Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Takeshi, We have a sitemap but also the pages are all interlinked.  I didn't know that google puts an upper-bound on indexing based on PR - that's interesting. Since there is a black and white difference between a set of pages of a certain kind (zero of these pages are being indexed) I suspect there is some other issue.  Is it at all possible that google does not like the urls of these pages? : http://www.cbuy.tv/#!Type=Photo&id=bcefa7c2-6aea-469d-b6c1-48e0fca2f23c&Nina-Dobrev-Michael-Kors-Gold-Sequin-Dress-Jimmy-Choo-Gold-Strappy-Sandals-H 1. does google not like the parameters? 2. should we reduce the length of our guid id number and move it to the end of the url?

Yea, I was thinking about  incorporating the pages that have a google places page attributed to them in the footer, as the local rankings will be invaluable to their bottom line

Double slashes only hamper SEO if there are links connecting to that content. If there are no links then its a non issue. Here's some code to place in .htaccess (if applicable) Prevent double slashes in URLs, e.g. //Blog and /Home//About RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} ^(.)//(.)$  RewriteRule . %1/%2 [R=301,L]

I have resurrected a one page version of the old penalized site, now it is just a moved too, with one button on it linking to the new site, encoded with nofollow. my sub pages of my new site are ranking well for some other keywords, and in all cases ranking better then the root page is for its main keyword, so I'm assuming that the root page is the only one on the site being held back.  When I look in google web master tools "Sites Linking to your Site" the only thing that appears out of wack is the enormous amount "Intermediate Links" that were created from the 302/307 from my old site to new site..  I am really hoping that if I reduce this that the new site will go to where it should naturally be.  If not then I guess I have no choice but to file a reconsideration request.. wow what a pain,  What are you thoughts.. Thanks,

Bing doesn't really have an equivalent for Panda or Penguin, so some of the tactics that used to work in Google (which will now harm you) can still work in Bing. Both sites take into account similar ranking factors but have different indices and different weightings for the factors. I like to think of Bing as being 1-2 years behind Google in terms of sophistication.

Tools like PRWeb can definitely drive traffic to your website and potentially drive conversions. However, garbage in, garbage out so the content of the PR you are sending is EVERY bit as important as the conduit itself. Your copy must be compelling enough for users to read and hopefully publishing editors to post on their news/blog websites to get you the most traction. Use best practices of content marketing to write high quality, compelling copy. Many great examples here at seomoz.org, hubspot.com &  copyblogger.com. Hope that helps.

Thank you Nakul!

Many thanks for your response. The 301's were implemented around April 2012 - There were a couple of  URL's which were missed however and this would probably explain the cached versions that you've picked up on. I've just checked two dozen URL's at random and have only picked up on three pages that are cached and these are the first three results on the first page. The remaining pages don't seem to have cached versions available which would insinuate that Google hasn't been able to crawl them for some time. I've just set up Google Webmaster Tools to ignore the dispmode variable so thanks for the heads up on this feature which I've completely glazed over in the past. On the assumption that the 301's were set up correctly would you imagine that configuring WMT do disallow crawling of these pages would speed up the removal process?

(Caveat: I'm an SEOmoz Associate, but I'm not one of the data scientists that calculate Domain Authority or Keyword Difficulty) Domain Authority is a significant part of the Keyword Difficulty calculation, and it's highly correlated with the final result. If I had to guess, I'd say Page Authority is an even bigger consideration. Personally, when looking at Keyword Difficulty, the "big 3" factors I take into account are: Domain/Page Authority & Trust Metrics On Page Optimization Incoming Links (both external & internal) Of course there are a hundred other factors, many of which can be seen by running a full report in the Keyword Analysis Tool. Often you'll see a page ranking for a keyword based on Domain Authority alone, or a few other minor factors, when in fact the page in question is terribly optimized or not targeted for the keyword at all. These are my favorite targets because they are often ranking accidentally, and a good effort at on-page optimization and the right backlinks can beat a high authority domain.

Andrea, I guess you are right, and I think like you with all the test and experience I have, content seem to have its importance, but it's not the main key for a great ranking. I am going to spend sometime at looking at the inbound links from our competitor and try to see where we should may be be too Thanks again to take the time to help, really appreciate it Cheers,

Hi, I have never done this before and havent read about anyone doing this before.  However, I know that Apple has an international website and they are well optimized.  Therefore, I took a look and it seems like they do it this way: US: www.apple.com/hotnews = www.domain.com/blog HK: www.apple.com/hk/hotnews = www.domain.com/hk/blog UK: www.apple.com/uk/hotnews = www.domain.com/uk/blog I am sure there are different ways to do it and it is based on your budget and preferences.  Whichever you can do with your budget and easier to manage. Hope this helps

Depending on your PageRank it's advisable to have less than 100 links per page. Cutting down on the amount of links you have per page increases the amount of "link juice" given to each link. However it sounds like what you're asking is more of a usability issue more than an SEO one. I would have to see an example of a page you're talking about to give a more precise answer.

I agree with the other answers, but believe 100% your header should be above body content. The way I explain it to my clients is the header is a promise of what is to come. You wouldn't pick up a book without reading the title would you? Or know if it is in your own language? The header is also the position to tell the SERP's what your entire site is about, look this site is about "such and such" with the "author tag so and so", written to answer "these questions" and you will find ALL that and more in the content. Body above the header was a trick used years ago in SEO to force feed our intentions on the search engine, now we just politely introduce our page and let them browse the content.

We are basically discussing Video Optimization. Here's the thing. If you optimize your video with better titles, descriptions and it sounds like your descriptions already contain a backlink to your website. As Tom said, Embedding the video helps the video page (if at all), but not the site embedding it. In your case, it sounds like you are embedding it on the site that your video is linking to. So I agree with Tom. Answering your question directly, linking to the video (and embedding it) from other places on the web, helps your video page which in turn helps your money site if you are linking to your money site from the video. Just don't over do it. Too much of anything is bad. I hope this helps.

Indexing is good, crawling occurs almost every two days.

Ryan - Related question.  Our IT team moved to a CDN, and said that they 'noindexed' our Image URLs on our site. Since there aren't technically dupe content issues with images, should we allow Google to index images in both our old sitemap AND the new CDN??

Is the widget page a straight translation of the blue widget page? And I assume the yellow widget page is the same as blue, just yellow. I am not sure I'd do an hreflang on the yellow one in that case. If widget is a different page than blue widget, this won't work well and I assume in the future you might get in trouble for it.