Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Edmond, If you are going to use "search results" pages as good landing pages, they need to be made useful and high-quality enough that Google has no problem ranking them. To keep using ASOS as an example, this URL ranks very well in the UK for [black dresses]: http://www.asos.com/Women/Dresses/Little-Black-Dresses/Cat/pgecategory.aspx?cid=9419 Using the site's internal search, this page appears if I search asos.com itself for [black dresses]: http://www.asos.com/search/black-dresses?hrd=1&q=black+dresses There is little difference in the pages, but one sits beneath a folder structure, is linked to, includes a description and has a slightly better optimised title tag. But most importantly, the search results page is excluded via the site's robots.txt whilst the similar landing page is not - http://www.asos.com/robots.txt For sites without the authority of Asos, I'd say you'd need slightly more than Asos' short black dress description, but in truth this is a search result page by any other name that has been made into a well-ranked landing page. You see the same thing as you go down the SERP, e.g. http://www.debenhams.com/women/dresses/little-black-dresses versus http://www.debenhams.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigate?langId=-1&storeId=10701&catalogId=10001&txt=black+dresses I hope this helps.

Not a problem mate, happy i helped. You are in a good shape and do not need to do anything, Google will noindex those pages sooner or later. Just carry on with your onpage/off page SEO

Michael, Philip is on the dot mass footer linking was an SEO trick of the past that does not benefit much in terms of an SEO boost. If its messy clean it up. Leave it ONLY if it makes sense from a user experience, and so optimize for a real human person as he would browsing the lower part of your site. Hope this helps

Having a canonical link pointing to that same url as in the address bar has no affect as far as search engines are concern, the reason moz.com gives for doing this is that if some one scrapes your site, the canonical will point back to the original. The whole idea of canonical tags and 301's is to do with requests, you want the all requests showing the same content to appear the same page to the search engine. With normal pages a slash means a different request that without, and to fix it you need to create a 301 that requests again to the correct url. in the process you have lost a bit of link juice. but when requesting the home page with or without the "/", the request is the same. there is no need to fix it. press F12 in your browser and test it yourself using the network tab, you can see that entering the url with or without the "/" on the homepage results in the same request. [image: lN1ydf7LdH8kAP8H36DeEHbsCJwAAAAASUVORK5CYII=]

Thank You for such a nice and descriptive answer, you're 100% right and I did not received any manual penalty from Google. I even tried to add up new content but it does not made any difference so I thought to transfer all the content to new domain. By the way you've got semrush premium account? and how much useful is that?

Hi, I've found a solution, however thought i'd share. Within the .htaccess file, i've added # 301 permanent redirect all .html to non .html RewriteCond%{THE_REQUEST} \.html RewriteRule^(.*)\.html$ /$1 [R=301,L] Thanks

Hi Jeff, Thanks for your answer. Please take a look to the reply above on Fredrico

Well I didn't see all of that but I did recognize the site wide redirect and GTW wasn't updated to the new https website so I was trying to pull data from the old one and obviously I wasn't getting anything. Thanks for looking into this and laying it out for me. I appreciate it.

Hi Kerry, Certainly in your circumstance, it makes sense to keep everything structured, as long as plastic wallets do fall within badge accessories, of course. There would be little point trying to go down the route of keeping everything just one level up from the domain as this wouldn't allow for any crumb-trail that made sense, and people like a nice easy way to go back to a particular area. Sorry, I forgot too add that as long as the navigation is clear and google has an easy route to follow, there is no reason why your current structure won't be just fine. I hope this helps. -Andy

I am using both... Godaddy WP Hosting and WebSynthesis... everybody recommended me to use WebSynthesis but unfortunately as a beginner you are very limited if you are not familiar with additional coding... there are just a few free child themes available and ... well they are not really "hot"... I can`t recommend that... and I will cancel it when the transfer of the content is finished... GoDaddy WP Hosting fits my needs best at the moment although the settings there are incompatible if you want to use JetPack... by the way: I also tested pagelines but well drag and drop sounds fine but you are also very limited if you can`t find the right (child) theme...

We've actually seen this kind of behaviour with some of the sites from new clients. They interlinked all their websites, usually with the same templated design. If you didnt get any warning in webmaster tools, this is probably a purely algorithmic issue which is a whole lot harder to get out of. I would look at the other things, technical seo, onpage, content being updated, those sorts of usual seo stuff. You competition might be different now in the SERPS as the keywords you were targeting are now showing different results.

Have you thought of instead spending $1000 or $2000 on an audit that can identify your current problems, and give you direction so your staff can work on correcting the issues?

Hi Thomas, Can you do me a favor and check if the "noindex, follow" tag are correct on these pages: http://www.honoluluhi5.com/oahu/honolulu-condos/ http://www.honoluluhi5.com/no-address-condo-for-sale-201403347/ I do not know programming and I want to make sure my programmers have done it right. Around March 1st we put the tag on, but then March 7th I saw an increase in pages being indexed. It puzzled me Google would index MORE pages on a date AFTER we placed the "noindex, follow" on.

Will do Gianluca.  Messaging you right now!

If its relevant, done with usability in mind, and is not deceptive then it should be fine. Here's a related Article from Search Engine Roundtable with Matt Cutts video: http://www.seroundtable.com/google-hiding-content-17136.html

Thanks Andy. I'll be patient then... Gerhard

Hi Mark, I would say that there will be negligible results in redirecting these pages unless they happen to have a high number of good inbound links from other sources. Redirecting the individual pages alone is unlikely to make a huge difference to the authority / strength / rankings of the high-traffic pages you redirect to or the domain itself. If you were to do this, I would do it with usability in mind. Do people arriving on the low traffic pages regularly bounce? Do you believe that they would be more likely to convert if they arrived on the high traffic page? I am not a CRO expert so would stop short of making CRO testing advice. The one SEO benefit I can think of would be if those low-traffic pages are contributing to any duplicate content issues on your site and redirecting them would count as "cleaning up" the site. This is definitely not for sure, so I'd still stick with the mindset that you'd be doing this for the purpose of directing traffic, not search engines. I hope this helps. Jane

Agreed with Alan, do as Alan said and Google will actually figure out what is the original version of the website.

Nice - I didn't consider an issue with reporting.

Hi Martijn, I found them in webmaster>Search appearance>Structured date>hatom and when you go to live test data you see the mentioned error. Any thoughts on it?