Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Carla, My name is Rattan and I work at FIRST NZ. That's strange, never came across such incident. Are the URLs same in both accounts (http:// and https://, www and non-www versions)? If you have access to both the accounts, you can remove one of the account and keep the preferable setting account active? To grant access to multiple users, add them as users. Regards

I didn't think about other sites, but that's a fabulous point. Best to play it safe. Thanks for your input! Ruben

We may not have found all of the links quite yet and I'm guessing our next big update (scheduled for June 18th) will find those links. If not, reach out to help@Moz.com and we will dig into this.

Apache reads the .htaccess from top to bottom, so it's good to keep that in mind. If I had to guess, I'd say you have more 301s than just those in your .htaccess. A rule above that is likely conflicting with that specific redirect. If you have a rule redirecting everything from that subdirectory without the French URL parameter, and it's before the rule in question, then this rule will never catch anything.

Thanks for your response. I can't upload a picture due to client confidentiality. Plenty of websites that do well don't have much written content on their homepage (and categories) - firebox.com is one example, and that has less text content than the example I'm referring to. Google has recrawled the page and is still showing the same meta description so I may suggest adding some content to try and encourage Google to use that if it doesn't want to use the meta description.

twitter.com is recognisable enough, but keeping the www. makes a URL more recognisable, especially if you're using a domain extension that people aren't familiar with e.g. one of the new gTLDs: example.photo or www.example.photo Some CMSs and forums automatically linkup text when it has the www. prefix, so you might be slightly more likely to get clickable links if you keep the prefix. Advantages to not having it - shorter URLs, and programming-wise it's unnecessary. Often it's down to personal preference - do you prefer the prefix or not? If you'll have subdomains it might look nicer if you keep the www. prefix for your main site. To avoid duplicate content issues make sure you 301 redirect your non-preferred domain to the preferred, or canonical to your preferred domain if 301s are not possible. You can also set your preferred domain in Google: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/44231?hl=en I've just bought a new .uk domain and haven't decided whether to www. or not yet!

Hi friend, you can display the disclaimer using a JavaScript overlay and this would be absolutely fine. The bots won't have any trouble crawling the website behind the JS overlay as they won't see it. This is a very common practice among the websites that display age gate verification page like porn sites and sites that talk or sell liquor etc.. This technique is not considered cloaking as the intention is not malicious or deceptive and Google handles these normally. Hope it helps and Good Luck. I addressed a similar question here on Moz: http://moz.com/community/q/different-user-experience-with-javascript-on-off Best regards, Devanur Rafi

if you add the meta noindex, follow tag , it will keep the page out of the SERP but allows pagerank to flow through them to other pages. See this interview of Matt Cutts for more info : http://www.stonetemple.com/articles/interview-matt-cutts.shtml

The larger the site and the more different kinds of areas to look through such as profile pages, blogs, forums, products, categories, etc will be more expensive as you have to check each for different types of problems.  You can probably glean a few improvements you could make yourself from SEO audit articles, our most recent is here: http://www.theedesign.com/blog/2014/seo-audit-design-doesnt-bring-you-traffic Then of course there is: http://moz.com/blog/how-to-perform-the-worlds-greatest-seo-audit

I have 7-8 ad-sense blog websites under one hosting, Now I am planing to create selling website. My blogs were not having good content and they are decreasing in ranking (my be panda). So I need to remove those websites from the hosting? should they effect my new selling website negatively?

I think personally older people do not know too much about them. As far as just plain organic search it should be fine. But at the same time I would poll people you know and ask them if they know about .me domains, or even people you would think that could be visitors to your site.

Hi Sagar If the link profile is bad - which isn't a Panda issue - I would not redirect the domain.  Not sure if there is confusion here in your penalty definitions, so I'll cover all bases. In terms of a Panda penalty, ie a thin content/duplicate/spammy on-page website, I've yet to see that penalty pass on to a new domain when redirected.  However, a bad link profile penalty (often a Penguin penalty) I have definitely seen passed on through a 301 redirect.  The penalty doesn't take hold immediately on a new domain, but it does eventually and is something of a ticking time bomb. For that reason, I wouldn't want to 301 redirect the domain until I removed a good majority of the bad links in the link profile of the old domain. I hope that helps.

Hi Ruben, If the one is showing and it's perfectly relevant and has equally good information, then I wouldn't worry about it. But maybe you think you'll get higher rank for that location if that page ranks, and that may be true. So how do you do that? First step I'd try is clean up the copy. In my opinion, it's overly optimized with that EXACT phrase occuring 9 times in a small amount of copy. It's unnatural. You wouldn't speak that way, so why write that way, and why would you want your readers to even see that page then? I think Google shares that sentiment. So write for consumer first, Google second. So what do you write?  I've had success rewriting and reusing the main landing page copy, whether that be the home page, or in your case, the generic personal injury attorney landing page for pages like this. You have to consider that anyone landing on this page, assuming you get it to rank, don't have the benefit of landing on the home page and may never see your personal injury page, so you need enough good information here to get them to call. But you don't want duplicate content, so you have to make it different enough. That can be difficult, I know. How many times can you write basically the same thing? The other option is to provide completely different content and then force them to go elsewhere in search of information about your services. I know that's contrary to logic. It's better to convert them on the spot, but if you can't because your site will have too much duplicate content, or you worry about people landing on this page and it sounding too much like another page they just came from, then make this page very different. But do understand this may be their landing page from the search engine, so be sure to have enough information at the top that tells them they are in the right place and you have what they need. Then fill the rest of the page with geo-specific information that gives you an opportunity to weave your local keywords in. You have an office there. Put your address (with schema code), phone number and map.  Perhaps you also include city-specific information that your Tampa target market might find valuable and relevant, perhaps even ways your attorneys are involved in that community or cases they've fought and won in the community. Finally something I've had success with is thinning out content that seems to be cannibalizing other pages. In your case, you could remove the word Tampa from the page that is currently ranking and link to "Locations" instead. From there link to your city pages. Be careful though. That could have a negative effect. At least you have some rank for that page. You don't want to lose it all, but it could be something to try. But do get that Tampa page in order first. That may be all you need. My 2 cents for what it's forth. Do let us know how it goes!

No,  I rarely think about DA/PA.  I just make content and toss it up.  See what happens.

When you say external cdn, is it a cdn that you control or a public repository? If you control the cdn and you are just using it to open more channels for the browser download I would recommend setting the link in the header. From there you can set the canonical tag of the resource in the header. Here is a screenshot of the http request of my logo on my site, http://screencast.com/t/rQoiVIo8deZ5  It is getting the file from the cdn, but it is also telling search engines that the canonical location of the file is on my domain. This is something Google has supported for a while now, http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/06/supporting-relcanonical-http-headers.html If you are using a public repository, you do not have control over the header, so I would not worry too much about it.

That's great - thank you both. Stu

Hi, keywords located in the file path or file name of a document will appear bolded in search results. This bolded appearance is what can affect your CTR. A higher CTR will provide higher authority which is a signal that affects organic rank. It also depends on the keyword you're targeting. If your keyword is "hr outsourcing solutions" and you are also targeting "hr outsourcing" then the latter makes more sense in terms of taxonomy. In a world of Penguin updates I would avoid the former in case your audience pulls in the URL as your anchor text frequently. The double use of your target phrase in the URL would then also "over optimize" your anchor text signals and may get a Penguin penalty.

As mentioned earlier, you can create a comprehensive Sitemap.xml file and resubmit to Google. Give me your email address, I will create one for you and send it Best regards, Devanur Rafi

As an addition to what Tom has said, you should also setup parameter exclusions in webmaster tools to make sure pages with these appended parameters do not get indexed.

You definitely can. Also, here's a whiteboard Friday on the topic of cross domain rel="canonical" tags: http://moz.com/blog/cross-domain-canonical-the-new-301-whiteboard-friday