Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Raven has a great tool for tracking links and link building. They even have a monitoring of links once you have acquired them. The monitor will give you updates on if the link changes. Great tool.

Dave, Thanks for the clarification.  You're definitely in a rare circumstance as compared to most web sites. In reality, since it's the Bible, there is going to be a duplicate content issue regardless, given how many sites currently and how many more will most likely publish the same content now and in the future.  From Eternalministries.org to KingJamesBibleOnline.org, concordance.biblebrowser.com, and so many other sites are all offering this content. If you can find a way to offer your content in a unique way, and within your own site, offer different versions of it (individual verses compared to entire chapters), then ideally yes, you'd want it all indexed. How you do that without adding your own unique text above or below each page's direct biblical content is the issue though. Given this challenge,this is why I offered the concept of not indexing variations.  Even if you weren't hit by the Panda update, any time Google has to evaluate multiple pages  across sites where the content is either identical or "mostly" identical, someone's content is going to suffer to one degree or another.  Any time it's a conflict within a single site, some versions are going to be given less ranking value than others. So unfortunately it's not a simple, straight forward situation where duplication avoidance can be guaranteed to provide the maximum reach, nor is there a simple way to boost multiple versions in a way to guarantee that they'll all be found, let alone show up above "competitor" sites. This is why I initially offered what are essentially SEO best practices for addressing duplicate content. If you don't want to lose the traffic you have now that come in by multiple means, the only other way to bolster what you've got already is to focus on high quality long term link building, and social media. The link building would need to focus on obtaining high quality links pointing to deep content.  (Specific chapter pages and specific verse pages), where the anchor text used in those links varies between chapter or verse specific words, broader bible related phrases, and the LDS brand. On the other hand, by implementing canonical tags, you will definitely reduce at least a number of visits that currently come in by variation URLs.  Will that be compensated for by an equal or greater number of visits to the new "preferred" URL?  In this rather unique situation there's no way to truly know.  It is a risk. Which brings me back to the concept that you'd potentially be better off finding ways to add truly unique content around the biblical entries.  It's the only on-site method I can think of that would allow you to continue to have multiple paths indexed. Combined with unique page Titles, chapter/verse targeted links and social media, it could very well make the difference. With what, over 1100 chapters, and 31,000 verses, that's a lot of footwork.  Then again, it's a labor of love, and every journey is made up of thousands of steps.

The forum or blog could improve rankings if it is on the same domain and attracts links from other websites.

Hi Erin - Is that a Google Webmaster file? Looking at those URLs in SERPS, it seems you have some content causing duplicates (although the file doesnt seem to represent it that way). Here's the URLs in Google search results for Term-Life-Insurance: http://www.healthchoices.ca/video/insurance-and-disability-planning/term-life-insurance http://www.healthchoices.ca/video/insurance-and-disability-planning/term-life-insurance/montreal/quebec (duplicate of previous) http://www.healthchoices.ca/video-link/insurance-and-disability-planning/Term-Life-Insurance http://www.healthchoices.ca/video/insurance-and-disability-planning/term-life-insurance/laval/quebec (duplicate of previous) Looking at the first two as an example, when you look at th pages themselves they are currently not exact duplicates. The first one is a video of a guy talking about term life insurance with some other video links, and the second page is a page that has an error "Error: Video Category Page is currently unavailable." where the page content should be. But that page had previously been an exact duplicate of the first URL the last time Google visited the page. Here is the first page again: http://www.healthchoices.ca/video/insurance-and-disability-planning/term-life-insurance Here is the cached version of the second (duplicate) page (as I'm currently seeing it, it was last cached on Apr 19, 2011): http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lBiovAAyiF0J:www.healthchoices.ca/video/insurance-and-disability-planning/term-life-insurance/montreal/quebec+site:www.healthchoices.ca+inurl:Term-Life-Insurance&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a&source=www.google.com To see these pages (or any potential duplicate URL issues), do this search in Google: site:www.healthchoices.ca To find pages with a specific URL pattern (like the term life insurance pages) try "site:www.healthchoices.ca inurl:Term-Life-Insurance" (without the quotation marks) Then at the end of the URL you see in the address bar, add "&filter=0" (without the quoutes). So what is in your browser address bar would look like this (although it may have some additional thinkgs in your URL like your previous query and your browser and language for example - that's ok): http://www.google.com/search?q=site:www.healthchoices.ca+inurl:Term-Life-Insurance&filter=0 I'm not sure what the URL issue is that you're referring to exactly based on the info you pasted and where you may have gotten it from - but I hope this is helpful.

I've put up a new site recently that I had been link building to during development. It got indexed in a strange way - just the main keyword, hyphen, domain name... I had it set to noindex but Google obviously followed a few links to it to see where they went. I'm hoping this will clear up for me once the site is cached. I assume you're experiencing another quirky Google ranking script, so it should be all cleared up on the next index of your site, regardless of the 302's actually supposed to be 301s Aaron

I assume by this post that it has positive implications, however I must admin that I'm not too familiar with eTags. SEOtown - article on eTags

Hi Eamon, If the URLs are static, you may just need to have your developer include the canonicalized links when the pages are published, unless you find and automated way to take care of this. Best Regards, Alex

Hey waynekolenchuk, I'm so sorry that you still haven't been able to see your links in Linkscape. Most new sites and links will be indexed by our spiders and available in Linkscape and Open Site Explorer within 60 days, but some take even longer for a plethora of reasons, including crawl-ability of sites, the amount of inbound links to them, and the depth of pages in subdirectories. Just so you know, here's how we do our index: we take the last index, take the 10 billion URLs with the highest mozrank (with a fixed limit on some of the larger domains), and start crawling from the top-down until we've crawled 40,000,000,000 pages (which is about 1/4 of the amount in Google's index). Therefore, if the site is not linked to by one of these seed URLs (or one of the URLs linked to by them in the next update) then it won't show up in our index I hope this information helps! While the site and links may not be indexed yet, give it some time - maybe we'll see it in OSE next month.

I was just thinking about this very thing this morning, get to the office and bang... there's the exact question.  What if the "secondary domain", the other ones I own, what if their url's are more keyword rich than my primary domain name.  Your answer seemed the most intuitive and beneficial to long term goals... pouring time into a "dummy site". Should we just be using these as vanity urls for tracking specific campaigns.  I'd have to admit... some of the urls I own are a little easier to remember and focused on a specific service (ex. seowhatever .com), than my primary domain name, which is my name! They've got to have more value... some are pretty darn good urls... the kind where you tell your buddy you bought it and he says, "THAT WAS AVAILABLE!!!!".

I'm not convinced social media is on a path of convergence. Each platform offers something different for its user base. But if you want to overcome the duplicity of multiple platforms, I found that Hootsuite.com has really helped me put a leash around social media management. Simply put, this platform combines all your social networks (Facebook, Facebooke pages, Flickr, Ping.fm, WorPress, etc.) and can post to all at once, or you can select which networks to post to at any given time. You can also schedule posts to be delivered on a schedule, which I find very convenient. Reports are pretty good in letting you know which post on each platform gives you the best response. I've also tried Hubspot but found it a bit under-featured and overpriced.

Right now I'm watching Rand's webinar on the future of linkbuilding.  I just got to the point where he talks about an experiment where they showed two identical pages of a website that served the purpose of fighting hunger in Sierra Leone.   The way I understand it, SEOMoz asked people to link to page A and tweet about page B.  The page that had tweets ended up outranking the site with links! That's pretty interesting.

The following is added to our robots.txt .. now lets wait and see the results User-agent: * Disallow: /admin/ Disallow: /? Allow /?product_date=&product_date2=* Disallow /?product_date=&product_date2=& To check the working of the robots.txt i found a handy website; http://phpweby.com/services/robots

I would go and test this yourself. Go on to Google, log out of your Google account, then type in your search phrase and add: &pws=0 to the end of the URL and hit enter. This will remove any customized results for you and will help you determine the accuracy of the results of the two trackers.

Hi, I think that accents do matter and can have a significant effect on rankings. I would suggest that you optimise different pages of your site for different variotions of the keyword (for example one with accent and one without accent), where the original content is a good fit for the keyword. This will then mean that you can broaden the range of keywords you rank for, Hope that helps, Alex