Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I saw a mother and baby image from https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x487229d947828a81:0x6a25ec0b5e1b4b77!2m5!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i100!3m1!7e1!4shttps://plus.google.com/106079570079319333340/photos?hl%3Den%26socfid%3Dweb:lu:kp:placepageimage%26socpid%3D1!5slearning+tree+-+Google+Search&sa=X&ei=KPzPUqDXEYWw7AaW3YDgAg&ved=0CNwBEKIqMBU

I agree, it doesn't make any sense. I would redirect everything instead to a subfolder: example.domain.com -> domain.com/example example.domain.com/page-1 -> domain.com/example/page-1

Hi thanks for getting back. Yes got it sorted though you're right about even the smallest error causing major issues - left a [ character in the file which brought everything to its knees...one other small issue is that the Moz analytics tool is saying that I have duplicate content on 3 pages, but they're all the same page? See attached. any ideas how to solver this? x24dKw9.png

Authorship photos are showing up in some places, but not in others on my sites. Looks like profile page images have stayed up, while many blog author image results have disappeared. Another example: If you're logged in to Google and an author in your circles turns up in search, the image will likely be there; search the same term Incognito, and the image might be gone. Another good article I read: http://www.virante.org/blog/2013/12/19/authorshippocalypse-google-authorship-penguin-finally-appeared/

Absolutely! Add your subdomain in the field and check the box below to "exclude subdomains".

I completely understand wanting to target both. Since your title tag is too long, it seems to me that it would be better to choose one of the other to shorten it. Keep it in page copy and meta description where natural though... don't go changing that. But your title needs to be closer to 64 characters long. Plus Google takes into account pixel width to determine how long a title can be before it gets truncated. As to the redirect. Link equity does get passed with a 301. As long as the links are relevant, authoritative, and/or not spammy then that's a plus.

I think you're right to keep them on the site.  The biggest reason is probably so that people can still have access to the information through search and other means.  As for linking to them from the site, I think the same idea applies.  If you get a new follower and they love your content, they may want to read all of your historical posts.  And you shouldn't make it difficult for them to do that.  When I first discovered what is now one of my favorite blogs, I went back and read every post since it was started 3 or 4 years earlier.

I would organize reviews by most recent as it would show visitors what the latest thoughts are on the product and they can better learn what they are looking for, especially if the products have changed in anyway such as new formula, packaging, etc. A sampling would be fine for a testimonials-like page but might obvious to customers that it's not entirely truthful if they are all only good-great reviews on the product pages.

Hi SearchParty, I definitely vote in favor of the latter - a single website with landing pages for each of the physical locations. With this method, the marketing you engage in will go toward building the authority of all locations. Mini sites with exact match domains tend to be candidates for thin and duplicate content, so I'm not a fan. Beyond this, I think they overly-complicate the scenario, when a single domain with strong content for each location keeps things simple for human visitors and the bots.

Hi SearchParty, If these are all real physical locations to which customers come to do business or from which staff goes to serve clients, then my rule of them is to include up to eight of them in the footer, properly marked up using Schema. There should also be a unique page on the website for each location.

If you have tried to contact the web masters of the sites containing links on and have had no response you need to disavow these links.

Presuming your client is planning on launching in the US using largely the same content, perhaps with minor regional amendments, then this would be an ideal situation to use hreflang. There is plenty out there on correct use and implementation of this. You could start be reading this article. Hope this helps.

Handle this with care and I'm not responsible for breaking anything on your site. RewriteRule ^(.*).html$ http://new.site.com/$1 [R=301,NC,L]

I'm not really clear on why you would want a query using either variation of this to be the same. If the page is ranking differently for each of those queries, I don't think there is anything you can do to make sure they both achieve the same ranking. Where the page ranks based on a search query is down to Google and will be affected by all sorts of metrics including where that query is entered and who entered it etc. My advice would be to concentrate on ranking for the term that is most commonly used of the two of them and optimise for that. Inevitably, you will see the page ranking for the other spelling and that is good if you do, but you cannot really control where it ranks. Peter

Hey Chris, Don't get me wrong, I am with you in leaving behind the high risks, my frustration comes more from Google's SERP results and behavior on spam sites than what you say, but I dont think a footer link for a web design company produce any sort of threat or places a site on a "churn and burn" status or even high risk. Then again I bring MNS, quick cash in, affiliates and spam in mind when I see "churn and burn" so it might be me.

On every result on the first 6 pages the domain name is in either the meta title or meta description  ( Bar the very first result which is the homepage).  The landing pages do not have the domain name in them,  So Matt's point that "site:domain.com" is really "site:domain.com domain.com"  makes a lot of sense. Also a good few of my landing pages are ranking, while 95% of the search pages ( that are on the first 6 pages) are not ranking ( 5% that do rank were once link to from the main site , which has been removed, but google is still stubbornly ranking them over the proper landing pages even though they don't have any back links anymore)

Hey There, Thanks for writing in with a great question. The solution that Carin referred to in the forum of the first link you provided unfortunately didn't work as we had hoped, so we've suffered a bit of a set back on this feature update. We are currently working on a new plan of action, but we don't know how long this may take to resolve. Our current hope is February or March, but it really depends on a number of factors and we can't say for certain when you will start seeing HTTPS in OSE. I would recommend subscribing to the feature forum and posting questions regarding the status there. That way, you'll get the status you're looking for and it will be in a place for other users to see easily, as well. Please let me know if you have any other questions I can help with. Chiaryn