Welcome to the Q&A Forum

It looks like there are two issues. The first issue is that Firefox and Chrome are treating the padding differently. Firefox is padding from the bottom of the text of the navigation whereas chrome is padding from the top of the containing div. The second issue is that your site appears to be adding hardcoded css via javascript which is why you don't see that style in the source code. It's being added by a script executed in the browser after the site is loaded.

Hi Niners: I have run a Xenu link report and there are no broken links or anything out of the ordinary. Could having additional pages indexed by Google devalue a site in Google's eyes? The additional pages co-incide with a decline in ranking. Thanks, Alan

In general the ROI (Return Of Investment) is calculated as (gain of investment - cost of investment)/cost of investment, which gives a good measure of what you get compared to what you spend. As you probably already know, the higher ROI the better. In your case, you have a knowledge database for computer problems solving. As you also note in your question, you don't do any marketing activity, therefore there is no straightforward way to measure the gain of the investment. One key point to mention is the buying cycle which explains the 5 steps to convert your site visitor to a customer. Aw****areness: Through your SEO people find your website and get to know about your products and your services. R****esearch: After getting on your site, people can search for more information about your product/service, and refine their search. Preference: This step contains the process of making the final choice and the confirmation of it. Purchase: Now that the final choice is made, the visitor can be converted to an actual customer. Loyalty/advocacy:.After the purchase, we expect a satisfied customer that will come back to the site, and search for other products/services that are provided. The last step takes us back to the first one, as we make a customer aware of more products. As you can see, the key point is the marketing, that you make people know what you "make" and try to convince them that they need it. That is the main aspect of ROI. On the other hand, I noticed that you don't have anything related to the social media (facebook like and share, tweet, etc). That is the best tool in our days to attract people and let them know what you can provide. In fact it is also a very good way to boost your ROI. Even in your case, it would be imperative to have people to able to share their experience on your site, for example: "I was very satisfied by this article" along with a link of a solution shared on facebook or after contacting your live support to share that "The article didn't work for me, but they have a great online live support!". This will bring more people on your site searching for answers and/or solutions. If you would like more information, check also these links: http://www.quicksprout.com/2014/05/16/how-to-calculate-the-roi-of-your-seo-campaign/ http://www.quicksprout.com/2014/06/27/how-to-calculate-the-roi-of-your-social-media-campaigns/

Great idea wrttnwrd! Thanks so much for your response. We will try this out. Thanks!

Hello Yair, I think you're fine with NOINDEX, FOLLOW robots meta tags on those pages and either rel="nofollow" in the links to them or using javascript instead. Keep in mind that Google is getting pretty good at parsing javascript so they'll still crawl those pages (which means they'll still be using crawl budget), making it necessary to have the noindex tag on those pages. Providing those pages aren't already in Google's index, I would consider adding a robots.txt file disallow, similar to the one below... Disallow: /user//favorites Disallow: /user//posts Disallow: /user//questions Disallow: /user//friends The * is a wildcard that should apply this to every profile. You may or may not have a /user/ folder but I put it in there as an example.

Well that is that trend but it's just like back then when they said niche sites are dead and everyone should build "authority sites" - it's the same thing, just with faster and more aggressive marketing/content team. So yeah, the trend will continue as social gets more popular until it gets really, really overboard and social sites will just launch another algorithm to clear out the lower quality ones. Either way, getting links from them = win. Imagine all the new users you can sign up from the referral traffic alone. The links you will get from being featured again is a bonus. Good luck!

The Klout FAQ page has a great deal of info. Link below: http://support.klout.com/ Cheers, SEO5..

Bizarrely, I just answered quite a similar question to this about five minutes ago... Have you looked into the rel="alternate" tag option? Sometimes this is also referred to as the "href lang tag". You can place these on both the UK site and the .com, indicating that the UK site is "the same" but is targeted for UK customers only. This is basically canonicalisation with a geo-targeting twist: it negates the issue of duplicate content whilst reinforcing that the .co.uk is for UK audiences. More information on the tag is here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en The .co.uk replacing the .com in UK SERPs won't be immediate, but this is a fairly safe option for rankings. Can you also use a javascript lightbox when a UK IP is detected on the .com site, explaining that UK customers have to purchase on the .co.uk and providing a link? It isn't good to automatically redirect based on IP, but a JS pop-up / lightbox will be ignored by search engines and will allow any remaining UK traffic to the .com to make its way to the appropriate website. Does this help? Cheers, Jane

Hi there, This is pretty much exactly what the rel="alternate" tag is for. Have you looked into that option? This allows you to use the .co.uk for the UK and the .com elsewhere: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en You will have trouble ranking a .co.uk in countries besides the UK, although moving everything to a .com in the future might be an option as well. However, it should be perfectly feasible to rank both sites with proper geo-targeting like this.

I have direct experience with this. It looks to be pretty useless to contact the authors of old posts and ask them to insert links to your site, with anchor text or without. This was a very very popular link development tactic three of four years ago. It was pretty easy to scale and it was effective. For Google, negative the positive effects of this tactic was likely quite easy: Cached versions of a page contain no external link to www.yoursite.com Page exists for extended period, gains PageRank Link suddenly appears on page to www.yoursite.com, often with optimised anchor text If you're being really obvious about it, you've paid for this link and set a time period of one year for the link to be up. All of a sudden after a year (or a set period), the link disappears, and www.yoursite.com seems to have a lot of links that disappear from older posts after one year. This is so blindingly obvious and easy enough for amateurs to spot: it's unfeasible that Google can't spot this too. A natural link is going to appear in a new blog post, not an old one. How many times have you gone back and edited an old post to include a new link? I can think of once or twice in my history online where I have done that with the legitimate intention of adding a good resource to the article. I am not adding links to insurance websites, jewellers, etc. A new post may or may not acquire authority, but if you are trying to place links based on authority, look at the website the new post will go up on. Do its posts regularly receive a good number of links, decent traffic, social media attention, etc.? This tactic of placing links on old blog posts was effective in the past, but I would be confident saying that its effectiveness en masse disappeared some time around 2010.

I am looking for only post name (url.com/post-name). Is that possible?

Thanks guys. That was where I was leaning. Social media is tough. I don't want to give up on it because it's such a huge pool of data that there has to be SOMETHING there. At the same time, I personally would NEVER go to facebook/twitter/instagram to look for rehab. If I was drunk or hungover that's the last thing I would do. However, it's just too big to be ignored. It does provide a nice place to expand our community with professionals and potential referrals, which in the long run, does help. Thanks