Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the quick responses. Currently, visiting a page on my site using the old permalink structure redirects one to the same page on the new setup, so I'm guessing there is a redirect in place, all be it a 302? (all I did was change the structure in the permalinks tab on WP, nothing else). Should I still do what you suggest with the htaccess file?

i want to take it back to the way i first started with it instead of moving away from what i wanted. So i would like to include a lot of the same content, but what i am worried about is losing all the links. My hosting company have put a new installation of joomla in a new subdomain and then this will be put under www.in2town.co.uk and then i am trying to learn how to keep the old links for the new site

Hey Sha Menz, Thanks for the link, I am a big fan of WBF, I just haven't seen this one, definitely helped. I am just curious as to what other people have to say about this. Hanson

Yes, linkvalue from Website A will transfer to Website B. This will work best if Website A and Website B are about the same topic.  If they are not about the same topic then this might not be a good idea. Also, before you do this you should ask.... 1) do both of these sites have the same linksources? If they do then those duplicated links might not be worth much.... also, 2) will the webmasters who linked to Website A be pleased to see that they are now linking to Website B.  If not, you will probably lose some of your links. Good luck!

Thanks, Ryan!  I'll take this to our development team.  Have a good weekend.

Thanks for catching that Ryan! Having a bad copy/paste day

Thanks for the response! Yes, we do want to implement the rel=canonical tag but since we are using Magento to build on we are having some issues. One of the issues is that we have the shirts page with sort features: www.mysite.com/shirts/shoby/size-m and then the tshirts page: www.mystie.com/shirts/tshirts/shoby/size-m So the problem we're running into is trying to figure out how to write a script to implement rel=canonical so that for the first URL, everything after shirts canonicalizes to the /shirts/ URL, and then for the second URL everything after tshirts canonicalizes back to the /shirts/tshirts/ URL without the /shirts/ rel=canonical overriding it.

Personally I have no experience with Australian IP... but I have not really seen significative page load speed differences in the case of Italian sites with USA/UK IP

I think canonicalization is the best option for your case. Make http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/ny/New-York-City/Maps/Manhattan-Apartment-Sales-Map?zoom=2&x=0.518&y=0.3965 canonical tag as http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/ny/New-York-City/Maps/Manhattan-Apartment-Sales-Map. Then google wil show http://www.propertyshark.com/mason/ny/New-York-City/Maps/Manhattan-Apartment-Sales-Map in search results and problem will be solved. Google will still count backlinks for those url's but if you choose nourl google will not index them again. If you use canonical tag, all incoming links' juice ,related to that page, collected by main page.

Thank you my friend much appreciated. Best wishes.

For Google News entry this strategy would simply not work. I also wonder if a single page would make you a subject authority. The bots may sense that you are trying to game them. with all those 301's.

Yeah I've seen the SERT articles. Though I've actually discovered that it was being caused by what I was searching. When I found the page via the product name, the title displayed as "Product Name - Company Name" - but when I searched for the keywords I've optimized for, they appeared in the title as desired. Didn't know Google did that... do now!

ok I'll take your word for it and see how it goes.  Thanks for taking the time out to help out.

Google just announced some tags to help support pagination better.  They say if you have a view all option that doesn't take too long to load, searchers generally prefer that, so you can rel=canonical to that page from your series pages.  However, if you don't have a view all page, then you can put these nifty rel="next" and rel="prev" tags in to let Google know your page has pagination, and where the next and previous pages are. View all: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/view-all-in-search-results.html next/prev: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/09/pagination-with-relnext-and-relprev.html

Hi Gareth, Thanks for the Googlebot info. Still concerned with cloaking content but will look into it in more detail. Thanks again

Another reason for absolute would be that it prevents 404 errors if you forget to edit the rel links when you move pages around, add folders etc. One less thing to worry about.

Hi Matthew. I think you have the right idea and thought process. Interlinking pages is very user friendly and a solid SEO strategy. Links in content offer more value then links in navigation or footers both to users and SEO. This strategy also provides link to many pages in your site which otherwise are not part of your navigation. The greatest part is the links are offered based on popularity. Links in navigation and footers are always there. Even if not a single visitor comes to your site, those links are always there on every page. Proper internal linking as used on wikipedia only appears when a topic is discussed. The more it is discussed, the more links and vice versa. This strategy allows much better management of your site's precious link juice. Does it all depends on Page Authority? How frequently and deeply your site is crawled always depends upon your PA/DA. With that said, your links in content will be given the highest priority and that's another great part of proper internal linking. As long as you keep things helpful to users and reasonable, I would not have any concerns. Review your navigation/sidebar/footer links to ensure they are all necessary. If so, I would continue with your plan. I hate to throw out a number because there are many factors to consider, but I would not recommend going too much about 140 links unless your PA/DA was strong. Can i go inter-link crazy on 1 year old legitimate site? Site age is not a factor. 1 day or 15 years old you would use the same linking strategies. I hate to endorse anything with the term "crazy" in it. I would say you can use interlinking in a similar manner to wikipedia. If that's what you call crazy, so be it.