Welcome to the Q&A Forum

What you have there is just blocking rootdomain.com/javascript:void(0).  Googlebot can execute and index JavaScript; you should not block it without a good reason.  I'd let it read the JavaScript and see the submenus.

Thanks for the help George and participating in the discussion.  I like the ease of the syntax involved with the non-www version, but I think people's and browsers natural inclination towards the www version makes it the most practical at this juncture.  Perhaps if you're building a new site the less traditional non-www might be used, but like yourself, I also prefer the www. Thanks, Marty

There are no guarantees, as you know. I would be weary of that strategy long term as I mentioned. If it doesn't raise a flag with Google now, it could someday.

What's your plan for the new pages?  Are you going to support both http and https browsing of your site for all pages?  If so Streamline Metrics answer is spot on. Or are you switching all your pages from http to https?  Do realize that having all secure pages means the browsers won't be able to cache anything from page to page, and makes page sizes slightly larger, so your page load times will suffer for every page view.  This is a major reason why most sites are non-secure for as many pages as possible, and are only secure for pages that need it.  I'd strongly consider doing this, or supporting both http and https (with canonical tags) if possible.

Totally agree. Add a class to those <a>s and style that.</a>

Thanks Anthony. I have read Adam's article and after further research this was the direction I was leaning in. You have definitely helped me choose a direction.

Imagine that one of the keywords your homepage ranks for is your brand name. If you look for some of your services (subpage) and you make a search using a keyword containing a branded keyword within, probably your first result is your homepage. Your homepage would be ranking for this branded keyword very well. Moreover, if your homepage has a lot of backlinks using your branded keyword as anchor text, then, making a search for finding a subpage using your branded keyword is a bad idea, as your homepage is ranking better than any other subpage in your site. Hope to be helpful.

So you said... "As above, you would think a 301 would pass over any build up link equity to help it rank, is this the case?" I say yes... "As far as I am aware, a 302 will never pass any link-juice on whereas a 301 will pass around 90%. Still pretty sure those are the case." You say... "Again, I know this." ... Maybe I am missing something, but if you know, then why ask? No, not launched a mobile site myself, but have helped others with the SEO and setup. Andy

I would create a generic canonical "/tickets/liverpool_arsenal" which lists the upcoming games. I would create unique canonicals/titles with event information for each game. Use a 302 to redirect to the most appropriate content (i.e. the upcoming game).

I agree with Andy, just update your content.

No problem at all. As for a chain of redirects, this isn't how Google will see it. They even say that a redirect from one page to another is fine... it's when you get into the realms of 'page a --> page b --> page c' that it will become a problem. A temporary redirect when used for a permanent move is a little dodgy to say the least and should be corrected. Also, what is the chance of 20 people hitting the same page at exactly the same second? And even if they do, it just means they each wait half a second rather than 22ms - I can see no problem with that whatsoever. Even at half a second, this is still very fast. You can still cache pages through htaccess if you want - doesn't mean you have to ignore caching just because you do things the right way Andy

GreenHornet77 I would say you will create more problems and here is why: If you are working on Google + first, you are obviously going to have it correctly. When you add the number for the citation sites, you could create a G+ problem in that you are saying it changed, but it is still there. For many citation sites, they are just trolling for numbers and they are going to get both invariably IMO. Since we have had to fight these battles too many times, we try to be really careful with carrying one theme (phone number) for the main number. We do use tracking numbers in various ways, but we are very careful with them. Hope this helps, Robert

Just looked at the code and yes it does have rel=canonical I had no idea that this would tell google its the same as the home page Thanks for helping, really appreciate it.

I try and get as many keywords in one keyword as possible. "Dog's tasty chews" has "Dog's tasty chews"* and "tasty chews" "Tasty chews for dogs" has "Tasty chews for dogs", "tasty chews" and "chews for dogs". The first one only has 1 variant that is "dog specific"* to the product (chews), the second has 2.  I don't put an adjective after a noun, the word "for" keeps cropping up in my keyword research as being useful. I go for singular (people aren't looking to buy your whole stock just one item from it). "Piano" 450,000 Global exact match, low competition. "Pianos" - 27,100 GEM high competition Awesome!

no it wasn't penalized. Well the thing is we had never shown up in the google places section before when we had overall the number one position organically. I want us to have the ability to show up both in google places and in the organic section at the number one spot. I know that this is probably far fetched but it is a hope

Thanks. I had a feeling this was the case, but I just wanted some confirmation.

Thanks Billy - another individual touched on this above actually but I think it is a very valid point. It is something I am adding in to my list of recommendations as well.

Thanks Mat, Andy & Nigel