Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Good question! The m-dot pages might not actually be indexed at all. Check out this article, and specifically the section I'm quoting: https://searchengineland.com/google-advice-switch-m-dot-domain-responsive-mobile-first-index-rollout-277446 "The rationale is that right now, Google has a desktop-first index. So Google doesn’t really index your m-dot; they just annotate the m-dot URLs, but there is no true indexing of your m-dot content..." You might first want to double-check that Google is actually indexing the mobile site as you suspect, or simply marking up search results with the subdomain. Mobile-first has been a slow rollout, which might not have hit you yet! This might help you check if you have indeed been moved: https://blog.seoprofiler.com/google-check-log-files-find-site-moved-mobile-first-index/ If they are indexing, then yes -  you'll have to make sure the URLs migrate appropriately to the new responsive site, and keep a close eye on mobile traffic changes in Search Console. Hope this helps a bit! Mike

Hi Shop-Sq, This is a tricky one to answer definitively without knowing the details of the two sites. Having been through a very similar situation, I expect that, unless the content is truly identical, you're existing site shouldn't suffer any losses by having both live and indexed at once. That said, until you properly redirect the old pages to their new counterparts, the new site will probably only see marginal growth. So running them side-by-side, you're not likely to get a good measure of how the new site will perform once you redirect. In my experience, there's no way to handle a site-wide redirect like this "risk-free" with a smooth transition. But you'd have a chance to catch any technical issues that might negatively impact Google's ability to crawl/index the new site's content if you launch it well ahead of March, then set the redirects once you're comfortable (again I'd want to do this well ahead of busy season if possible). This will give Google some time to crawl the redirects, pass PageRank to the new site - and it'll give you and your team some time to work out any kinks. Hope this helps at least somewhat - these are not easy situations to evaluate especially without detailed knowledge of both sites. Best of Luck, Mike

I could not agree with you more.

Hi Kristina Problem fixed - the websites analytics was suffering from Ghost Spam URLs. A new one for me! Best Duncan

Any time always happy to help me let me know if I can be of any service in the future.

https://www.massagepeoplelondon.co.uk/ Ahrefs URL rating 31 Ahrefs DR rating 19 Referring Domains  319 Moz DA 33 Moz Linking Domains 316 https://massagejoy.co.uk/ Ahrefs URL rating 26 Ahrefs DR rating 1.7 Referring Domains  99 Moz DA 22 Moz Linking Domains 105 So I as see both are local business related to massage, keeping in mind that I don't have anything to compare I will give some checkpoints First of all, you need to check your link profile, how many links are pointing to your site, what kind of links, what is your most common anchor text, are your anchor text related to your main keywords. The second most important point is the performance of your listing assuming that you have been working in your local listing, how well is your accuracy? how many local mentions do you have? how many local backlinks do you have? What about your map pack, have been working on building social signals to your site Just to give you an example of what I'm talking about, these a link intersect report. These sites are pointing to your competition (this is a quick overview). So the first question that comes to my mind is how many of these are actually pointing to your site? smartbusinessdirectory.co.uk getsurrey.co.uk find-open.co.uk burtonmail.co.uk hertfordshiremercury.co.uk leicestermercury.co.uk hinckleytimes.net essexlive.news croydonadvertiser.co.uk ispionage.com kentlive.news birminghampost.co.uk getwestlondon.co.uk eprnews.com fulhampages.co.uk mysheriff.co.uk When you start to answer those question you will start to understand what is happening to your site IN SUMMARY Check your link profile Check your business listing and local mentions/citations Check your maps Check your On-page ( I assume that you made your KW research but is still important to mention it) Another good point is to check your schemas massagepeoplelondon.co.uk has schemas for an _organization, local business, header, website, footer, breadcrumbs and site navigation _ I hope this info will help you to answer your question

Roman, I'm a newbie to SEO and reading this thread along with tons of other material.  I just wanted to thank you for taking the time creating all these in-depth answers.  They are very helpful!!  I've heard all this content before, but haven't fully put it together in my head yet.  So this case study is helpful and valuable.  Thanks again!

Hi Bob, This is one of the woolier aspects of SEO ("quality" or trust). One thing I'd recommend is getting familiar with Google's Quality Rater/Evaluator Guidelines: https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/www.google.com/en//insidesearch/howsearchworks/assets/searchqualityevaluatorguidelines.pdf These are the guidelines they provide to their ~10k human search quality raters - this is the group they use to review potential changes to their search results to gather qualitative data on those results. You'll see that there's not much "hard" data to go on here, but one way we've measured this and made it actionable at Distilled is by running surveys that we can deploy via SurveyMonkey+Amazon Mechanical Turk to get some sense of how the "average user" would rate a site across some of these points. Here's a blog post that walks through the process: https://www.distilled.net/blog/seo/replicate-googles-panda-questionnaire-processing/ There are no universally-applicable tips here, but trust elements like badges, aggregate user reviews, testimonials, etc are good places to start. Depending on the niche, if you're dealing with "YMYL" (Your Money Or Your Life) topics, basically any advice that could have a serious impact on a person's quality of life, Google has made big shifts recently (see: "Medic" update) to prefer sites where the "experts" running them or publishing content have clean, established reputations in the space (not just accolades displayed on the site itself but elsewhere on the web). This seems to have been particularly important for sites that are offering both advice and selling "solutions" related to that advice (for example, a medical advice blog that's connected to an ecommerce site that sells dietary supplements). Hope this helps! Best, Mike

Excellent! Thank you All!

Just realised, it's most likely a post not a page e.g: https://www.padstowsealifesafaris.co.uk/endangered-sea-life-uk/ (blog post with date stamp) https://www.padstowsealifesafaris.co.uk/boat-trips/ (page with no date stamp.)

You're welcome.  We as a community are here to help. If your issue is now fixed, you could mark this question as answered Best luck. GR

Kind of exiting though. Everytime google picks up on a couple of URLs my rankings shoot up. Its exciting to see ^_^

Either way, switching canonicals from one to another, it will do no good in terms of equity or in terms of spamminess. If you have hreflangs done, then you should be good.

Would you be able to send me a dm with a copy of that email? I'm interested in larger sized automatic sites and trying to figure out where the limit is (and how yours isn't allowed when others are)

Hi, My upvote for slash! Use domain/category/product This way, you can rank your category sites and your product site. Have a nice day

Well, in that case, you need to focus on 2 thinks, internal linking. use this search operator site: yourwebsite.com  "keyword" In that way, you can add strong internal links using your main keyword, also you should try with schemas adding your brand info or you should check all the Do-Follow links pointing to your competition and compare that with your own backlink profile. There are several ways to do it. But without any other information, there is not too many advice that comes to my mind. Regards and Good Luck

Hi there. A bit difficult to understand your actual question, but as far as I see it, you are asking if you should remove any unrelated and therefore unapproved images from the backend of the gallery. And if that would have any SEO effect. Am I correct? If so, then I see couple potential benefits of removing those photos from the backend - first, just for the mental health of administrator - I'd go nuts if I had to scroll through a bunch of old junk every time I have to moderate new photos. Second, depending on how your frontend and backend are connected and process things, it, in fact, might speed up the process of rendering the gallery on the frontend. Faster website = happier users = more conversions. Cheers.

Pages that I like to call 'core' site URLs should go in your sitemap. Basically, unique (canonical) pages which are not highly duplicate, which Google would wish to rank I would include core addresses I wouldn't include uploaded documents, installers, archives, resources (images, JS modules, CSS sheets, SWF objects), pagination URLs or parameter based children of canonical pages (e.g: example.com/some-page is ok to rank, but not example.com/some-page?tab=tab3). Parameters are additional funky stuff added to URLs following "?" or "&". There are exceptions to these rules, some sites use parameters to render their on-page content - even for canonical addresses. Those old architecture types are fast dying out, though. If you're on WordPress I would index categories, but not tags which are non-hierarchical and messy (they really clutter up your SERPs) Try crawling your site using Screaming Frog. Export all the URLs (or a large sample of them) into an Excel file. Filter the file, see which types of addresses exist on your site and which technologies are being used. Feed Google the unique, high-value pages that you know it should be ranking I have said not to feed pagination URLs to Google, that doesn't mean they should be completely de-indexed. I just think that XML sitemaps should be pretty lean and streamlined. You can allow things which aren't in your XML sitemap to have a chance of indexation, but if you have used something like a Meta no-index tag or a robots.txt edit to block access to a page - **do not **then feed it to Google in your XML. Try to keep **all **of your indexation modules in line with each other! No page which points to another, separate address via a canonical tag (thus calling itself 'non-canonical') should be in your XML sitemap. No page that is blocked via Meta no-index or Robots.txt should be in your sitemap.XML either If you end up with too many pages, think about creating a sitemap XML index instead, which links through to other, separate sitemap files Hope that helps!