Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Liam, There's no problem with the links as long at they're nofollowed. You can let the client know that sitewide followed footer links from a network of sites when out of practice as an SEO techique back in the dark ages. As long as the client doesn't think of them as helping the algorithmic results of the other sites and only thinks of them as a way to send referral traffic to the other sites, they'll be in good shape.

Aha - I was just logging in to Pro, now in Analytics and problem sorted. KUDOS to you Mr Censorious!

Hi Thomas Did you agree with the SEO people a list of KW to rank on?. I just ran a simple search with some kw on google.co.uk and the rankings I found were aluminium school signs    5     safety signs    50+     school sign company    7     school signs    50+     school signs in aluminium    5     we love school designs    50+ So you are at least on first page for some of the KW in your title tags and that describe your business. This is not what you expect to see if your website drops to the 10th page of Google's results. Try downloading a program called "free google monitor" from cleverstat, Use it to find your ranking for the KW that are important for you. You probably still rank well enough on them. In my opinion the SEO company is giving you a vague list of what they will do. The activities they list are not wrong, but since they lack detail I would not be comfortable with giving my business to them. I think they are not being straightforward with you on what happened, why it did and what is it exactly that they will do about it. You should probably get a quote from some other (quality) SEO companies. Cheers Jorge

Reports are exported as PDF, so you can't edit the text directly. However, there are some tools that allow you to edit PDF files as if they were DOC files, for example NitroPDF (it's not free, but is worth it. And they offer a free trial I think).

Do you have at least a guess on the percentage of improvement?

Thanks Peter, that's very useful advice:) Does anyone else have any thoughts?

hi This does not seem correct to me i will check out the link you have provided, but not sure how these pages can be considered duplicate when all three pages have the exact same url defined within the canonical meta Regards Paul

Google has been rewriting page titles for years, even on sites like Apple.com. Sometimes it's to better match user intent with the search, and sometimes it's because they think your title tag is spammy. Barry at Search Engine Roundtable has several pieces on this.

Thanks, it's finally working today

Thanks i ask that all in separate questions

Hello Erez, You can follow a solved thread here http://moz.com/community/q/duplicate-content-and-http-and-https Thanks

Hey Katrine, Thanks for writing in and sorry for the confusion. The "Number of Domains Linking to this Page" and "Number of Domains Linking to Domain" in the CSV you downloaded actually refer to the URL that is linking back to your site. This information is provided so you can have some insight into the quality of links that are referring back to the page you are researching. I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Chiaryn

Thanks Peter!

Hey there, Unless I'm missing some information none of the rules there would redirect either of those pages to the homepage. Is there more of the file? -Tom

Hi Beytznet, Some questions: Is your national business virtual (like an e-commerce website) or does it have actual, physical locations where face-to-face business is transacted with customers? If you have physical locations, does each have a unique address, not shared by any other business? Does each physical location have its own local area code phone number? Some advice: If you do have staffed physical locations at which in-person transactions happen at unique addresses with unique local phone numbers, then you qualify for inclusion in Google's local index. Think of a chain store like Whole Foods. It has a corporate website, but also has a local listing for each of its locations. This would be the model any such chain would follow. Appearing the local results will depend first on the fact that Google already shows local results for your queries. If Google doesn't already provide a local pack of results for your queries, there is no way to prompt them to do so. If Google does show local results for your desired queries, then you must pursue high rankings via a variety of efforts including, but not limited to: Running a strong, excellent website that works to build authority Creating a unique landing page on the website for each of your physical stores, with the complete name, address, phone, preferably encoded in Schema markup Creating a violation-free Google+ Local page for each of your stores and linking each listing to its respective landing page on the website Creating citations for each of the stores on third party local business directories. Earning reviews Earning links, doing social outreach, video marketing etc. If you do not meet all of the requirements I've mentioned, you do not qualify. You can read the complete Google Places Quality Guidelines here: https://support.google.com/places/answer/107528?hl=en Hope this helps!

Thanks Peter!

I've tested both and the logic looks fine. However, as always with .htaccess changes, I'd recommend testing to verify this has been set up properly once you roll these out (easy enough with a quick ping / page load).

Yes, both result in the same. The difference with the first one that I gave is that it tests !^www.mydomain.com for non-inclusion(due to the exclamation mark before the www) of the www. The condition (RewriteCond) tests the URL following to see if it does not include www. If the condition is true (i.e. is does not include www) then the RewriteRule is applied. I hope that makes sense. Peter