Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Guys, Thanks for the responses, I appreciate both of your points. The main reason for me to do it is increased visibility in the SERPs. The original site sometimes ranks1st and 2nd and has that position pretty much secured. It no longer requires active resources for link building and over time it will get these naturally. I ask because I have recently acquired the .com TLD and instead of just 301'ing this, I thought I could make use of it and get maybe position 3 and 4 out of it. All content is unique, all links are natural and editorial references and there is competition that could touch it (that I can see :). The question really boils down to whether G will rank two sites that exist on the same IP on the same SERP? Does anyone know if this is possible or if there are factors in place to prevent this. Thanks Ben

Well, we are about to upload the redesigned website and since uploading will take some time, we want 503 status to be served

Having multiple h1 tags throughout the website is fine but having repetitive h1 on a single page dilutes the importance of h1 tags. There is no penalty for such usage because in doing so, the person himself dilutes its importance.

Manuel, I can think of a couple good options: Use meta tags to set page to noindex,follow so search engines won't index the page, but they'll pass the link juice on to other pages on your site. Let the page get indexed, and use the canonical meta tag to ensure that only one version is indexed.

Google seems to indicate that Pilotenausbildung is the correct version and the others are misspellings. I would optimize for Pilotenausbildung, but also make sure you sprinkle the other two versions in a few times onto your page.

I think a controlled test is needed since I've also been looking for this answer!

That's a good idea and could be worth trying out. My only slight worry with this is as newer products are introduced, there is invariably a period of time when both are popular searches so I wouldn't really want to append 'blue widget 2010' content to 'blue widget 2011' during this period and possibly lose rankings. I could add 'blue widget 2008' and 'blue widget 2009' of course to the 'blue widget 2011' page, but this might look odd that 'blue widget 2010' wasn't there. I guess I was also asking if losing pages looks bad to Google - do they like to see a continually growing site?

Hi Todd, There is no set time limit for the changes to appear. As you say that your pages have been cached i.e. crawled, the changes may get indexed sooner or later.

thanks!

Hey Preet, That's a good question, with a lot of information involved, actually! 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 We update our Linkscape Index every 3 to 5 weeks. Crawling the whole internet to look for links takes 2-3 weeks. And then we've got 1-2 weeks of processing to do on those links to determine which are the most important links etc. You can see a schedule of how often we update, and planned updates here: http://seomoz.zendesk.com/entries/345964-linkscape-update-schedule Linkscape focuses on a breadth-first approach, and thus we nearly always have content from the homepage of websites, externally linked-to pages and pages higher up in a site's information hierarchy. However, deep pages that are buried beneath many layers of navigation are sometimes missed and it may be several index updates before we catch all of these. If our crawlers or data sources are blocked from reaching those URLs, they may not be included in our index (though links that points to those pages will still be available). Finally, the URLs seen by Linkscape must be linked-to by other documents on the web or our index will not include them. For now, the best thing you can do to help your domain become indexed is to work on link building for links from sites with high mozrank. If you need help with that, you may want to ask the PRO Q&A community here! 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. Best of luck, Aaron

SEO is not dead. Why? I run the oldest, most informative, beautiful website in my niche yet I still get out ranked by spammy sites run by people who know nothing about the niche. What can I conclude from this? Content is not yet king. If you build it they won't necessarily come. Oh, and SEO is definitely not dead.

1. Yes 2. Using google analytics 3. Google organic search. 4. It's not site wide but it's prevalent on pages that we did not do the AJAX change to Thanks!

Yep

Hey! thanks for the info! this is awesome, i'll give them a call tomorrow and see if it gets me anywhere.

The key thing to do is to have unique content on both pages but the content may still be optimised or focused upon the same keyword or phrase as the other page. Also make sure each page has unique titles, meta description etc so that the search engine has no reason to look at the pages and think that it would be best to just display the one page due to duplicate content issues.

What we're trying to do specifically is use a flash video as a product image, so the size increase will be significant. We're talking somewhere around 1.5 - 2mb on a page that is about 400kb before the video. So the increase is significant. This is why the concern, and why we were thinking perhaps having the flash video inside an iframe might overcome the speed issues. Google often talks about doing the best user experience and the SEO will follow, but the two seem conflicting, as we're trying to provide a better experience with the video, but the increase in page size, and therefore speed, will be significant. The rest of the page will load, including a fallback static image, so we're really trying to understand how to mitigate the page load speed impact of the video.