Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Nice video. Keep in mind rel=canonical is designed for pages which presently basically the same content. For example if you sell widgets then you might have a page sorted by price ascending, another by price descending, another by color, etc. All of these pages show the same content presented slightly differently. Often the links on each page will be identical.

Yes ,there is a difference. Product_type is the category that you think fits best for your productand google_product_type is the product type or product category that you think fits best within the category structure specified by Google - i.e. defined in Google product  taxonomy. Here is Google's product  taxonomy: http://www.google.com/support/merchants/bin/answer.py?answer=160081 Sometimes your category might not be listed in their taxonomy, in which case you might want to list the on you think is closest to what the product is about.

You're very welcome BTW, I use SH404SEF with Joomla too, which is pretty good, but is a paid-for product.

Fantastic! Thank you!

What happens when you naviaget to these urls, [http://www.example.com/page/](http://www.example.com/page/)  and [http://www.example.com/page](http://www.example.com/page) do they resolve to one or the other, or do both render the page? The answer is to 301 to one or the other, and make sure you are not using both formats in your site.

Thank you.  Very helpful, Ryan.

The name of the category itself is largely irrelevant as long as it's tangentially related to your site. The description of your site and anchortext in the listing is where most of the relevancy comes from anyway. The most important thing to consider is how many people are in that category, and where exactly your listing will show up. A lot of people get caught up with the PR and mozRank of a directory's category only to realize after they shelled out some cash that their listing will forever reside on a subpage that has no PageRank and is likely not in the primary Google Index. But no need to repeat the information I just posted -> here are more tips in a related Q&A thread.

Thanks Geoff. Will work on the rel=canonical. Problem is that we have like 60 pages like this with each 10 or more backlinks. For the total site it is something like 800 backlinks. Well work to do i guess.

Hi Alex, Either option has a fine chance of ranking well. It's going to depend on what type of keyword you are targeting. If I'm searching for something broad and informational, a category page seems like a nice spot to land. If I'm searching for something more specific, I want to land on the page with the actual information I'm looking for, not on a page of results. You should decide what will work best for your site. Do you plan on writing a lot of content regularly? If so, you might want to use the category method. If not, perhaps you should just make one page, as rich and useful as possible and try to get that one to rank.

Logically, it usually makes sense to only have one tag which summarizes the overall page content - that's why there's h2-h5 available. However, if you segement your content and tag eachorwith an <hgroup>that contains an tag you should be fine as far as crawler alerts are concerned - I think Google will get the point. Just don't expect each H1 tag to carry the "weight" you'd expect it to if you're using multiple tags on the same page. </hgroup>

I understand your approach, but would advise you to consider alternative methods. It provides you no benefit to rank #1 for a term unless people type that term into the search engine. According to Google that term has no traffic at all. If you rank #10 for a term which has 1000 monthly searches, as a result you may receive ?2% of those 1000 visitors so 20 visitors a month. Google Analytics allows you to see how much traffic you receive and the exact source of that traffic. Your report for this particular term will be skewed because of this Q&A thread. Try a similar but different phrase. If you earn #1 ranking but after 30 days see zero traffic, your article has absolutely no value despite it's #1 ranking.

One other choice is to have one page, and change the content dynamicly

Thanks Nick!

cheers thank dude, feedburner seems to work fine for me in all browsers. & cool, i'll submit the feedburner feed to the rss sites. thanks for your input.

Hi Rick, Your first thought was correct. If you apply the noindex meta tag to every page in the secure part of the site, then all of those pages will be de-indexed and you will have no duplicate content problem. For Wordpress, you just need to install a plugin that allows you to edit and apply page elements and meta tags. My preference is Yoast SEO. If you do a plugin search from your dashboard you will find it. Hope that helps, Sha

Hi, The accepted best practice is no more that 100 links on a page, however there are some things to consider. For a more detailed explanation, you can take a look at my answer in this thread Hope that helps, Sha

Hi NYC, I am guessing you are referring to the "Too many on-page Links" warning in the crawl report? The accepted best practice is no more than 100 links on a page, but keep in mind that what you are seeing is a best practice recommendation, not an "error". So, if there is no reasonable way to reduce the number of links without lessening the user experience, then you may need to just accept that you can't comply with best practice in that case. If, on the other hand, you see that there are unnecessary links on the page, you can reduce the number and this may even improve the experience for the user. In general, if the links are predominantly from menus and necessary elements like buy buttons etc, then I would not be too worried. If the page is full of internal text links trying to pass link juice with anchor text, then this would be something to fix. Two reasons: It is not a good experience for the user as it makes the whole page look and feel really "spammy". The amount of link juice passed by a link which is one of more than a hundred on the page is so miniscule that it is pointless anyway. Hope that helps, Sha

came to agree on this..  focus on differentiation sans the hannibal lector aspects of keywords.