do the pages have things like credit card or social security numbers where you need them out of the SERPs right away, or is it just stuff you want gone for some other reason? There is a URL removal tool you can use, but Google does prefer it to be used for things that have to be gone immediately, and to do what you're doing now for the rest of the items. My personal experience (from a while back) is that when a robots.txt changed and unblocked items from being crawled, they were back in the SERPs right away. Google seems to still know about all of these URLs (and doesn't just wipe them from memory entirely) even if they don't show them in the search results. I don't have any resources to point you to on that right now though.

Hi Ispone, As we know that  Vanity URLs are short, easy to remember Web addresses used for campaigns, microsites and landing pages. They are a key Internet marketing tool. The Vanity URLs with Magnolia CMS will help you know more. If know more about Vanity URLs then please visit the Vanity URLs Topic. I hope that you will found the solution.

Bing will only allow 250 links http://thatsit.com.au/seo/reports/violation/the-page-contains-too-many-hyperlinks Every link passes 85% of its link juice, not 100%, this is so that we dont get internal loops. but even passing only 85% means that you will always have 85% of somthing to pass on no matter how small, so there must be a cutt off at some point where links no longer pass anything. if you have say thousonds of links, then each link may not get enouth to make the cutt off, and the page will pass nothing

Yes they can, I would add rel= previous and rel=next to them http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html

Thanks!

Hi Searchpl, "Standard hosting" consist of stand alone servers well cloud hosting service is provided by one or more servers which are in the same infrastructure. So in a since these two hosting services are pretty much the same except for resources available and still house multiple websites under one IP. So basically, yes you are still sharing the same IP address as other websites which can cause some issues with your site if other sites are spamming or infected with viruses. You can still have "cloud hosting" and have your own IP address, which would consist of virtual private servers (VPS) or straight Dedicated servers. This will allow your site to run off of your own server and IP. There are many pluses with using a VPS or dedicated server such as: server with dedicated resources (since its a cloud, you'll have multiple servers/resources that can adjust to server load (traffic) when needed so your site will hardly slow down on huge traffic spikes. Own IP Hopes this helps (hope i explained it clearly), and let me know if you have any other questions.