Welcome to the Q&A Forum

From your Campaign Dashboard, go to Manage Campaigns. You can archive or delete campaigns from there.

Thanks Joel that seems to be the best way forward (dedicated new campaign) so many thanks ! Dan

That's such an interesting point, because it happened a few years ago. Check this out: this story went up on Search Engine land in 2010 about a company that appeared to be seeking negative publicity because the brand mentions looked like they were helping the company rank - http://searchengineland.com/googles-gold-standard-results-take-hit-new-york-times-57081 Google didn't take kindly to that. http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2010/12/being-bad-to-your-customers-is-bad-for.html http://searchengineland.com/the-decor-my-eyes-fiasco-local-reviews-tactics-57725 http://searchengineland.com/no-you-cant-rank-well-just-by-cultivating-terrible-reviews-57333 The bloke involved ended up in prison.  http://searchengineland.com/decormyeyes-merchant-vitaly-borker-sentenced-to-four-years-in-federal-prison-132434 So yep, Google attempts to decide on intent in mentions as well, and I would guess that they have worked hard on that since the DecorMyEyes fiasco, which was a few years ago now. They definitely need to be careful that companies who are often talked about negatively don't benefit from it, although there are some examples of largely negative press companies doing quite well after those companies are also often linked to - Ryanair does crazy-well (even though they claim to only have just started doing SEO last year) with mostly negative press. My former agency did a good study on the travel industry a couple of years ago - see the PDF here. This screenshot shows the companies in the UK flights industry who were performing best in June 2011. Ryanair was the best-ranked airline, outperforming "legit" airlines. I see you're in the UK so you don't need it explained to you why that's pretty crazy! I can't get into Ayima's system to see how Ryanair perform today, but they're still page 1 for a few of the high value keywords I checked. Suffice to say it's a difficult task for Google, but since they created and subsequently are trying to destroy the linking ecosystem, they need to work hard on it.

I had kind of a 'derp moment'. If you control the same domain, take a look at your historic traffic (if possible) and definitely do a link audit on the error pages. You can 301 the old pages to their newer, relevant, counterparts. I would take that tact before removal.

Awesome Reed. Thanks for the hat-tip on Twitter too. I appreciate that. Cheers!

Hey Jeff, Thanks for the question. I took a look at your campaign and the traffic is showing perfectly on the dashboard. Additionally I checked the traffic section and it's had consistent updates on schedule since it was connected. If you're seeing something different than that can you send a screenshot over to help@moz.com so we can check it out? Cheers, Joel.

It may be difficult, particularly if the .com is also a well established brand in the UK.  That being said though, it isn't impossible to have your client rank in the SERPs as well for the same brand if you can establish them as a brand entity with Google. For example, here is a search I did for Peak Auto, a well known, established brand in the automotive supplies industry- http://screencast.com/t/ycYugMK876  You'll see there are two other local results in the mix of primarily Peak Auto results. Another example is to search for "Merck" in the .co.uk Google.  Some results will be from the US-based company of that name, the other results will be the German company of the same name.  And interestingly both are drug manufacturers. So it may not be an easy task, but it certainly isn't impossible.

Thanks very much Kristina. I will look into that.

Thanks very much for the link!!

It really depends what the content is like, but I'd recommend using Wistia as a rule for anything very product focused. YouTube is more like a social marketing channel than a video hosting platform and you have to ask yourself "is this content relevant for a YouTube audience". You can qualify this by using the YouTube keyword tool to get some ideas about what people are searching for and also look in your YouTube analytics to see how many of your views are actually coming from other youtube.com pages, rather than referrals from Google or other sites. If the content isn't relevant for a YouTube audience, then there is no benefit to having the content on the platform. Additionally, YouTube.com pages can outrank your own site for branded queries, which is suboptimal. The only other thing to bear in mind is that contrary to popular belief, YouTube is not normally a good source of referral traffic. People don't often click from Youtube videos back to your site, so don't rely on this as an option if you're trying to drive traffic to sell products. Your best bet is probably using Wistia, getting rich snippets for pages on your own site and driving all the traffic to your owned resource, rather than Youtube.com... since your audience can't buy from YouTube, so you're just adding a step into your conversion funnel unnecessarily.

Jane, Thank you very much. That is what I try to do-blog on a sub topic to add more depth to the page topic. I have just been paranoid after Penguin about trying to avoid similar key words and phrases that can be in page-but impossible for blog to make sense without some repetition. Dr. Seckel

Agree with Brad and Andy here - if you can keep this content within the same site, expanding and perhaps restructuring what you already have, that would be better. Some large corporates (think HSBC, Aviva, etc.) have a corporate site and a customer-facing site - and even then, it can get them into difficulty when the "wrong" site outranks the right one for certain content, like the brand name. In the case of big corporates, it's usually bad for business when a corporate site outranks the customer site, and this happens with annoying regularity to some of them. If it's possible to have all the content on one site, that site's home page is going to be virtually guaranteed to rank for brand terms, rather than there be a battle between a .com and a .co.uk, for example, for some queries. If your current CMS does not have the capability of building a larger site on your domain, consider investing in a new CMS as long as it makes sense to host both types of content on the one domain / site.

Hi Andy and Danny, thank you both for your answers, very helpful indeed. You have given me some confidence on continuing to build my content marketing efforts. Thanks

Just to confirm mosquitohawk's comments, there's not a great way to do this other than sorting through the spreadsheet. Hopefully URLs have distinct enough subfolders that you can break them out into sections easily.

Thank you for your answer. I would love to do it this way, unfortunately our current system wouldn't allow it. With more than 5000 products on our website, different content for each color variation would be time consuming. My question was about "noindex,follow" on children products (with the proper canonicalisation) and its SEO impact. But my guess is that canonicalisation should be enough to address the issue.

Thanks, Jane, that's a much better answer/example!

Hi, If you want those pages to be indexed and rank well, and there is a possibility of duplicate content between the secured and non-secured versions (or other content), you should implement the tag. Google crawls HTTPS pages (a simple search for inurl:HTTPS will show the extent of this), although if the pages are behind check-outs or log-ins, blocked by robots.txt, etc. and otherwise not available for crawling, there is no need to use the tag.

Hi Claudio, To the question of "is it dangerous to start with similar content to the old site", I would say that it's very hard to tell. Some sites in some niches all have very similar content (think or real estate aggregator sites in the same cities - it's not as if they have access to different properties on the same market - they generally list the same houses for sale and rent at any one time). However, Google is ver adept at processing text to understand it if has been recycled or "spun" from other content it has seen before. If the original content came from a severely penalised website, re-using it in this manner would definitely not be risk-free. You would probably also want to take the old site offline completely as opposed to simply noindexing its pages if you were to do this. Google understands very "similar" content due to content spinning having been such a popular way to create content in previous years. If you can re-work your existing content to be of a fairly different length (shorter or longer), take a different paragraph structure, and be placed on the new site that is very dissimilar to the old one in terms of structure, this may work out well. I cannot say that this is risk free however, for all the reasons Casey has brought up already.