Welcome to the Q&A Forum

So glad to hear it, Mitko.

Hi Jenni1, You are right to be concerned. Do not use the canonical tag like you have described above. I would recommend putting that content on it's own unique page. Then, pull in the content to your product pages via a an ajax request to pull that content into the tabbed area. This would make the content visible for the user but not a part of the page html for the search engines.

I think many of the commenters have good points here. It's really tough to make a call like this without a deep knowledge of the situation, and for any of us to tell you what to do would probably be irresponsible. Generally, I don't think Google transfers penalties across IPs like they used to occasionally do. With IPv4 space running out, sharing IPs is just a lot more common than it used to be. Google also has other cues, like domain ownership (they're technically a registrar, so they have access to a lot of data) to go by. To be safe, you could isolate it and get a new IP. I'm not sure it's necessary, but if you're going to go so far as to start over, you might as well do it as cleanly as possible. The question is whether starting over with a new domain will solve the problem. If you want to avoid the penalty transferring, you can't 301-redirect the old site, which means that you'll lose all of your link equity and leave past visitors stranded. That's a huge loss to take, and it's going to take time to rebuild (as Michael B. said). Will the content be the same? There may be other aspects of the site that caused you problems, and if they're related to the content or site structure, they could just come back.

As Jeff pointed out, with something like a Christmas category page, you'll want to leave it up so that you can use it easily next year (and maintain any links associated with the page). You can easily remove navigation links to the page during the off season and add them in in the months leading up to the season so that you're again passing internal link equity to the pages. Regarding the RSS feed content, I'd probably 301 it to a related video or to a relevant category page, though you could make a case for leaving it up, saying that the content is no longer available and providing related videos for the user to navigate to.

There used to be a platform for this called Sponge, but their site is down so I assume it's gone now. Q&A can be very useful, but you will need to focus attention less on length and more on the capability to search the questions. More importantly if your market wants this and if it's not available elsewhere. If this is something that has been identified as necessary and useful, go for it. Don't worry too much about the headings and length. Just don't make this a factory of questions and 300 word answers. Allow the people writing the answers to answer well, no matter how long. Hope that helps!

Thanks for the feedback, Federico!  That actually helps a lot and also helps confirm what our programmer has just done (which is changed all the canonical tags to the uppercase URL).  I guess now we'll play the waiting game and see if Google reduces the number or duplicates after it's next crawl. Thanks again!

highly agree, Tom Roberts explain this really well!!

I am not sure but if you are asking how much DA and PA is required in an incoming link that will be considered as safe. If this is your question then there is no such restriction or recommendation in this area. If the website from where you are getting a link have a clean link profile and no SPAM links pointing to that site then in that case no matter what the DA or PA of the website is the link from that website will be secure. Similarly, If a website that is pointing back to your website have a decent DA and PA but link profile of that website is spammy, in that case the link will be considered as a risky link. If the website is quality and link profile is clean then having a better DA and PA from where the link is coming will be considered as a lil more powerful as compare to a website that contain a lesser DA and PA. Hope this helps!

Hi Bzmark, Thanks for the clarification. The reason I asked is that it isn't permitted to create a Google+ Local page for a non-staffed vacation rental. Sounds like you're in the clear, as far as that's concerned, with this lodge. I feel that Tim has correctly assessed this situation. There are multiple issues here. P.O. boxes are not allowable addresses, so at some point, someone created a Google+ Local page (and likely other citations) for a location that is in violation of the Google Places Quality Guidelines. Google's local product is mailing address-based - meaning that it is intended to feature data about businesses with physical addresses at which mail is received and to which humans come. While humans do come to this lodge, mail apparently doesn't come to it, taking it outside of Google's definition of a true local business and making it an unlikely candidate for local inclusion. Since the lodge doesn't receive mail at its remote location, it would be impossible for it to receive a postcard for the purposes of verification, again, making it ineligible. So, I think where you are at right now is that your client's business name exists within in Google's local product when it should never have been included in the first place, lacking a mailing address that would be legitimate in the eyes of Google. The client's location is being misrepresented by Google, and there isn't a clear path for cleaning this up, because there is no genuine mailing address to substitute in a cleanup campaign. If the wrong location is misrepresenting the business and misleading customers, you could try to get the page deleted, but I think the best thing to do here would be to go through the Google MapMaker and Google And Your Business fora to see if you can make direct contact with Google staff for guidance with this matter. Typically, I would be sending you through a troubleshooter like this one (https://support.google.com/places/) but as you don't have a legit mailing address, it won't get you very far. I think your only hope is direct contact with Google staff, who may either help you remove the listing or may allow you to edit it in some way. They won't be happy about the P.O. box, of course, but they may have some solution for you that will ameliorate the fact that the business is currently being misrepresented and is potentially misleading customers. In the meantime, I do like Tim's suggestion of creating a custom Google map to embed on your website so that, at least, the website is properly directing guests to the location. In sum, the business model is not appropriate for inclusion in Google's local products and your task is to do all you can to prevent potential guests from being misdirected.

Hi Ricky, Egol's suggestion regarding interviews is really a good one and, if done with care, would produce some very high quality content. Another suggestion: if the medical practice has a blog, how about a weekly or monthly roundup-type post of local women's health/fitness events? Things like marathons, free yoga classes, healthy cooking classes, free lectures on relevant topics, volunteer opportunities, breast cancer fundraisers, etc. If the blogger can set up alerts on things like this, he/she can aggregate the data and then go a step beyond this by adding something fresh to each roundup - a personal perspective on the week's/month's opportunities for better living for local women. Just one idea, but something that could be added into the mix to improve the usefulness of the website to local women.

I agree with  Mike Davis Mike Davis ★ ★ ☆ ☆ ☆ MozPoints: 611 Good Answers: 23 Endorsed Answers: 4"> Andrey Zolnikov I will start with some information and then help with a solution but i got a few questions for you When you SEO a site there is a few things to look at never trust one site for your results moz.com is the best in my opinion but Alexa is great as well.  New Domains are put in something call Sandbox stage(now google will say they don't) but it is use so that you cant just buy a name and word stuff and link build it up too fast. So lets start with what i see <a class="attribute-value">Sacramento Bail Bonds - Arrested? Contact 24 hour bail bonds in Sacramento CA and get out of Sacramento jail now. Call (916) 558-6900 for bail now.</a> Remove the (in, and, get, of) dont use conjunctions if you can avoid them. Also you need to thicken your content.  Look over your ALT imgs tags make sure they are all different. -How old is the site?-How many links do you pay for IE (BBB-yellow pages)

Thank you for your suggestions. About how long does it take for Ahref to have information on a website? This website has been a project for about six months and I've been working out all of the kinks to make sure the website is unique. 1 - They have a Facebook that is pretty active and there's a lot of interaction. I'm going to work on driving some of that traffic to their website and hope that helps. (My goal is to also target Google+.) 2 - I'm working on getting backlinks (non-paid) as well, although the number of links I will have doesn't compare to the competitors.

Thanks for the help Nick.

Great info  Rikki thats goid news!

Please Read this  http://moz.com/blog/canonical-url-tag-the-most-important-advancement-in-seo-practices-since-sitemaps it will help you.

OK, it's now a few months later, with nothing linkbuilding-wise except posting blog posts on Facebook, G+ and Twitter. I've tried to make the site more accessible - we now have a simple, responsive design and I've tried to make the content clear and concise. In short, written for humans rather than search engines. As of the end of November, 'nuts and bolts' has now disappeared completely, and 'bolts and nuts' is page 8. There are many pages much higher which are not as relevant and have no links. We still rank highly for more specialised terms - ie 'bsw bolts' and 'imperial bolts' are still page 1, but not as high as before. We get an 'A' grade on the on-page grader for 'nuts and bolts, and most above us get F. I was cautious about removing links as our profile doesn't seem too bad but it does seem as if it's that. There are a fair few questionable directories in there, no doubt about that, but our overall practice in recent years has been natural building and link earning. So - I've created a spreadsheet and identified the bad links - ie directories with any SEO connotations. I am about to submit removal requests, I thought two polite requests a couple of weeks apart prior to disavowing with Google. I am also gradually beefing up the content on the shop pages in case of any 'thin content' issues. I noticed 100s of broken links in webmaster tools due to 2 broken links on our blog and have fixed those. I have also been fixing errors W3C compliance-wise. Am I right to do all this? Can anyone offer any suggestions? I'm still not 100% sure if this is Panda, Penguin or something else. My guess is Penguin, but the decline started in March 2013, which correlates with Panda. Best Regards and thanks for any help, Stephen

Thank you...

Thanks Mike, will adopt this approach. Appreciate your help.

Cheers.

I like your idea a lot!  I think as web and computer people we sometimes get too hung up on the historic teachings of our predecessors.  It's a good idea to change up the conventional wisdom sometimes.  Are you building the site with a CMS platform so if you decided the link structure didn't work for you, you could easily change it and it will auto 301 the old links? In general though I think your idea is awesome and I'm curious to hear if it helps SEO at all.  I know google does care about directionality.  For instance I rank higher for NBG Networks than for Networks NBG so your theory sounds like a winner to me. -Nick