Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi there, Nope - this shouldn't be an issue, as Marty says, as long as the instances of you linking to this page multiple times are natural and necessary to the content. Avoid using too much optimised anchor text with these links, but Marty is also correct that linking with anchors like this is very common and a good way to point to content within a longer page.

I would recommend option #1. It's common for sites without SSL certs not to resolve properly at the HTTPS version of their URLs, and Google handles this fine. You could pull the log files and take a look at how often Googlebot / other users request HTTPS versions of that site A's URLs, to determine if that SSL/redirect set up is necessary. But I would not anticipate any significant negative impact on traffic letting the HTTPS version of site A kick a 404 or server error.

Even though I don't get it yet, I'm so proud of getting answer from Rand Fishkin !! Thanks Rand and all of you guyz.

Thank you Erin, that's clear. Would however be nice to see a label after the dropdown mentioning that "Next timeframe will become available at  Apr 19th". Another thing : Where is the data from my previous timeframe gone ? The dropdown only shows the latest timeframe, so then why is it a dropdown if only the latest is available ? Happy easter !

Thanks everyone, your responses are much appreciated! This helps clarify things.

Hey everyone! Just got a note from Erin at MOZ and the Google+ issue is fixed! Kudos to the team on getting that done. I know how tedious and time consuming debugging this issue must have been, but they kept on it even after this thread went cold. Very cool guys! Kevin

I hate to make it more complicated. But any website that scrapes content is surely looked down upon by Google. So, I would disavow links from those scraper websites as well just in case. As you wrote, something surely happened to you after that Penguin 2.0 update. So, I would disavow anything that could even remotely raise a red flag. (Note: You can write a note to Google explaining the situation directly in the disavow file -- as in, it was not your fault.) Still, I'm curious by the fact that you got hit despite the links being nofollow and/or having mainly brand-name anchor text. It might just be the sheer volume of links from release-distribution sites and scraper sites that caused it (if it was a LOT). Google's not always good at understanding context.

Google has stopped passing the search query in UTM Codes. It's a new development that you can read about here.

Hi, Going to agree with Fuel Interactive here - the best practice is to redirect page-by-page if you are combining sites, unless you are set on deleting / consolidating content from the merged sites into one smaller, tidier website. In that case, it's still best practice to redirect to the most appropriate page if one exists, rather than just to the home page. It can be a real pain to go through a consolidation / redirection process like this, so only do this if it's really necessary and will likely cause a big uplift in either performance or your ability to manage each area of the business. Dave is right that IIS can do a URL by URL redirect for you, or you can do this in your .htaccess file if you are using an Apache server as opposed to a Microsoft IIS server.

Short answer: Using the same content on different country-targeted TLDs is generally not a problem. The explanation: 1. Matt Cutts, the head of Google's web-spam team, says in this video that what you describe is generally not a problem (because you're not being a spammer who is trying to game the system). You can have the same content on different international domains under the same company / brand. 2. I'd review the international best SEO practices described here by Google just to make sure you're all in the clear. Google says you shouldn't worry too much about it, either. But I'd be sure to follow all of these guidelines -- geo-targeting settings for each domain in Webmaster Tools, for example -- in general to "tell" Google that you've got different TLDs targeting different countries. So, having sites with similar content at multiple international domains should be fine. Good luck! I hope everything's clear.

Thanks for link, Kevin. Will check it out. Sorry should have used the search, was on mobile at time and moz doesn't seem to work too well on a blackberry. Time to get a proper phone, maybe..

Hi there, Are you using the rel="alternative" tag (also referred to as the href lang tag) on the site? This tag will do the following: if your page for "FCR Media Lietuva, UAB" is available in English, Lithuanian and Russian, for example, but all of these pages are meant for the Lithuanian market each page will contain a different tag. They will look something like this: That is, the hreflang part of the tag says "This content is in English but it's meant for Lithuania." The second says "this content is in Lithuanian and is meant for Lithuania". The third is in Russian but is meant for Lithuania, etc. You can include as many country / language pairings as you like. This is a really handy tag for both countries where multiple languages are used, and for languages that are spoken in multiple countries. You can also end up with a situation where you have a set of tags like this: That is saying: "these two pages are the same, but one is in Czech and is meant for the Czech Republic; the other is in Lithuanian and is meant for Lithuania. But the content is actually the same, just directly translated." This tag is not intended specifically for this problem, but for duplicate content as a whole, where that content has been duplicated for the sake of providing content to people in different countries. As a result, I believe it would be a good tool to incorporate here due to the small amount of duplication as a result of title tags.

Contraire mon frere! You can have the content appear to visitors above the fold but have the content of the code appear far down the page using CSS content folding. That's definitely worth a read! Search for articles on that and you'll see what I mean.

You'll need to be running Apache with mod_ssl or Nginx with http_ssl_module enabled (And SPDY if you want), and you'll need to have 443 port enabled. Of course, you'll need to properly configure your VirtualHost(s) with a valid SSL certificate installed. Then you can simply change your "Wordpress Address" and "Site Address" in your Wordpress "Settings"-->"General" from http:// to https://. http://make.wordpress.org/support/user-manual/web-publishing/https-for-wordpress/ Hope that helps!

Hello Kevin, thank you so much for your help. I will do the changes now.

Interesting that many folks still think hosting videos on YouTube help with ranking. Sure, keep your visitors on your site, but more often than not, visitors prefer to watch a larger video on YouTube. They leave your site, possibly break your analytics funnels, maybe increase bounce rate, and you even have distracting ads on the videos. I'd try something like Vzaar or host on your own server. Calculate if your bandwidth would cost anything and get all that traffic, especially if the video URL is your own domain. Add that to a video sitemap, mark it up with schema.org, and then you have something that would help you much more than pushing your video out to sites that want to earn money from people watching your branded content. But if you still wanna do that, of course all the social media sites like Google+, Facebook, etc, then there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services