Welcome to the Q&A Forum

For SEO it's always better to link directly, rather than linking to a page which then redirects. Redirects only pass large amounts of SEO authority to 'similar' pages (there are checks and balances on this). You could experiment with something like this, but I doubt it will result in much uplift really

Ignore the user declared canonical thing, that's not an error and you are misreading it. The full line says this: "Google-selected canonical: Same as user-declared canonical". This means that Google is choosing the SAME canonical as the user is, and in this case the user is you (not your site's users. They mean the search console user). That mans that Google is agreeing with you Also you are checking the wrong URL: https://d.pr/i/341c5u.png (edit of your screenshot) In the red box you can see that you are checking the URL (in Search Console) which does not end with "/". But in the green box, you can see that the canonical URL which you have set, does end with "/". So you are checking the non-canonical version of your page and hoping it is indexed If that still doesn't change anything, there is no error, Google just doesn't like your page enough to rank it properly (sorry)

Well the questions you need to answer are the ones that your target audience are asking! You don't get Google Points just for answering questions! Don't fall into the trap of creating the kind of Frequently Asked Questions page where none of your target audience care about any of the questions! You see this a lot when businesses take a very internal perspective and forget who they're meant to be talking to! Don't waste your take creating content around questions that nobody is asking! There's a couple of things to consider here: 1. What are the questions you need to answer on the landing page in order to get visitors to convert or take the next action. (How much does it cost,  etc) 2. Then there are broader questions for which you want to try and get a slice of the traffic (eg: where's the best place to hire bikes in alsace etc... ) If you're got access to search console you can look for queries that contain question related words ("how, why, where, when, what etc). You can also use these in search queries too. For example "inurl:how alsace bike" got me "How long is the Alsace wine route?" and more. Also, do take a look at the pages that appear in the search results for ideas too. Keep an eye on the related searches displayed in the search results as well. I have found that it's useful to have a friendly chat with the the business owner/sales people - they can usually (but not always!)  give you some insights into the questions that are important to potential customers. For many topics, the questions that people are are going to be the same as similar topics so taking a look at your direct competitors or site's with similar offerings can help you generate ideas. If you've got site search set up on the site make sure you're capturing the searches people are doing there, again that can help give you some ideas. If you've got a chat widget enabled on the site, it's worth seeing if you can get your hands on the transcripts or questions that are being asked there. You might also consider carrying out a survey, particularly if you've got a good social media following / subscriber list. Doug.

Hi, What are some alternatives to addthis that we could use in our blog that doesn't mess with SEO?

My website https://www.avenuessouthresidences.com also has traffic coming from Amazon bots. I wonder if it's my competitors doing something funny or it's Amazon itself doing it.

Logan, I found your replies very helpful.  We have allowed a site to replicate some of our pages / content on their site and have the rel canonical tag in place pointing back to us. However,  Google has indexed the pages on the partner's site as well. Is this common or has something gone wrong? the partner temporarily had an original source tag pointing to their page as well as the canonical pointing to us. We caught this issue a few weeks ago and had  the original source tag removed. GSC sees the rel canonical tag for our site. But I am concerned our site could be getting hurt for dupe content issues and the partner site may out rank us as their site is much stronger. Any insight would be greatly appreciated

From what I have read, so much of the web is duplicate content so it really doesn't matter if the pdf is on other sites; let google figure it out. (example, every car brand dealer has a pdf of the same car model brochure on their dealer site) No big deal. Visitors will be landing on your site from other search relevance - the duplicate pdf doesn't matter. Just my take. Adrian

It is actually a good idea to split the two language versions into two different sites as it will help each of the sites rank in their own countries. It's an even better idea to use country-specific domains for that. To make things clear, translated content is not duplicate content. The search engines have no incentive to penalize sites for translating their content, so you would be safe from any filter that search engines might use. However, you are advised to use hreflang when linking to the different language versions of the site to let the search engines know that both sites are linked together, as it would help search engines provide the correct language version of the site to targeted users. Daniel Rika - Dalerio Consulting https://dalerioconsulting.com/ info@dalerioconsulting.com

Couple of questions. Are the aggregated reviews going to be for the entire site or just that single product? 2)Do you plan on having multiple people be able to review each individual item and are those reviews coming from users of the site or a third party? 3)How many products/pages do you have?

Thanks Darin

One area search engines seem to be gravitating toward is granting strong product verticals with a history of online purchase behavior – a lean toward non-local results. For many, you now need to be on a mobile device or type “near me” as part of the search query to trigger a map. Understanding whether you have reached the “near me” need to even compete with national online sellers is important when strategizing and setting expectations. Google uses the content on the page in conjunction with your search history and or location so all those insurance companies have pages that have content that is more relevant to your search query in Austin because they have the words Austin inside the content. So if your Google and Amica insurance for liberty mutual are able to index a landing page with words Austin on it and you query it from an ISP within that area you will get the results shown to you. The only other way to get those results is through what Google has already learned about your search habits on the web they know where you are. So they're going to serve content that they think you like or content that you have been to more often. I hope that makes sense, Tom

You need to clarify whether you mean images on their own page, or images on their own URL (two different things) This is an image on its own page: https://www.bloodstock.uk.com/events/boa-2019/gallery Depending upon the nature of the page, you may or may not want to de-index URLs like this. In the example of Bloodstock festival, it would be crazy to de-index their gallery images which many people are explicitly looking for. In other circumstances, you get 'weird' pages which end users are never meant to see. Fragments which have minimal styling and just the image, those can usually be de-indexed. Sometimes an image on a single page is very useful for users (imagine if Pinterest banned all actual pins from the SERPs) but other times they're just back-end fragments which have escaped. Know the difference This is an image on its own URL: https://assets-bloodstock.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/captioned_photo/image/8557/display_desktop_Ross_the_Boss_Bloodstock2109_KatjaOgrin-94.jpg When you load this up, there's no container. No HTML, no site at all - JUST the image on its own. Don't de-index these, or Google can't see your images - even when they're embedded on a web-page! Hope that helps

Great! Happy to hear that all worked out!

Hi JH, Typically, collapsing lengthier content on a mobile site (with an option to expand/view the content if desired) in order to improve UX is not considered an issue for Google. However, anytime you're using JS, there's a risk that search engine crawlers won't be able to see what you're doing. You may want to test with JS disabled in your browser to get an idea of what they might be seeing otherwise. What is the reason for the length of the content at the top of the page? Are you creating that content for users or for search engines? I'm guessing it's not really for users if you're auto-scrolling them past it? This is often something that Google can spot and discount the value of. I would probably recommend (if possible) a "collapse and expand" approach to lengthy content at the top of the page, rather than autoscrolling down to the products. Show the beginning of that content and offer a "click to expand" if users want to read the full text. You could use JS for that expand and default a non-JS experience to simply display the full content, to ensure that search engines do see the full text. Or if the content includes images, consider removing the images or shrinking them for the mobile version of the site. You may also want to test shortening the length of the content on some of your pages and see whether this impacts performance in one direction or the other. Hope that helps!

I think you tried to attach two charts there but for me at least, they look like exactly the same chart. Entrances isn't the metric you usually use to evaluate what people call 'traffic', that's actually more commonly associated with the sessions metric Let's look at what you said you did: "1. Tried contacting website owner which we  think spam and add all such domains to our disavow list" - this can and usually will only make your results go down further. Your view of what spam is, will not be perfectly aligned with Google's view. As such, some of the links which you think are spam, may have been giving you ranking power - which you have killed off using the disavow tool. If Google think a link is spammy, they nullify it themselves without disavow. If you mark a link as disavow, Google do not give you back the ranking power. Why would they? You are agreeing with them that the link is bad, so why would they give you ranking power for it? Disavows can (under normal circumstances) only make results dip or drop further. The use-case for a disavow, is if you believe your backlink profile is SO bad, that Google are about to give you a manual link penalty (which will kill ALL of your results). If you think that is about to happen, you can stop it from happening using a disavow submission. Disavow trades away (loses) some of your current performance, in exchange for future insulation against manual actions (which are WAY worse than algorithmic devaluation) "2. We found little duplicate content on sites like Quora, we made those answers down by reporting to Quora" This probably won't do anything for your SEO. Quora probably still won't delete the posts. If they're still there, it's still duplicate content (down vote or not) "3. Reported to DMCA on 3 articles articles(partial) from our website." This is a good move keep doing this. Actually focus more on this if you can find more stolen content! Use CopyScape to track it down "4. We are trying improving user experience" This is always good and you should always be doing this "5. Removed one of our page that shared by many people but our page was not indexed by Google." I mean, it won't really help to do this as a one off. If you have loads of pages that Google refuses to index, then action might be needed. But if it's just one page and people liked to share it, it seems kind of crazy to erase it to me "6. Checked and modified content if any our articles are having more keywords than what SEO experts recommend." Just so you know keyword density is not an accepted measurement in modern SEO. If your articles previously read like they were really spammy, you did the right thing. If they were reading fine anyway AND getting the keywords in, you may have hurt yourself more by doing this "7. We are working on researching more and figuring our what else can might have gone wrong with our traffic." Focus on R&I is healthy "8. Working on improving EAT " A lot of sites got stung, are still getting stung and will continue to be hurt by this. If you're writing for finance this massively concerns you and should probably be your #1 thing, not your #8 thing. Really focus on this a lot "I attached our traffic drop graph. I believe this drop is not natural it happened because of some issue at our end and we are not able to figure out the exact reasons." It could be many things but poor EAT on a finance site will kill your site in 2019 "S_urprisingly another site with not so high quality content started ranking now in the top._" That's your opinion and you are welcome to it, but the quality of your sites and other sites is being determined by mathematical algorithms and not by human minds. What you think is quality content, may be very far removed from what Google's mechanical mind perceives as high quality. Another thing, older sites which are more established can rank above your with lower quality content than you have (as their SEO authority and trust is higher). You need to think about winning trust and links. Maybe some crappy sites do rank well, but when they were first made they filled a hole (in the query-verse) or they were good for their time. You have to be good in YOUR time. What they did to earn their success (which they ride along on) may have been drastically less than what you have to do in 2019. Never forget that. Comparative analysis-paralysis doesn't get you ahead, it holds you back. Vision is what's needed now "I am here to get community members/experts help on this. I could provide you if you need any further details.    Thanks a lot for your time. We really appreciate any tips that you can share with us. " Not a problem hopefully some of my comments have proven useful to you guys

Thanks For The Great Guide.

I would gravitate to marking everything up and letting Google decide what they want to show. Most of the time when you try to 'sculpt' what Google can see in terms of structured data, it usually results in a structured data spam action. Sometimes it can take weeks, months or years for that to happen - but Google always want to be given the full picture. Google don't take too kindly to being funneled in a certain direction. Schema and rich snippet spam have been a big headache for Google since they started utilising structured data more, some stuff (like author avatars for posts in SERPs) has been entirely taken away in the past (though someone has told me recently, they have been seeing these again for Google mobile layout only). Google do have some official guidance here: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/faqpage They give a microdata example of implementation: https://search.google.com/test/rich-results?utm_campaign=devsite&utm_medium=microdata&utm_source=faq-page In their example, nothing is missing or has been left out. Since that's how Google have illustrated their example, that's what I'd aim for myself

Hello Many sites can help you solve your problem One of the best hack and security websites in Iran that also provides security services for outsiders is PentestCore whose web site addresses are as follows: https://pentestcore.com/