Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You should look into using using Robots.txt to filter out specific querystring parameters You can use asterisks (*) to match the URL type above... Disallow: /index.php?a=reg

How is the large drop-down menu working for your site's visitors? Is there scope to improve the navigation and reduce the number of links? If the navigation is important then you can't just remove it completely can you? I would take a look at how the site is being used and how well the navigation is helping visitors find what they're looking for. What's the reason this navigation exists? Can you use the current page to provide context and reduce the number of relevant links? Once you know how important it is you'll be in a much better position to decide whether to remove it (or improve it) or not.

One of my favorite cities in the world, so I will. Thanks, keep us posted on the outcomes. Best,

Thanks Robert, Great Stuff

Hi Carl, Several large publications do this sort of thing already, but they do have a lot of content of their own to back the duplicate / blocked content up. The most large-scale example of this is newspapers that syndicate content from other papers, often internationally. I was the SEO on a project like this for a large UK paper, and we blocked the duplicated content's subfolder via robots.txt so that the newspaper was not re-publishing indexable content from its international sister. Your other option is to use the canonical tag to point back to the original version of the content. Syndication shouldn't be harmful, and if you were doing this with a lot of content on the site to begin with, it would be normal and fine. What worries me is Google seeing a new site where there is literally no content (to begin with) and a large, blocked section. After the Panda update, it's pretty important to show a resource-heavy website, even if the site's purpose is filled without content. For instance, a property search engine I worked on saw a huge Panda penalty because all of their articles were on an artlce subdomain, not on the same subdomain as the "money" part of their site. We had to move the articles over to the main site. It's not possible for me to say exactly what will happen if you go ahead with this, but I must advise that you should be building out your unique content both before launch, and quickly post-launch. It's vital that unique, indexable content be live on the site for it to perform well, even for commercial queries that don't rely on a site having articles. Cheers, Jane

oh that sounds like agood idea.. Did you find a scalable way to noindex them? Maybe a plugin?

In Google Webmaster Tools, you can go in, and go to Diagnostics > Fetch as Googlebot.  Once Googlebot fetches the page, you can click the "Submit to index" link. In Bing Webmaster Central, go to Index > Submit URLs, and you can submit the page to be re-indexed there.

There are a lot of factors to consider what you want to do with it. Personally, I tend to stray away from microsites due to 1) it's a lot of work for a team to build out more than one site & keep it maintained and 2) as far as the linking aspect, Google is getting smarter to tell who owns what domains, who owns the same domains, and how they're linked.

So even though that page is not technically an actual page (HTML file) that sits on the server permanently, Google will index it as such?

Greetings Champion! You can provide a Canonical Link or Redirect, that states whichever one of your home pages is the most powerful is the original content. For Example, Canonical Linking http://www.americanscooterstore.com/Daytona_GT_4_Wheel_by_Drive_Medical.html Site that has Duplicate Content What the Canonical Link should look like. (should be in one straight line, but the box wasn't big enough.) I wish you good luck on your Quest for Page 1 Champion! Justin Smith

You're right, my mistake. I'm not to sure that Schema.org has something for that type of data? Here's the full list of their supported item types: http://schema.org/docs/full.html I'm not too sure where reference data would fit in? Maybe under Thing > Intangible

As I understand it, the .XXX TLDs are pushing for exclusive adult use. Therefore if your site has no adult content then you may be in violation of the terms for that TLD. As Ryan stated, the search engines have no real prefrence to the TLDs, except for in the fact that the users trust them more. Therefore, your CTRs will be higher, which in turn would effect your rankings. When possible .com is the best for most websites. The .co's have a benefit of being shorter, but they have a huge downside for being too similiar to the .com and that they are not yet widely recognized. Put a .co on the side of service truck and the majority of people are bound to think that you simply forgot the 'm' for the .com.

You have two changes I think you need to do. As Woj Kwasi says, you have URLs with and without "www.". I would most definately redirect the non-www traffic to www-URLs. Add the redirect in your .htaccess: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^thegorillafirm.com [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.thegorillafirm.com/$1 [L,R=301] Furthermore you need to set canonical links: http://thegorillafirm.com/bikes/"> This should be set in the index.asp file header. In a similar way you should set this for: http://thegorillafirm.com/surf/ http://thegorillafirm.com/snow/ This should help you remove the duplicate content warnings. Best regards, Rasmus