Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thank you Guys Appreciate your help!

I'm don't think there would be zero risk, but the risk would certainly be minimised. It's authenticity that really matters in all of this. If people are writing topically relevant blog articles that link to pages on the same subject and it's being done authentically, then you are working and operating the right side of the line. Peter

I'll put the content/user considerations aside for a moment, since I can't comment on content I can't see, and focus on the technical SEO aspect. You could reverse the 301-redirect, and send it back to the old page, but I'll be honest - it's likely to take a while for Google to process it. They're likely to be confused by the reversal. It's a tough call, but what I think I'd do in this case is the following. Let's say the original URL is (A), the "new" URL is (B). Currently, you're 301-redirecting (A) --> (B), and now you're going to put the content back on (A)... STEP 1 Remove the 301-redirects Rel-canonical (B) --> (A) Rel-canonical (A) --> (A) Change the signals from a 301-redirect to rel-canonical may help nudge Google. It will also allow you to place a self-referencing canonical on (A), which could help offset the old 301-redirect. STEP 2 Once the URLs are cleared, put a 301-redirect back in place from (B) --> (A) You could also just leave the canonicals, if they seem to be working. These situations often require some monitoring, to make sure Google is processing the new directives correctly. Give it time, though - don't panic and change things every week, or you could make the situation worse.

As Oleg Korneitchouk is correct on the schema side of things there is also the option to add in Google places link to your website which you'll need a separate page for that. Luke.

the /logout worked. It should be fixed though.

Hi Jeff, thank you very much for your answer. Yes, your input/feedback helps definitely! All the best, Wojtek

I'd say use both links for information that is relevant to the post and serves to enhance the post, and if those two links aren't enough, write such an awesome post that you'll be given an exception because the post just wouldn't work without those resources. I manage YouMoz, where people can guest post for Moz. We don't have a number limit on links, it's just what makes sense. I'll have a post submitted with no links that I return because it needs links, I'll have a post with links that need to be removed, and I'll have posts that have a valid reason for each of the 25 links they include in the post. http://moz.com/blog/dusting-the-website-for-spring-optimization-seo-cleaning is one post that would not have been published if there had been no links, or we limited the author to just two links.

Glad to hear it! Yeah, patience isn't easy, that's for sure.

It's not a regular problem. In this case, it's best to cancel and restart your exports, though it still may take 24 hours due to the backlog. Ugh...gotta love Mondays.

No the site is fully built can you see any more problems? I was considering what tom has said about setting up a canonical tag for the tabs and this has confirmed it for me - thanks tom

To clarify a couple of those points for you: If you have earned over 500 points on your account over any time period, you are eligible for full access to Q&A to respond and ask questions. Accounts are reviewed for this access on an account-by-account basis. You keep your ID/username no matter what level of account you have (free, pro etc.) As all accounts are subject to a review, if you have concerns or questions about this it is well worth getting in touch with someone at the Moz team, they're incredibly helpful and will be able to let you know what your options are.

If you've deleted the URL, you'll be in good shape.  A gazzilion links to a non existing URL won't do anything to the domain that URL is on-figuratively speaking. If you 301'd that url with all those spammy back link to the the site that belonged to the owner of that post, they'd might have to come crawling back to you in the hope of getting the 301 removed.  Not sure I would highly recommend that though.

now is ok, I can use it succesfuly, thanks for your response Abe.

Tom, Wow! Amazed that's in there. Thank you for pointing that out. Looks like it's part of the code for our site reviews widget. I hadn't even thought to look for something there, as assumed that SPDY was the issue. We're actually in the process of contemplating switching from http to https so now may be a good time to do it!

Hi Guys, This is great advice! Thank you! Cheer