Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I was about to make a mistake. Luckily, I read your answer and I have changed my mind. Thank you very much. Sal P.S.: I've never been to Seattle and the post "Seattle rocks" was just an example. Although, I feel that Seattle must be a great place. I'll visit it one day

In the eyes of Google, your website is no better than the destinations of your links.  So, if you have lots of links to spam then Google will think that you are a spammer.  Linking to manipulative sites puts you squarely within their web. So, if you want to be trusted by Google you need to be liking to great sites.  I link out a lot and only link to site that are clearly superior to my own.  I have no problem with sending a visitor to a website that has better information about a topic than I have - because that is why my visitor would want and that is what Google is looking for too. Those links to better website make my site a richer information source.

Matt, If I knew that AOL labeled an IP address as a spam oriented IP, I would move my sites TODAY. In my opinion, if AOL has an issue with a site, even though AOL does not have the prominence it once did, I have to believe Google and Bing do too. If you have a lot of spam coming from one IP they can block the entire IP. Even though your site was not spamming you are down.

I don't think the relationship of your other sites is having any effect on your rankings but it maybe Google post Panda is showing syndicated versions of your content as the most relevant. Finance and Making money online are very competitive niches and scraping/syndication is rife. I recommend that you firstly make sure that when you publish your blog posts you are pinging pubsubhubbub to make sure Google knows you are the originating source. Two questions: Which landing pages and keywords have seen the biggest traffic change in the past 6-12 months? Have you checked your competitor and your own link profiles for any recent changes ?

Cheers for the feedback guys Im gonna recomend a rebuild in HTML5

I agree that with 50 subdomains i cant see you having enouth content, i was speakng in general. i was refereing to that link, Rand said it is his personal belief that most of the time it is better to keep to one subdomain.

Thanks, Dan. I appreciate the input!

I am new to this, but I have heard it said that some no follow links likely provide value.  For example, Wikipedia, because it is so well-curated and tolerates zero spam.

The goal of a HTML sitemap is to help users locate content on your site. Providing a list with thousands of links is not the way to achieve that goal. An example site map to look at: http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/sitemap.jsp The VerizonWireless site offers thousands of pages. Notice when examining their site map you will find a "cell phones" link, but you don't see links for Samsung, Motorola or other phone manufacturers. A user who is looking for a cell phone can select the "cell phones" link then locate a manufacturer from that page. I recommend mapping out your main category pages along with any pages of special interest, then consider your HTML sitemap complete.

Yeah... I know that I've juste removed BL to my home page (for example). But these pages were really poor I and I believe that my website is cleaner now... It should please Google now, better than before. I just hope that it will compensate the bad pages removal.

Do you have this for your first example: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^meliacozumel.com RewriteRule (.*) http://www.meliacozumel.com/$1 [R=301,L] Also make sure you have the Apache Rewrite Module turned on.  Check the httpd.conf file, and take the comments off LoadModule rewrite_module modules/mod_rewrite.so in order for it to be active.

..although I should add that it is indeed normal to have the possibility to skip content for visually impaired users (an accessibility organisation confirmed this). I'm just not sure what the best practice to do it is and I seriously don't like reducing content to 1 pixel.

Not a complete answer but instead of rel-canonicaling your dynamic pages you may just want to robot.txt block them somthing like: Disallow: /*? this will prevent google from crawling any version of the page that includes the ? in the URL. Cannonical is a suggetion whereas robots is more of a command. as you can see from this query: https://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&pws=0&gl=US&q=site:www.vistastores.com&biw=1366&bih=520#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&safe=off&pws=0&gl=US&source=hp&q=site:www.vistastores.com%2Fpatio-living-concepts%3F&pbx=1&oq=site:www.vistastores.com%2Fpatio-living-concepts%3F&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=8408l8408l1l8644l1l1l0l0l0l0l65l65l1l1l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.,cf.osb&fp=b03d3d8a434daa&biw=1599&bih=795 Google has indexed 132 versions of that single page rather than follow your rel=canonical suggestion. To further enforce this you may be able to use a fancy bit of php code to detect if the url is dynamic and do a robots noindex, noarchive on only the dynamic renderings of the page. This could be done like this: I also believe there are some filtering tools for this right within webmaster tools. Worth a peek if your site is registered. Additionally where you are redirecting non-www subpages to the home page you may instead want to redirect them to their www versions. this can be done in htaccess like this: Redirect non-www to www: RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^yourdomain.com [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.yourdomain.com/$1 [L,R=301] This will likely provide both a better user experience as well as a better solution in googles eyes. I'm sure some other folks will come in with some other great suggestions for you as well

Hi guys, Thanks for the quick replies, I really do appreciate it. It seemed to be when I add multiple products, say over 5 and they all have the phare golf shirt in, it seemed to have a negative affect on ranking  i.e they would fall dramatically.

I don't work in that sector myself, but I have a friend who does, was hit heavily by Panda and tried HON code as part of a recovery strategy. He seems to have clawed his way out of Panda this week, but doesn't attribute it to the HON code directly.  However HON does impose some criteria that are probably good to stick with in order to build trust in that sector, which might give off some secondary signals. In short some of the stuff he did to get the HON accreditation probably helped even if the accreditation itself didn't. For reference his attributes much of his recovery to removing thinner content - ensuring he has 1 article per topic and making it a better article by combining similar ones.

Thanks Gianluca!  I appreciate the reply and am going to move forward with the idea.