Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I did try that. Not sure why it isn't working but I think it has something to do with Tom's answer below. Heh. Thanks though Daniel!!

That is absolutely not necessary, especially if you are using the correct mobile DocTypes in your mobile pages. To further clarify this, provide a mobile XML sitemap http://www.google.com/support/webmasters/bin/answer.py?answer=34648 For usability be sure to use user agent detection to render your mobile site or mobile CSS rendering for smartphone/feature phone users along with an opt out to the desktop site/version. Hope this helps!

There is a theory to that effect, but I've never seen any evidence that it is true.

Thanx for the great answere, so the best is probably to leave it as it is. I just found it out because Screaming Frog runs into a loop, because it follows 302s. So i just put this url string which guides into the 302 into the robots.txt while i scan with seo frog and turn it off afterwards again. thanx!

Hi. So sorry I am just now getting back to this post, we went away for a few days. Thank you so much for offering to take a look at the site. Here is an example of what I am referring to: Here is a product page. At the bottom, you will notice there are tabs. http://www.frs-solutions.com/content/comlink_st3g If you click on 'specifications', you will see information that has been imported from this page: http://www.frs-solutions.com/content/st3g-tab-3-specs SO, as you can see, there are 2 instances of the specifications information. 1 in the tabs, and 2 on the imported page. Hope this makes sense. And thank you again for taking a peek!

The site is still not showing for any relevant search terms (which is wildly frustrating) - however I have noticed some movement in Webmaster Tools in terms of pages crawled per day. 2jdrivd.jpg

Good point, I didn't think of that. Thanks Tyler!

Since it is a duplicate and meant for mobile devices, then yes, I would use a canonical tag or even noindex if you don't want it in the index anyway.  Either method would eliminate the duplicate content problem.

Hi!! Yeah strange. Here is the code the hosting guys came up with: ############################################ enable rewrites Options +FollowSymLinks     RewriteEngine ON RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.(.)$ [NC]     RewriteRule ^(.)$ http://%1/$1 [L,R=301] RedirectMatch 301 ^/shop/(.*)$ http://hiphound.com/$1 ############################################ The first rule is for www to non-www redirection and the second rule is for my URL structure change. Thanks so much for your help! Lynn

Cons: May lose some of the link juice from the 301 redirect from the old URL's (between 1 and 10% is the usual quoted figure) Initial (usually short term) drop in rankings and potentially traffic of weaker site pages www.weakersite.com is a "nicer" looking URL for offline marketing than www.strongersite.com/weakersite Pro's:- If on Subfolder rather than sub directory pages will benefit from domain authority and links to domain of stronger site. Can focus future link building and on-page SEO efforts on one site rather than 2, potentially doubling the amount you can get done If building from scratch and choice of 2 sites or 1 I would say go for one. As two already exist there is more of a call to be made.

Thanks! It's weird that it has been seen but doesn't show as being cached: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.flowerpetal.com%2Findex.jsp%3Finfo%3D13&pws=0&hl=en&num=10

Since your 301 redirect are years apart it shouldn't cause that much of a problem. I wouldn't make a habit out of it though!