Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Matthew, ...it sounds like you think Google can handle multiple sets of markup on a page? With a few exceptions yes. For example we regularly use schema for Local business on the same page that we have review markup. This markup is used by the search engines to provide the best results on the serps. I am sure there is a way you can go overboard, but I am not sure there is a penalty for that if all of it were true. For product reviews, you do not want review markup on a page for more than one product is an example of not having multiple sets of markup. (But you could have local business markup on that same page. I don't think the WP sidebar markup hurts (but it is of no value to your site IMO). Hope this finally clarifies, (sorry I did not see the question after my first response) Robert

I'm currently seeing EXTREME failures, even on branded terms. It optimizes for CTR rather than Conversion Rate. Or at least that's what I've seen. I don't understand the rational behind it. I would suggest testing it on a lesser converting campaign but one still with more than 15 conversions/mo. I agree that lower-volume terms & conversion optimizer don't work well together. I'd suggest instead coming up with a bid management strategy to execute for some of the mid volume keywords and managing them on a more individual level. When you get the account strategists, on a completely unrelated topic, you should ask for a list of betas that your account qualifies for! I'm sure you already do that, but they aren't much good at anything else.

Here is my experience... Client runs a large ecommerce site and also creates a feed that is used for the Amazon listings. When title on ecommerce site = title on amazon, only the amazon listing ranks (images and product descriptions are the same) When title on ecommerce site is slightly different than title on amazon (e.g. "brand model t-shirt" vs "brand men's model t-shirt"), both of the pages rank in search. So titles MUST be different in all channels, images/descriptions should be different, but not nearly as important. If you have a handful of products, I'd invest the time in creating several variations of the descriptions/images. If you have thousands, you are better off spending your resources elsewhere.

Just adding to what the others have said, but there could be a number of reasons: WMT is slow You actually lost the links The links aren't being redirected properly, i.e. multiple hops, no redirect at all 302's and other redirection CAN actually show up in WMT, you'll see it listed as "via this intermediary link.... The advice the others gave is solid, you'll need to double check with some kind of HTTP response code tool to check. Please supply a URL. Cheers, Dave

That's right.

How would you force google to recrawl them?

Thanks Doug, that's really helpful. Good to see that phrase has bounced back up as well. We've been looking at our backlinks as we are aware there are a lot of bad, irrelevant directory sites that we are clearing up. Historically the old sites were in a pattern of steadily declining organic traffic, from the end of 2012. This has transferred to the new site (keywords slipping a few places, less long tail traffic). We think this may be due to a poor backlink profile. We will also look into doing some outreach to the linking domains on the old site and see if we can get these moved over to the new site rather than just relying on the redirects. Thanks again!

This might be a shot in the dark not knowing much about your site - can you check in Google Webmaster to see if you accidentally removed your website using the Remove URLs tool? I know of someone that accidentally did this when copying a pasting a URL, but accidentally only copied their main website address and not the full URL (oops!) and their site dropped out of Google SERPs rather quickly. Just a thought...

Thanks for the question: "To maintain or improve our rankings i'm looking for specific information for the link structure. For example, is it better to have the 'about us'/rel=author on each domain, with contributors on that specific domain or is it better to have them all in the (umbrella) brand domain." I'd say that it comes down to how much you want to differentiate your current brands from each other. If you want to keep them quite distinct and each one has it's own team / writers / USPs etc, then you are best to have each domain have it's own sections. "I think to maintain the rankings it is best to keep specific content (like blog/ about us) on the domain. So is it the best to just do side wide links with a logo (like health.com) and what about hosting? We work with wordpress, so all domains will be hosted on one ip? when we use the multiple site option of WP?" In terms of cross-linking, I'd say that you should try to do this where relevant and as James has pointed out below, as long as you're not doing this in huge volumes, you should be fine and not trigger any problems with Google. The only time you may want to be careful is where your domains are competing for the same types of keywords. I would avoid cross-linking too much with exact match keywords as this could be seen as manipulate, I'd keep it on brand and to relevant pages. If the domains you own are in the same niches, then you may hit problems of them competing against each other. I'm not sure if this is the case? If they are in the same niche, then Google certainly can look at things like IP address and footprints that links the sites together, it is hard to know to what extent this would harm you but Google certainly prefer to show diversity in search results rather than having multiple sites from the same company.

Hi Wesley They won't see it as a normal link, but Google will try to probably crawl and process them, it just would take longer to do so. If you really want to prevent Google from crawling a link, use the rel=nofollow attribute like this on the link itself; sign in Reference here

Yep, I guess they probably wish they could change it! Have a look at their corporate website and you'll see that they just drop the ampersand from their domain name.

Hi Mark, Yours is a really interesting point. Have a look at this post, from Ana Kravitz, which I suggest you to read, I believe you will find some of the answers you are searching for. http://www.akravitz.com/tag-track-social-media-traffic-for-google-analytics/#comment-106132 Cheers from an almost sunny day in southern Spain.

Hi Varun, It's great to have you here in the forum! As Matt-Antonio and ClaudioHeilborn have correctly stated, the business name you enter when you create your Google+ Local page must be your real business name, with no additional keywords of any kind. This advice is based on what Google states in their Google Places Quality Guidelines: Do not attempt to manipulate search results by adding extraneous keywords or a description of your business in the business name field. The guidelines are the best place to go to understand the rules Google has published regarding the use of their product. Here's the link: https://support.google.com/places/answer/107528?hl=en Hope this helps!

Hi Derek! Thank you so much for writing in! I looked into your account, and I have an answer for you. When you first create a campaign we do a rush collection to gather data. However, anything added after the fact will update on a weekly basis. You added this GA account a few days after you created your campaign. After the initial rush collection, your data will update weekly on the same weekday (+1 day) you created your account. You created this campaign on 1/28/14 (a Tuesday), which means your data should update by 12:00 am PST on Wednesdays. I'm sorry for any confusion that caused, and you should see updated data by EOD tomorrow! I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions! Cheers, Erin

Hi, I'd agree with both Dave and Tommy but also would suggest you rewrite your on-page copy to make it more clearly about dolls' houses and dolls' house accessories. At the moment it sounds a bit like a random collection of keywords, for example: "With such a huge choice of**: Accessories, Books, Dolls, Figurines, Houses, Basements, Flooring, Glues & Scenic Materials, 12 volt Lighting & LED Lighting, Mouldings, Stairs, Plans, Play Houses, Roofing, Windows** and Doors there is sure to be something that will appeal." etc. While I as a human reader can tell that these are all accessories for a dolls house, taken as individual terms they don't seem to have much relationship to each other (in terms of targeting). This is a top level category page targeting the term 'dolls' house'. So that should be your main keyword/topic. Also a couple of those terms ('Books' and 'Flooring') are links which looks a bit weird with the exact match anchor text (esp since they are actually 'dolls' house/miniature books' and 'dolls' house flooring'.)

Unfortunately, that's a lot more tricky. If you're trying to rank both the .com and .sg version for, let's say, US residents, and those sites have duplicate content, then you do run the risk of Google filtering one of them out. If you use canonical tags or something like that, then one site will be taken out of contention for ranking - in that case, you won't rank for both sites on the same term. The only way to have your cake and eat it too is to make the sites as unique as possible. Even then, you're potentially going to duplicate effort and cannibalize your own rankings, so it's a risky proposition. In some cases, it may be better to try to promote your social profiles and other pages outside of your site that have some authority. It doesn't have to be your own site ranking, just a site that's generally positive or neutral.

Check this article which pretty much covers everything related to micro-formats https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en If you're using WordPress then you can use this plugin which has support for pricing and rating but keep in mind that they are not visible to the user. http://simplemediacode.com/wordpress-pugins/itemprop-wp/ I usually add them manually so I can format them and display them nicely to users while still showing micro formats.