Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks guys. I feel quite confident that i have implemented the sitemap correctly (kinda wish i had done it through metas in the head now though as I think it might get indexed quicker this way)! It a relief that you both say this could take a couple if months the index correctly and yes I will be doing some promotion for it

Schema is designed to let you mark up individual items. For example, when a store has individual product pages, you should have the end page be marked up with data. As far as I know, there is no way to have multiple items maked up at the same time on one page. I'm sure you could code it that way, but I doubt it would be displayed or read correctly. Here are two resources that may help you: http://www.schema.org/Product http://www.schema.org/AggregateOffer

Thanks, Great response and information, i am comfortable now knowing that i do not need to bother with these tags, Thanks James

Hi there, Sorry this question has gone without more responses. I wanted to follow up. I agree with William that this is more of a usability / conversion question than SEO. In general, this is not an SEO issue although I would lean towards keeping pages' structures the same, with the same markup. I do not know if Google operates in a way in which it develops expectations of a page based on other pages' content / structure, but it could do, and in that case you'd want to keep things standard. From a usability point of view, keeping things standard can mean you can create expectations in your users, and you can also effectively test conversion improvements and A/B or multivariate test pages. This can be extremely profitable from a sales perspective.

Thanks for your responses. I'm not too worried about users finding these sitemaps as they only appear very far into the search results. The only worry I had was that these pages could be seen as low-quality/thin pages of content. I guess David-Kley's suggestion of naming the images properly could kill two birds with one stone; Have relevant content indexed on these pages and perhaps attract a few more visitors through google image search. Thanks for the suggestion!

If you search for "megeve property for sale", Google serves our META description as the snippet: Ski chalets, homes and apartments for sale in this exclusive, prestigious Rhone Alpes village - 520000-16500000 EUR. Looking at the relationship of the location, and the word sales. Means a user wants to buy, and your description contains that phrase. However, we noticed that searching for just "megeve property" serves up a much better snippet taken from the text on the page: A crucial factor for potential property buyers is that there is a strong rental market in Megève and this remains high all year around with properties close to the ... User is looking for general info on the subject, and your on page does the job well. Almost sounds like a magazine article. It sounded like you were asking for an exact answer. There you go. Google is most likely looking at the relationship between the words, and trying to serve the best result to interest a user aka Hummingbird in action

Hi, I have to agree with Devanur-Rafi.  If both of the sites are serving the exact content, although Google have the power to do whatever they want, they'll most likely take the rel=canonical into consideration and display the page the tag is pointing to over the second site. So, yes it is a dream to display both site with the same content in the search result and by using the canonical tag, Google won't penalize both sites and display the preferred site. That's my 2 cents. Thank you!

Thanks so much for your response.

I would link "our agent" for "X Region."  We don't have exact values on how Google treats multiple links from one page to a single domain, but they have repeatedly said that there is a diminishing return.  So, limiting it to just two links will give you the majority of the value you would get anyways, and doesn't appear too spammy.

All of you guys rock!  I have never been involved in a community that has had the right answers every time... I used the   on all my static pages such as directions, policies, contact, etc... and it removed all the parameters thereby eliminating them from standing out in the MOZ crawl.. I feel like and idiot not knowing about this HTML tag and its importance.   My moz crawl now looks so so much better. When I mean old url parameters, I just meant a few seconds old,  meaning the user is on property.aspx?property=1  then when they moved to a static page such as contact, directions, policy we now have another page called contact.aspx?property=1 which if I have 150 properties times 10 static pages I basically just created 150 duplicate content errors just for the contact page alone.   Because contact.aspx?property=1 or contact.aspx?property=150 and in between are all the same page... I am sure this has killed my SEO.   SO THAT PROBLEM IS NOW FIXED!! NOW to revisit what zenstorageunits says about URL rewriting which has many different ways to do it using .net,  but Miketek I would not have to create subdirectories because it is done in the code... they are more like virtual directories... zenstorageunits or anyone else for that matter, Is it worth it for me to hire somebody to create a URL rewrite app that can change the following; http:/www.destinationbigbear.com/property_detail.aspx?propid=202 to http://www.destinationbigbear.com/big-bear-cabin-rentals/a-true-cabin/details and http:/www.destinationbigbear.com/property_photos.aspx?propid=202 to http://www.destinationbigbear.com/big-bear-cabin-rentals/a-true-cabin/photos See everyone of my 150 cabins has these pages;   info, photos, calendar, video, reviews, rates...and they all have unique cabin names... so it is basically 150 cabins x 6 pages = 900 unique pages with unique content but really only 6 pages dynamically being changed by 150 cabins. I have been able to dynamically change all the page titles for everyone of these 900 database driven pages such as Big-Bear-Cabin | A True Cabin Photos   or Big-Bear-Cabin | A True Cabin Calendar and so on.

Sure, best example would be https://onlinempa.unc.edu/student-life/careers-in-public-administration/ Sample queries: public administration jobs mpa jobs careers in public administration uOnFjNt

Hi Mike, this is awesome but strangely, the only page on Wikipedia that gets returned for the following query, "inurl:digitalization site:wikipedia.org" in Google is <cite class="_Zd">ar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digitalization</cite> that too in Arabic language. So they do not have the exact match definition in English at this point in time as I write this. You can confirm this with the following query: "inurl:digitalization site:en.wikipedia.org" Out of the first 10 results in Google for the query, "inurl:digitalization", I tried to run the following query for each of these top 10 websites: "inurl:digitalization site:<each 10="" of="" the="" top="" domain="" names="">",</each> Only Gartner.com has 26 URLs (with "digitalization" in the URL) with only one exception, digitalization.nl which can be ruled out as the domain name itself contains, "digitalization". This case can be dug much,much deeper but let me stop here. Without having dug deeper in to this case, at this point, the only thing I believe would replace Gartner's definition with the definition from Wikipedia is, if they come up with a page that contains the term, "digitalization" in the URL and in the title. Best regards, Devanur Rafi

ok, thx for that. I will try it.  I know the pages that need the 301 from the others.  all the bad pages have index2.asp in the names.  I have changed my ftp and login passwords good to know the 404 don't count against me

Hi There In general you probably don't need to do that. Here's how I would normally deal with indexation in WordPress (assuming you're using WordPress); Categories - index Tags - noindex Date archives - noindex Author (single author blogs) - noindex Author (multi-author) - index Subpages - noindex Basically all these settings are shown in my post here on setting up WordPress: http://moz.com/blog/setup-wordpress-for-seo-success Yoast is the best plugin to do all this with!

There are only three reasons to no-follow a link, Tom. The link is untrusted - e.g. User-generated content like blog comments or forums The link is being paid for or is otherwise part of a business arrangement (this is a little broader - can include large-scale guest-posting and press releases) In specific cases to help manage crawl budget for a site (note: NOT to be used to try to manage flow of "linkjuice" internally through a site) Anything other than these uses could actually cause overuse of no-follow to make your own site look spammy/questionable. Here's a really good overview post from Raven Tools blog on exactly the question you're asking about what constitutes effective, safe use of outbound links. Hope that helps? Paul