Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If you're using Wix.com, and they use AJAX... here's what you can do to verify google is scraping your site properly. go to google.com and simply type "site:yourURL.com"... no spaces between the colon and your site name.  This will return Google's index of your site, and then you can look at the cached pages to ensure they're seeing what they should. Wix posted about this, and they provide both the needed AJAX (end user) option and the HTML (google crawler option) properly..  here's their blog from 2015 addressing this (see #4) https://www.wix.com/blog/2015/04/myth-busting-10-interesting-facts-about-wix-seo/ if you're using Wix.com... or other website builder tools... make sure to submit your sitemap to the Google Search Console, this should also help.

Hi there, This is definitely a crazy problem! It looks like you've done what you should, but Google's ignoring you. Here's a theory, though: I don't think that Google loves the idea of there being no "home" page; it probably only expects domain.com/home or domain.com/default.asp or domain.com/index.html as alternatives to domain.com, so seeing http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ redirect to http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ could be confusing it. Is there a reason why you don't want http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ to be the homepage? Kristina

Hi In my opinion the logo should not contain H1 or H2 tags, if it does not contain indexable text such as slogan, byline etc. H1 should be used for the most important heading comparable to how its used in a word document. This should also be your main heading. Also there should be only one H1 on a page. H1 should be used for the second most important heading comparable to how its used as a subheading in a word document. This should also be your main heading. There could then be multiple H2s on a page since they describe sub content. You can find more useful information about this and other SEO challenges in the great Moz Guide. Hope this answers you question. Have a great day Fredrik

Hi Rachel, I guess this might be worth a blog post since you didn't find resources I'm going to try and tackle your question in steps,.. 1) What do people recommend to do with old, outdated videos on sites like YouTube and Vimeo My personal opinion, but if these videos are getting views, try to direct them to the new videos using annotations and such. Unless that product video is harmful (example: it was flagged as toxic waste ;)), then why take it down if it's still getting traffic? Okay, a better example would be that they're so outdated and look embarrassing to your brand, but even then, you can cover up the entire video with an annotation to visit the new product video... 2) They show up in search, but some mention outdated products Which search? Google regular search / video / youtube / vimeo? If it's regular Google search, you can change that by de-optimizing the listing on Youtube and get a new video ranking.. 3) However, is it best practice to remove everything older and outdated from Youtube, etc. or is it better to have these in your library (quantity over quality) There are no rules here, every case is different. 4) We also started Google Plus after Youtube, so we now have two YouTubes (one empty one attached to our new G+ and one that's been established with a lot of videos - new and old) For simplicity, it might be better to have one account. ** Good suggestion / idea from Microdesign, but I don't think updating videos is possible on Youtube (https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/58101?hl=en)

It does get counted. You might even see the bit.ly link show. Bots can crawl and follow these shorteners.

That is a tricky one. I would definitely have pages up for each at the start, but with different content, even if Im forced to invest further to make it more unique. Once the traffic for that brand name dwindles down, I would redirect it to the latest name. Depending on the competition level, if it's not too hard, I would just stick with 1 page but make sure to mention the old name on the body (and even on the meta details if possible) It can rank just as well. These are all assumptions. It's really a tricky position that needs to be analysed further.

Hello, It sounds like you are receiving this error because you have the markup for price in the html, but it is not finding the price so it is showing the error. If you remove the schema markup for the price it will still be valid and should no longer show the error. We have a similar setup on a client's site of ours. They offer multiple versions of their product in different versions and we do not markup the price using schema, only the ratings and these show up perfectly fine in the SERPS. You can also check Google's Structured Data Testing Tool to aid in schema implementation. As for a price other then a numerical value, looks like that is possible according to schema.org.

You could purchase a short domain that represents your company - i.e. hmp.ge Once you have that domain, you could use a service like Bit.ly to use your branded domain to shorten the long URLs If you can't purchase a branded domain, you could always use Bit.ly's or Google's URL shortener to have a recognized shortened URL.

**I'd like to think not ALL duplicate content is bad. ** I agree. However, more often than not, it is bad. It's best to approach each situation with caution. As long as your site has been crawled and that page is already in the SERPs, and the new website puts a link to the original article on your website, I don't think there should be any issue. I don't feel that confident in this statement. In theory, yes the original article would get the attribution. However, in practice, that can not be the case. If the site posting the duplicate content has higher authority and traffic, they may get the attribution even though you published the content first. Google does a decent job in figuring this out, but it's an area they need to drastically improve upon. I personally would re-work a new article or ask them to summarize your article, to be on the extra safe side. But that's just me. Summaries are a good idea. Still, you can't beat new unique content. Use the article for inspiration and create a new article that takes a point the original article made even further. Definitely include a link back to the original article, if possible. This strategy would give you a better gain the simply posting or summarizing the original article with a link back.

I'm not looking for a tool to tell me yes or no, and I have the scores I want...I've been pretty clear about that. Why is it you assume wanting to know information, means something nefarious? I inherited a site I didn't build, and I'm trying to fix it. I can't do that without knowing how things are measured. If you don't want to help, don't help. You don't need to accuse me or take things personally, because I'm a competitor.

Thank you so much!  Yes that does help indeed. One small question if i may? I maybe have 20 backlinks to the site, but all high quality and very relevant.  I would keep almost all the value of these links wouldn't I? And wouldn't it bowd well because Google 'knows' I've been around for a while? Thanks. Isaac.

Hey Ricky, Such a good question. As you can probably guess, the proviso here is that you can build all of these pages ... if they have genuine value. To be honest, most sites you see taking this approach are building pages that don't really have a purpose other than attempting to gain rankings for a laundry list of terms, right? After all, having a slip and fall accident in Miami isn't really much different than having one in Orlando. In the real world - it isn't different. But trying to please the bots can cause business owners and marketers to get into some pretty complicated contortions. My honest preference is to have 1 page per service and 1 page per location and depend on building the authority of the brand so that the site is strong enough to rank for many terms. I think the Moz blog is an awfully good example of this. Search for a topic, and up comes a Moz blog post, and not because we've got "For Seattle, For San Francisco, For Boston" in the titles. The strength of the site, overall, helps with ranking for topics. True, Moz is not a local business, but the concept is the same to me - building the kind of authority that makes whatever you publish on your site seem important/relevant to Google for its topic. So, like I've said, 1 page per service and 1 per location would be my ideal preference. That being said, the legal industry is cutthroat in major cities, and sometimes a Local SEO will find himself doing things that may not seem very sensible, just trying to keep ahead of the competition. If, in auditing your unique competitive scenario, you do feel you have to build a page for every service/city combo, I guess the best you can do is to try to make those pages as unique and helpful as possible. If you're the copywriter, I don't envy you, but it can be done with enough resources and creativity.

Citations are much better than most and maybe equal to a couple of others.

You are aware of the latest Pigeon updates, right? And the move of directories into a higher valuation by Google for serps? Here's how I blogged about same - http://www.canuckseo.com/index.php/2014/08/google-pigeon-update-gotta-know/ and a quick Google for "pigeon update favors directories" shows many more SEO practitioners with the same view... Yelp has especially been moved up in my own client roster serps....

RE: "** I'd like to remove most of the blog articles as I want the new site to be very high quality, but isn't it dangerous to do a 301 redirect to the same page for all these articles..."** While others have commented on that, what we've done before on this is to create (note a WP site) new Categories and then 301 all to the master Category post page.... This is or rather has been solid SEO in that it is okay to group like posts....gathered all together on this master Category page and save the linkjuice that way...

Good Morning! Moz Local definitely works for home-based businesses (you'll be marking the business as home-based as described in our .CSV guidelines here: https://moz.com/local/help/documentation). The purpose of marking the business as home-based is so that the address can be hidden, but I do want to add the proviso here that not all of our partners will accept a hidden address. Because of this, we let home-based customers know that their address will appear on some of our partner sites. In many cases, this is no problem at all, but for a small percentage of customers who do not want their home address to appear anywhere on the web, Moz Local may not be the best match. Wanted to be sure you had this information to share with your client:)

Hm, have you looked into rel canonical? If those are all stand alone pages, you will have to redirect, if they are no longer active, or if they can be replaced by the original page. Andy is correct, those pages likely are not 'created' with intent. You should look at what is causing this issue and start there. If not, you are going to be redirecting till the cows come home. If you are deciding on going through 301's, you may want to take a step back and look at the folders of the entire domain. /ll/ is a folder but not a page, nor is /ll/c/. Good Luck, Alan!