Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hello David, II found the same problem on the site of the Backlinko Backlinko have <title></span><span>SEO Training and Link Building Strategies – Backlinko</span><span class="html-tag"></title> but show https://imgur.com/RkusvVq

Hi, New meta description length is 300 characters and it is not temporary, Moz also updated meta description character limit. See below article. https://moz.com/learn/seo/meta-description Hope this helps. Thanks

What do you mean by "wrong"? Is Google not showing the site links you want to see? Are they formatted incorrectly? Please explain further or show us an example.

Hi A lot of good questions you ask regarding the site. For gambling, online casino its really hard to top the list. I dont think you should link between the sites. I also think you should link on the main page to 1 og 2 of your other sites, but not all of the 12 different. I searched and found this question, because we also have 5x different sites and if you see CasinoTopp we have only linked to our other page. Because I think it will be seen as link scheme. hope if anybody els like me have had this issue can read this thx Caroline

Hey mag777! Happy New Year! Great question and one I'm asked a lot from my business advisory groups, clients and referral partners. It's one that undoubtedly always comes up in conversation when talking about either acquiring new domains or revamping a website... "Should we use the WWW or NON-WWW domain?" In my 12+ years of web consulting and SEO, it has boiled down to a preference ideology. As mentioned by seoman10 in this thread, it could be seen as a shorter, easier to remember URL. When marketing the domain, you'd always want to confirm the WWW is redirected to the NON-WWW if this is the path you choose to take. And visa versa NON-WWW --> WWW. As Gaston mentions too, check out your competitors URL structure. It's a quick glimpse up to the address bar while you are already doing your competitive research. Do some searches in Google as well for your website and competitors to see how much of the URL does or could display. Moz.com doesn't use WWW. They could get away with it because it's so short. I on the other hand almost need to with https://whiteboardcreations.com since it's a much longer domain. Keep this in mind for those domains you're working on, too. From an SEO school of thought and how I now operate, I choose the NON-WWW simply because we can get just a little more of the URL to show in Google SERPs, if we're targeting inner pages to provide a hint more of visual for the searcher. The URL string matches more closely to the Title and Description. That is the way I look at this strategy. Here is a quick video from Matt Cutts a few years back... should ease your concerns over redirects   https://youtu.be/Filv4pP-1nw  Either way, the websites you work on for yourself or your clients will be fine as long as you are consistent for the entire site and redirects are tested and confirmed functional. Cheers to a successful 2018 for you and everyone else reading! Patrick @ Whiteboard Creations (Apex, NC)

So by siloing content you mean creating categories and subcategories like in a library.  So Reference, fiction, magazines etc. And then having subsections.  The old way to 'rank' for something was to pick up keywords for the smaller sections and subsections. So to use the example of dentistry. I might have  adult dentistry and paediatric dentistry pages then in adults i'll have implants, braces and veneers.  Then in veneers I might have an article about veneers price, veneers procedure and veneers risks.  All of these would link to each other and link up in the architecture.  And hey-presto, i'd eventually rank for one of the 'top categories' like adult dentistry. The problem with this is that it's going to create internal competition and conflict.  Google doesn't want users having to hop around highly granular subtopics for answers.  They'd rather have the answer to a query all in the same place. So instead I'll now have one single page with everything people need to know about veneers; price, risks, procedure etc. All in one place. Now there are further difficulties because google will sometimes consider two related things as different 'topics' or answering different questions. So I do have page for everything about veneers and also a page about veneers cost. In the case of veneers everyone wants to know the cost.  It's all cost cost cost - so this is it's own topic and it's own page.  But for something like root canals, nobody cares how much they cost, they just want to get out of pain.  So the root canal cost section is on the main root canal page because it's included in the topic of 'root canals'. It's now more about searcher intent https://moz.com/blog/how-google-gives-us-insight-into-searcher-intent-through-the-results-whiteboard-friday, possibly 'searcher task accomplishment' https://moz.com/blog/harnessing-link-equity and also how link equity flows: https://moz.com/blog/harnessing-link-equity Also read this: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/home/kleinber/pcm.pdf it's tough going but just ignore what you don't understand and press on with reading it all and you'll learn a great amount about how google functions. So to answer the question, you still need a solid site structure but i'd say 'siloing' is possibly going to dilute the potential power of each page.  You're going to end up with 30 pages all about sub-sub topics that should be rethought out and consolidated using google as your research tool.  Always use google as your research tool.  To do anything else is like training for a sprint race by going swimming every day. 'Siloing' for me also created a ton of duplicate content, duplicate headlines and I even think I got stung by Maccabees for having some pages about all the different aspects of implant dentistry.  They are now all consolidated into a 'super page' and it's ranking #1 locally and really well nationally too.  Page one. Imagine five pages, H1's are 'braces cost', 'braces procedure', 'braces on finance' and 'braces risks'.  Google is going to struggle - in my view - to rank me for any of those because they all have an H1 containing the word braces. What would be better would be to have  a'braces' page and then the H2's were all those sub sub topics and then an FAQ with all the google suggest words as H2 and then all the 'searchers also asked' words in the FAQ. Hope this helps - this is my interpretation from my small local business here in the UK. So other users here may have more relevant information.  For example IA, cannibalisation, internal conflict etc is much bigger in shopping and information businesses than it is in services businesses. And of course this classic: https://moz.com/blog/optimizing-for-rankbrain-whiteboard-friday  thanks to @miriam ellis for that one.

haha thanks. It's not a typo actually - it's an accepted alternate spelling many other hospitals use as well.

Hi seoanalytics I have spent hours trying to help you on this thread and the other two or three you have started! I have patiently answered every question you have asked, in detail. If you still don't understand what I am saying after acres and acres of help and advice then that's it from me. https://moz.com/community/q/sentences-rdf-format https://moz.com/community/q/asking-a-natural-question-in-h-tags https://moz.com/community/q/bolded-words-in-search-results https://moz.com/community/q/user-intent-and-ranking This comment is simply idiotic, but more than that it is insulting: "I have more chances of winning the lottery than ranking..." Please don't bother me again. Have a good weekend. Nigel

Hi Masonman, I generally "noindex" tags in Yoast and for really big sites I will also block them in robots.txt (after I know they have been removed from index) - but it depends how you are using them on your site. Before you "noindex", check GA to make sure your tags pages aren't getting any organic traffic. If they aren't, I would go ahead and set them to "noindex". If you want to then block them from being crawled, you must wait until the pages have been removed from index. Otherwise, they will remain indexed because the pages can't be crawled and the "noindex" tags won't be seen. Tags only exist to help users find similar content. You could check GA pageviews for your tag pages to see if people are actually using them - if they aren't, you might decide to stop using them. You have a few options here...I could give more specific advice on what I would do if I knew more about your site, but I hope this helps! Cheers, David

Yes, you will need to add some lines in your .htaccess file on the .net version pointing to the.com version using 301's. Will you lose any organic positions? If done correctly, you will maintain your rankings (minor fluctuations typically will happen).

I had to do a similar migration, and my solution was similar - 302 redirect all the missing content. In our case, all of the missing content was contained in blog posts, so I 302'd them all to the blog. I would recommend something similar if possible - if you can group the missing content and land people somewhere similar to provide the best possible user experience, that's your best bet. If people are looking for a missing blog article, maybe they can still find something interesting to read in the 30% of blog articles that are posted. If they are looking for a missing product category, maybe they can still find something interesting in your main store page. Alternatively, if you have the ability to keep the 70% of content within the old structure while launching the 30% of updated hierarchy, it would be a better solution. Sometimes moving from one CMS to another, you can leave old content on the old CMS and only redirect and push out new content on the new CMS. Just depends on your situation.

I agree with Charles-Oliver, I would definitely document where these pages currently rank, and then assess after making your changes. As long as you're not removing the keyword / key phrase you're ranking for from the title, or dramatically changing the intent, you probably don't have anything to worry about!

It's my understanding that simply having them in the same body copy, and perhaps in some headings as well, will suffice.

Moz Bar has a Keyword Difficulty tool that generates right on your SERP - if you don't have Moz Bar downloaded, I would highly recommend!

Hello ImpericMedia, If you can share the site with me (private message is OK) I'll look into it. If you don't want to do that, here are some things I would look at: 1. If you have verified that the Robots.txt file is not blocking the pages you want indexed, and the pages are still not indexed (or indexed with a message about the Robots.txt file) you should check for a Robots Noindex meta tag on the page. If the source code looks strange you may have to use the Chrome Inspect tool to see the fully rendered page. 2. If there are no blocking robots meta tags on the page you should check the HTTP response for an X-Robots header. 3. If there is no X-Robots header, it's probably because of the duplicate content and spammy(seeming) subdomain setup. Sorry about the wait. If you include the site URL it will get other community member's curious enough to check it out next time. I hope this helps. If not, feel free to message me.

I'm surprised to say... that SSL certificate you have is very poor quality and has a number of pretty significant security issues, in addition to the SHA-1 encryption.] To answer your specific question, there's nothing you or your devs can do about the SHA-1 encryption problem, as that problem exists on one of the certificates in the chain that is owned and controlled by Thawte (the cert issuer or "Certificate Authority"), not your own certificate. It is up to them to fix it. As you can see from the cert security scan, there are a number of other issues with the certificate that are unacceptable. Especially in a paid certificate. [Edited for clarity - some of those warnings are likely server-specific, meaning the server is being allowed to communicate with certificate in less than optimal ways] https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=www.key.co.uk It's unlikely that the encryption problem is whats giving the "not secure" warning on the site at the moment (although it will become a major issue later in February) so you'll  need to keep looking for resources called over HTTP if you're still getting warnings. When I had a quick look at the home page, I didn't see any more warnings, as it appears you've fixed the image call that Andrew mentioned. You can use Chrome or Firefox Dev Tools to inspect any pages that are not secure to be shown exactly what element is causing the failure. It often comes down to hardcoded images like those in CSS/background images etc, or hardcoded scripts. For example, your Quotations page is calling a script from Microsoft to validate the form, but it's failing as it's called over HTTP. Knowing this, you'd want to check any other pages using such form validation. A thorough Screaming Frog crawl to look for any other wayward HTTP calls can also help dig our the remaining random culprits. Hope that helps? Paul Sidenote: Your certificate authority is Thawte, which is connected with Symantec. Which has done such a bad job of securing their certificates that Chrome and other browsers no longer trust them and are in the near future are going to be officially distrusted and ignored. Symantec has in fact given up their Certificate Authority status and is transferring their business to a new company which does have a trusted infrastructure for issuing certificates. So you're going to need to deal with a new certificate in the not too distant future anyway. Given the poor security of your existing cert, and the upcoming issues, if it were me, I'd be asking for a refund of my current cert, and replacing it with one from a more reliable issuer. I know that can mean a lot of extra work, but as these existing problematic certs go through the distrust process over the next 8 months, sites that haven't dealt with the issue are going to break. It's possible that Thawte will build out a reliable process for migrating. At the very least, you need to have a strong conversation with your issuer about how to insure you are getting the security and long-term reliability you've paid for. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news that is a much bigger issue. You can read up about it more here: https://security.googleblog.com/2017/09/chromes-plan-to-distrust-symantec.html

I am not familiar with LDA, but most people refer to LSI in regards to online content optimization. This stands for Latent Semantic Indexing and can be synonyms and abbreviations, as well as keywords related to the keyword that you search for on Google. A good free tool for discovering LSI Keywords is LSIGraph- https://lsigraph.com/. Here are some LSI Keywords for Piedmont Bike Tour which you mentioned above: piedmont cycling routes self guided cycling tours piedmont italy piedmont college cycling puglia bike tours northern italy bike tours bike through italy bike tours italy best tuscany bike tours cycling piedmont italy self guided bike tours puglia puglia bike tours tripadvisor puglia cycling routes cycling in puglia tripadvisor apulia bike tours puglia cycling holiday bike hire puglia self guided cycling puglia italy bike tours reviews 3 day bike tours italy italy bike tours self guided italy bike tours tuscany guided cycling tours italy best bike tours italy bike riding tours italy italian cycling tours giro d'italia cycling italy north to south cycling routes in italy cycling in italy self guided italy cycling guide lonely planet cycling italy italy motorbike cycling tours in italy road bike tours italy tuscany bike tours tripadvisor one day bike tours in tuscany tuscany bike tours self guided tuscany 3 day bike tours duvine tuscany bike tour true tuscany bike tour florence bike tours tripadvisor best bike tours in tuscany Hope this helps! If you write long-quality content, you often will find yourself automatically including "LSI Keywords" in your content, but a general awareness of them is good to have, and can be good for on-site optimization testing, just don't keyword or LSI Keyword stuff :). Best of success!

ok.

My experience is similar to EGOL's. A carefully-implemented domain migration usually settles out within two or three weeks. There will still be some hiccups in certain terms etc for an additional couple of weeks, but those are usually in an upward direction as the new site is an improvement over the old. If it's been two months and you haven't' yet at least returned to previous levels, it's time to get going on a thorough audit to figure out why and correct. Tough spot to be in as someone who wasn't involved in the original build, but it does give you the benefit of fresh eyes. The key is to question everything - don't take anyone's assurance about what was done in the migration. Prove each item for yourself before accepting that it's been done properly. Good luck! Paul