Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hey! It seems that you already have the correct answer: "It is a punch of useless content.", "now it is better to focus on your product site or create 1 good websites rather than a network of sites". Content without added value means useless, and therefore outranked by better sites.

It could be a coincidence, have you tried doing it over a different time period.  Bounce rate and exits from start page are slightly different.  If you have interactions tagged on the page such as Events and the user triggers them then leaves it will not be a Bounce but will be an Exit. Also, if you are not using premium, GA uses sampling so expect differences. In Web analytics tools in general I expect up to a 5% difference for the same metric in different reports, that's why it is all about trending over time and comparison rather than absolute numbers. Hope that helps?

Well this system the company made is used for a lot of companies that sell a particular manufacturers products, so they have it set up this way so that when the manufacturer adds a new product it updates every site that they built.  Its a mess. I already found a company from another state that had my clients name left in their title tags from when they copied the info over. At least I got that resolved though.

Hi Scott I think it depends on the size of the brand and site of the company that provides the franchise. I was speaking to a client today who runs a franchise locally and they are stuck, as a franchisee, with having to have a page on the company site. But if you search for the brand (which is quite well known) then you will see the pages that are relevant locally. I hope that helps, Peter

Very interesting Vadim! Thank you.

Hi Lorenzo I sent an email to you this morning from our existing thread. Are you able to see it in your inbox or spam folder?

would now looking at the DA and PA of the domain/page respectively, be equally effective in determining the quality of a site, to ascertain whether it is worth reaching out to...? -Yea it will be more effective. Hope this helps

Thanks guys, I decided to use both and it's working great. Reads better too. Aron

Does your friend have FTP access? If he/she does, then put a 301 redirect from the one you want to rank to the other. Having a site with "www" and without is actually having 2 pages with the same content, something you can easily fix by redirecting the entire domain to the other with a 301 response. If he/she does have FTP access, look for the .htaccess file and put the following: RewriteEngine On RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !=businessname.com [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://businessname.com/$1 [R=301,L] Remember to change "businessname.com" with the actual domain name. Hope that helps!

Hi Dave I really don't think the optimisation of Title tags post-Hummingbird changes very much if any at all. Google continue to use the Title tag (up to about 70 characters) as the link in SERPs and the Title tag is still an important factor for telling both human and search engine visitors what the page is about. Apart from, perhaps, blog posts, where you might have a longer-tail title that reflects the subject of the post, e.g. "How Google is Changing Long-Tail Search with Efforts Like Hummingbird", a Title tag can be optimised in much the same way as before. The importance with Hummingbird is focused on Google providing a more intelligent understanding of search requests which might be for a long-tail search request, but the intent of the user's search can still be boiled down to less words. I recommend reading Ammon Johns recent blog post, "Hummingbird – The Opposite of Long-Tail Search" in which he talks about someone, sat in Denver on his mobile phone searching “Where’s a good place where I can get a pizza?”. Google's analysis of that search is that they can work out the person is sat in Denver and it will work out that the connection between the words "place" and "pizza" means a restaurant. The short tail result for the intent of that search can be summed up in a Title tag of "Denver Pizza Restaurant". So you could still use a short Title tag like that and it would work, as long as, of course, other on-page and off-page elements supported the relevancy of the page for the search as did the rest of the website. Another great blog post recently was Gianluca Fiorelli's "Hummingbird Unleashed". In it he wrote one sentence which I found very helpful for understanding SEO for Hummingbird: "We should stop focusing only on keyword optimization and start thinking about topical optimization." I hope that helps, Peter

Yes it is the News Ticker you provided the link to. To be fair I don't understand what is happening with my anchor text and it may have had nothing to do with the news ticker now I look at it. All my anchor text within my site now seems to be "HOME" at the moment! However, I am very grateful you pointed out the ticker is OK.

There are definitely sites that are (to quote George Orwell) "more equal than others". Wordpress would be hooped is those types of links were catalysts to a penalty ... at least in a level world. I dont' think anyone could say with 100% certainty that it won't bite you in the butt so nofollow is probably the route to go.

Casey - Let me take a quick stab at your question. I think that you are asking what affect a non-followed link vs. a followed link has on SEO rankings for a site? If so, then the answer is that generally, nofollow links coming into your site don't help your SEO efforts. That said, the real answer is a little murky, and I'll take a stab at explaining it below: According to Moz's Open Site Explorer, 2.97% of all links they found were nofollowed, out of 106 billion URLs and 150 million root domains. http://www.opensiteexplorer.org All of the links from Moz.com's QA section are no-followed, as an FYI. Wikipedia's external links are no-followed as well… and this was done as a means to reduce abuse of the system and prevent people from using WikiPedia as one giant inbound link source. According to the nofollow WikiPedia entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nofollow … Nofollow links were originally suggested to stop comment spam in blogs, and in early 2005 Google's Matt Cutts and Blogger's Jason Shellen proposed the no-follow value to address the problem. Generally speaking, no followed links don't help your site from an SEO perspective. That said, Google has left it a bit open with their answer on how they handle no followed links: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/96569?hl=en How does Google handle nofollowed links? In general, we don't follow them. This means that Google does not transfer PageRank or anchor text across these links. Essentially, using nofollow causes us to drop the target links from our overall graph of the web. However, the target pages may still appear in our index if other sites link to them without using nofollow, or if the URLs are submitted to Google in a Sitemap. Also, it's important to note that other search engines may handle nofollow in slightly different ways. Here's what Matt Cutts of Google says about nofollow links: http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/ "Nofollow links definitely don’t pass PageRank. Over the years, I’ve seen a few corner cases where a nofollow link did pass anchortext, normally due to bugs in indexing that we then fixed. The essential thing you need to know is that nofollow links don’t help sites rank higher in Google’s search results." It's possible that no followed links can actually hurt you, if you have too many of them, and you're trying to use followed vs. no-follow links within an internal link structure of your site to "Page Rank Sculpt" pages in your site: According to Wikipedia: On June 15, 2009, Matt Cutts, a well-known software engineer of Google, announced on his blog that GoogleBot will no longer treat nofollowed links in the same way, in order to prevent webmasters from using nofollow for PageRank sculpting. As a result of this change the usage of nofollow leads to evaporation of pagerank of outgoing normal links as they started counting total links while calculating page rank. The new system divides page rank by total number of out going links irrespective of nofollow or follow links, but passes the page rank only through follow or normal links. Matt Cutts explains that if a page has 5 normal links and 5 nofollow out going links, the page rank will be divided by 10 links and one share is passed by 5 normal links. http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/pagerank-sculpting/ Back to Wikipedia, though… Google states that their engine takes "nofollow" literally and does not "follow" the link at all. However, experiments conducted by SEOs show conflicting results. These studies reveal that Google does follow the link, but it does not index the linked-to page, unless it was in Google's index already for other reasons (such as other, non-nofollow links that point to the page). I hope this helps! -- Jeff

Hi Alex, I'm going to write from a Local SEO perspective because this is what I know, but I hope you'll get lots of feedback from traditional SEOs as well to your good question. Yes, for some years now, Google has been localizing more and more results. If you are searching from a Miami-based device for any term which Google perceives to have a local intent, they will typically show you results that are geographically local to you. Google does not handle all terms this way. For example, if your website is about Abraham Lincoln or scotty dogs, searches for these things are unlikely to trigger local results. But, if you are searching for shoes, furniture, cell phones, etc., then it is quite likely that Google will presume that you are looking for a local resource and will localize the results to you. This is the case for countless terms that Google has deemed to be local, and for good or ill, this has put national, non-local business owners at something of a disadvantage. Simultaneously, if you are in Miami and your national client is in Denver, you will both be seeing different results. In other words, you will be seeing results that are local to Miami and he will be seeing results that are local to Denver. Because of this, there are no 'standard' results or firm rankings. In sum, what you are experiencing is a common phenomenon. I would expect that national business owners struggle to build enough authority so that they might be included in these perceived local results, overcoming Google's bias. Given this, I'll leave off here in hopes that some of our expert traditional SEOs can explain if/how they are overcoming this bias. I hope my explanation has helped you to see that you are experiencing something quite real and quite common.

Hi Charles, Do you mean that your client has more than one physical location, or that they have a single physical location and would like to rank for more than one city? If the former, then standard practice is to have a landing page for each physical office, optimized for that city with the complete NAP and unique text. The Google+ Local page and citations can then be tied to this page. If the latter, then you can't build a Google+ Local page or citations because these require a physical address within a given city. Instead, common practice is to build city landing pages that showcase your work in that city. You can back this up with linkbuilding to these pages, if possible. You can also work on other efforts such a Social Media outreach to audiences in these cities. Video marketing can be a big help, too. Basically, your options depend on your business model. Does this answer your question? Please, let me know.

Hello and thanks for contacting Moz. Send this request and VAT number to help@moz.com and we would love to add that number for you. Sorry for the inconvenience, we hope you are having a great week!