Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi, First, when you type "Clear browser cache" in the Address Bar of Google Chrome while on Google, it does NOT clear the cache, but offers you 3 pre loaded Search result pages to choose from - one for each browser. The result page for each provides a list of sites with instructions on how to clear the cache for the browser you choose. In IE, again it does NOT clear the cache,  sends you straight to the results page for IE, but in the latest version of Firefox it does not work at all. You can easily check this yourself in your own browser. USER AGENT = Browser type (Chrome, Firefox, IE) Hope that helps. Sha

SEO Spider from Screaming Frog is a great crawler and a notable alternative to Xenu

There's a fresh post on Search Engine People yesterday about blog commenting guidelines that likely mirrors what many people here would say about commenting. http://www.searchenginepeople.com/blog/blog-commenting-guideline.html It's a good read for developing a comment strategy that will work in the long term.

Hi Kris, Google's public position on the use of 301 redirects is that it will preserve almost all of the link juice from the old page and pass it to the new. This Google webmaster video from Matt Cutts was uploaded in April of this year and is fairly clear on that. However, we need to remember that PageRank is basically a measure of the number and quality of links to your site. There is a detailed explanation here. So, it may be that there has been some change in the the sites that link to yours between PR updates. You can use SEOmoz tools to conduct a little CSI on the sites and check this if you want to. First, find the sites that are linking to yours in Open Site Explorer. Export the Report to csv to grab the list of sites and open it up in Excel. You can then use the SEOmoz Historical PageRank Tool to check whether there has been any significant change in the PR of the sites linking to you. If you find some, there is your answer. If you do not find any significant changes...then perhaps the reversal of the redirect has triggered some of that recalculation described in the PR article -and since it is coming back... On the subject of there being some mis-match issue in Google's Index between the non www root domain and the www subdomain, there is one thing that occurs to me. Is it possible that you have changed the 301 redirect, but still have an instruction existing in Google Webmaster Tools which is telling Google that your primary domain is the www? This could create some confusion for Googlebot and perhaps influence Google's view of how "friendly" your site is. It shouldn't really affect PageRank, but could affect rankings. Since it hasn't made any difference to your traffic, I would not be too worried, but would probably take a look at the link profile and see if there is a need to work on attracting more or better links for the site. Hope that helps, Sha

Wayne gave a good answer. From a great deal of research I have found that a 301 redirect loses some of the link juice to avoid people abusing the power of building many domains and then forwarding them all to one main domain. In my opinion this is well worth it still especially when you don't have to go through the work to have established the link portfolio. One thing to look out for though is making sure that the link portfolio really is as good as you think it is. Look into the backlinks and see if they are from reputable sources which will stay there or if thy are just a mass of profile backlinks and comment spam which could just make it seem like they have a lot of good links or even get those links removed later on. At the very least the 301 redirect will help get the robots to your site to increase crawl frequency which i find to be great when you want your pages to be indexed and updated quickly on google.

Yes, the best way is to handle via webmaster tools, and not try to handle via code on the sites.  In your Google webmaster tools account, go to "Site Cinfiguration" and "URL Parameters".  It will show you a handful of dynamic urls it has detected, how it is handling them currently.  Then you can manually add a dynamic parameter that exists on your site and tell google how to handle it.  They have a bunch of new options/features with this tool that makes it really useful now.

I never had any issues with it without the nocase flag but it couldn't hurt

Hi Keri, Thanks for the suggested solution. The enarion solution works for my regular URL's but then causes me issues with some of the more complicated javascript/ajax functionality on the site. No idea why, (bit over my head to be honest) but my developer suggested that it wasnt a good idea to it anyway (again ,for reasons I dont fully understand!)

When did you implement the 301 redirect? I've seen it take a couple of months for some sites to regain its PageRank. As long as you follow the correct procedure (which it seems like you have) then you should be okay. Another thing you might wish to consider is to change the links from pointing to your old site to link to your new site.

I don't think it's microformats. For one of my client sites I have Schema.org implemented on Product Pages but not the Category pages. One of the category pages ranks for a search and does show a list of products on the SERP Another of the category pages ranks for a search and does not show a list of products in the SERP. You can see for yourself here: Without product list: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=espresso+cups&pws=0 (position 5, espressodeco.com) With product list: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=espresso+cups+and+saucers&pws=0 (position 4) It appears Google is just using a list of products from some sites on each SERP.

From another post I answered "Maybe XPATH and PHP could get this? I'll point you at this - http://www.css-resources.com/list-a-websites-external-links-alphabetically-using-xpath-and-php.html - but don't ask me how to do it ;)" Maybe ask Richard here - http://www.seomoz.org/q/list-of-links-pointing-out-of-my-site - and see if he found a way

Hi David, Apologies, in my haste I didnt take in it was the engine page. I hole heartedly agree with the other comments made here. I would also add that, although not the be all and end all, you may find that linking out to to other sites may help the page get indexed as well. If there are any additional, authoritative resources (that are not competition) it may be worth linking to a few of these. Adds value to the user as well.

Oh my goodness Dave, I just saw your question and then noticed the date you posted! Do you still need help with your question, or have you resolved the problem? (I really hope so) If not, let us know. Sha

Removing the canonical tag would not result in duplicate pages. It is just a tag to give a suggestion to search engines on which page is the canonical version. For example if there is a duplicate page and it is not easy to 301 redirect and you can't easily get rid of the duplicate, adding the rel canonical tag would tell Google which version is the main version. Here is a good resource on Rel Canonical Tags: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/complete-guide-to-rel-canonical-how-to-and-why-not