Welcome to the Q&A Forum

google might recognise it as an affiliate link and therefore unnatural and so reduce or remove its seo value.

Sort of.  It's per page, not per website.

Thanks, Yes I agree there's no point in trying to shoe-horn something into what it isn't. I was just wondering if I'd missed something and it was possible! Thanks for your input, Amelia

That is a weird one, even googling the url its not showing it.  Stinks of a penalty but you have no msg in GWTs and the backlinks look clean (even a backlink from RTE, which should be golden).  And it seems google is caching it ok http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ZXKkuLuk6UkJ:www.yourdairygold.ie/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie The only thing I noticed is that www.butteritwithdairygold.ie is 301 redirecting to it, and I thought that maybe that domain is burnt, but again its backlink profile seems clean.

Why do you think that this will "hurt" you? I mean you provide a very useful tool for other webmasters and their visitors. The only thing you have to keep in mind is that you might need a lot of ressources to keep the system running. If your tool is embedded and needs to work with the original source, you need a powerful server to handle all those requests... nothing is more annoying than a helpful tool which doesn`t work

that sounds DELIGHTFUL. haha I'd like to give that a try....or maybe test it on one of the interns

Same Issue here. All loads up fine and get stuck at validation. Should I send along the .csv? facebook page is emh3.com luxury real estate which works fine. Many thanks. Adrian

Hi Jeff, thanks for your question! Did you see the responses from Dana and Donna? They asked some very good questions. We'd love an update, thanks! Christy

Closing this particular thread as it's a duplicate - answers going up on the other thread.

I hear ya! I find one of the biggest issues ecommerce sites have with rankings has to do with their data. That and a lack of canonicalization to help Google figure out which are the money pages.

If this is still an issue you're facing, have you checked the sitemap settings to see which page types are getting included? For example, a site with a few thousand tags that are not entered in the sitemap but not yet set to noindex could easily produce extra pages like this. The next step is parameterization. Anything going on there with search URLs or product URLs? eg ?refid=1235134&q=search+term or ?prod=152134&variant=blue If you really want to scrape through Google, get a list of your sitemap and scrape queries like "inurl:domain.com/a", "inurl:domain.com/b", "inurl:domain.com/c". etc. This should allow you to dive deeper into the site map to see what Google really has indexed. For URL subfolders with tons of URLs like domain.com/product/a, you'll want to do the same thing at a subfolder level instead of root URLs.

Just in case you haven't seen it yet, I'd take a look at the linkbuilders in Moz's list of recommended companies. Good luck!

Moving to a purely static version of the site could certainly have some performance improvements, but that alone is not a guarantee of reduced latency for your customers. You're also likely to lose some flexibility that a platform like Wordpress offers in terms of managing the site. My suggestion would be to start off by analyzing your site using Google's Page Speed service and then see if there are options within WordPress to eliminate the worst performance offenders reported by the service. http://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/

Hi Aaron, Glad you sorted out a fix for now - I couldn't find a bot name either (and people who are simply thieving aren't likely to obey robots.txt either). Let us know if we can help more. Cheers, Jane

Hi Cole, Unfortunately there is a solution for this for international duplication but not national. If we were talking about international locations, the solution is the hreflang tag. I'll link to it here just in case it's of use in the future: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en Nationally, canonicalisation will remove the non-canonical versions from the index and of course from rankings, as Chris has said. I've looked at medical queries in the past, and Google is very adept at taking IP into account when returning results, the fact that it thinks my IP is located an hour's drive south of here notwithstanding I would say that re-written content is your best bet if you can't use one page listing multiple locations (highly unlikely) and truly need separate sites for all 13. There can be a little cross-over / duplication without causing too much worry, but I would be concerned that Google is not good enough at a national level to differentiate between duplicates in the same way it can do this for internationalisation.

Jane, Thank you very much. This is the second time you have helped me! Thanks Brooke