Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks again, I guess I will have to look through keywords and see what traffic these news pages are still getting from google, then weigh up whether to tag them.

Hi Tyler. Both the links you offer are to Dr Pete's profile page. I am presuming this response was shared with you for your private Q&A? As a follow up to you or Dr Pete I would ask the following questions: Would you agree the best method of redirect would be at the server level? If so, would you agree that once a redirect is implemented at the server level there is no reason to keep the old page on the server, and that even if the old page was kept it would never be seen or crawled as long as the server redirect was in place? If the answer to both of the above questions is yes, then it is in perfect alignment with the information I shared. If the answer is "no", then I would have further questions based on the response. What method are you using for the redirection? The first response I shared specifically clarified it was for a server (htaccess) redirect. I use that example since it is the most common form in my experience, but there are other ways to do it. Thank you for sharing the reply. So far it sounds like it affirms the response I offered.

When I search for "jewelry display" the riogrande.com site shows as the 5th result. The page that appears is actually a search result page. It has a PA of 1 with no links. This type of page can bounce in and out of SERPs.

Put a asp:placeholder or asp:literal in masterpage. When you want to have a canonical-tag from an inheriting page, just give placeholder / literal value.

Unfortunately no. I've made some changes and now I'm just waiting for Google to come around...tips for expediting the process?

I've seen keywords separated with - and | and even >, and in my opinion, the separator you use shouldn't affect search rankings.  It may have an impact on click through rates within any given search engine result page, so you should try to find the one that is most visually appealing. Also, in general I like to try to be a bit more creative than "KEYWORD1 | KEYWORD2 | KEYWORD3 - SITENAME".  In my opinion, something like "KEYWORD1 and KEYWORD2 Tips and Advice, at SITENAME" is much better.  It feels less spammy, and I'm convinced results in a higher CTR.  I think most people are trending this way, lately: considering the user a bit more than the search engines.  I don't think you could have said the same thing a few years back.

Yeah... if you want the mobile version of your pages to appear in the mobile SERPs, I think you have to live with these errors.  If you'd prefer your regular page to appear in the mobile SERPs, and you'll redirect the user when they get there, then you could rel=canonical your mobile site pages to their corresponding www pages, which should take care of these errors.

This was the approach we were considering. However, what gave me pause was looking at other social networks are doing. LinkedIn only has 50k profiles. Meez has multiple index files and looks like they are indexing many of their profiles Facebook and MySpace don't appear to use Sitemaps (although they do have a crawlable member directory) WeeWorld has 500 links The point is there doesn't seem to be any consistency. If we end up creating a human readable directory ala Facebook does that achieve the same thing?

I can say from personal experience "inheriting" a bad code base or architecture and failing to correct it for the pain or cost of doing so makes everything else that much harder to do. In this day and age there is no excuse for not simply tackling the problem and doing things "right" . Changing CMS and blog and converting nearly 8000 pages to them was tough and took nearly 3 months of continuous work by 2 full time employees, but the rewards far outweigh the costs and pain.

Awesome! Thank you Anthony and Albin.

I'm not sure on the exact scheduling, but the rankings are only updated periodically. You should see your rank updated by tomorrow at the latest.

That is what I've been reading everywhere, so thank you for making me feel more comfortable noindexing those pages. Thank you so much.

This may be a known bug in OSE where some downloadable (binary) files are incorrectly being counted as links. Please see a Linkscape engineer's comment on a similar post at http://www.seomoz.org/q/competitive-edu-research-via-open-site-explorer, as I think that will answer your question.

Google just announced some tags to help support pagination better.  They say if you have a view all option that doesn't take too long to load, searchers generally prefer that, so you can rel=canonical to that page.  However, if you don't have a view all page, then you can put these nifty rel="next" and rel="prev" tags in to let Google know your page has pagination, and where the next and previous pages are. It sounds like you don't want to go the view all route, so you should read the second post below and you can implement the rel="next" and rel="prev" tags. (from the view all post below) However, if you strongly desire your view-all page not to appear in search results: 1) make sure the component pages in the series don’t include rel=”canonical” to the view-all page, and 2) mark the view-all page as “noindex” using any of the standard methods. View all: http://googlewebmastercentral.blo... next/prev: http://googlewebmastercentral.blo...