Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Marie, I have sent you private message here. Thanks for offering your help to look into our issue.

I agree that it isn't necessary but I wouldn't automatically consider it spammy, either. (The content will determine that far more than the URL structure). Considering the URL structure as above will not make the site look spammy. Consider a www.myshoeshop.com/womens-shoes/  /mens-shoes/ /boys-shoes/ /girls-shoes/ It is relevant (i.e.) the page in question deals in mens shoes etc. All you have done is indicate to the visitor that this page relates to their search; no harm in that. When you use the On-page grader: https://moz.com/researchtools/on-page-grader, one of the considerations is keyword in URL so it's expected. One page for one keyword is still common practice (though Google's introduction of Rankbrain will see this diminish over time: https://moz.com/blog/optimizing-for-rankbrain-whiteboard-friday) and we will need to evolve our content and thinking in alignment with this. You could, of course simply use mycouponsitename.com/walmart etc.  as you allude to in your statement. I'd worry less about the URL structure and more about the content as here's plenty of scope to make this look spammy, depending on how you deliver the content. Deliver relevance and engaging content, don't bombard me with ads and, most importantly perhaps, provide COUPONS THAT ACTUALLY WORK and you will have delivered a great user experience. Your/the clients revisit rate will go up and people will spread the joy, regardless of the URL structure.

Hi there, In any case I would not expect a lot of traffic to posts that are syndicated. Generally people use syndicated content to supplement what's already there. So if the idea is to get more traffic through these posts, I would suggest finding another way. Having said that, my understanding is that syndication-source still works, but canonical will override it. If you have something that says they no longer recognize it I have never seen it. I've used syndication-source when I don't know the URL or where a CMS/API doesn't allow me to get the URL, as you can point syndication-source back to the root domain URL. I've also seen sites just post something like "Originally published on http://example.com/page" without incurring any penalties. To do it by the book, I'd suggest canonical first, syndication-source second, and a source link third. And in this case I'd suggest doing it by the book because syndicated content is generally not going to give you a lot of organic search benefit. Hopefully that helps.

Thanks for your help. It's strange that the fr. is even working. That should not work, I wrote it in my previous message, but the . was the end of my sentence I don't think that could be the problem, but it's good to know and to fix it anyway!

Howdy, I assume that in your case it doesn't happen automatically. In this case you'll need to use an IF statements in the head/header file. Basically, it would be this: IF current page url = url you want THEN display canonical tag with wanted url Repeat that for all needed url and you are good. If there are many of those, CASE might be better.

Hi Sno! Great question here. International SEO can definitely be a tricky beast! And I'll definitely take you up on that free dogsled ride in Lapland if I can help you Some questions for you: .se is Sweden, yes? And Lapland is in Finland, right? Is your domain targeted just towards Sweden in Search Console (assuming you have that set up) or is there no international targeting set? Though from looking at your page you're in Kiruna, Sweden, so this shouldn't be an issue. The page is cached, but I see that it hasn't been recached (or potentially even crawled) since Dec 26, 2016. Link to cache. How long has this site been live? I am not seeing any external links to it. You're not up against any hugely formidable competitors, but they do have more links than you. So work on that! By the way, I did a search for your term and see you ranking #74 in Google.com. So yeah, build some links and get that ranking up! John

Interesting that you mention video. Do you think, that if well done that attracts interest that is equal or better than an article? Also, as a B+B service, do you think that Snapchat would be appropriate for posting? Are links that originate in Facebook and Snapchat "follow" links? I know that YouTube is no follow. As a B+B business (commercial real estate) I am hoping to find the best sites for posting information. Recently we have been creating promotional videos of listings and informational videos of neighborhoods and are trying to figure out where to post them. From what you are saying it is key to post these videos on our website. Our few experiments have been on YouTube.

Hi there, We rebuilt the MozBar to be more stable within this version and also added a new feature - On-Page Content Suggestions. This shows ideas for what else you might like to talk about or include on the page you're analysing. I'd recommend taking a look at this post on the Moz Blog for more information about the new feature and for the changes we've made to MozBar in general. I hope this helps!

Thanks very much, everyone. I appreciate the in-depth thought. Ricardo

Usually these kind of mistakes are caused by not using a canonical URL as href in the hreflang annotation. For instance, if the url is www.domain.com/product-a?=color&id="red" and that same URL is canonicalized toward www.domain.com/product-a, but the hreflang suggest has alternate href an URL like this: www.domain.com/en/product-a?=color&id="red" as alternate URL for English speaking users, and this one too been canonicalized to its own non parametered version (www.domain.com/en/product-a), then Google will start telling that it doesn't see any return url... why, because in the canonical URL the href is not www.domain.com/en/product-a?=color&id="red" but www.domain.com/en/product-a. The same is true in the case of the self referential hreflang annotation: it must be the canonical URL the one in the href element of the hreflang annotation.

Welcome to International Site Expansion! This is the exact situation I worry about when people set up international structure. The answer lies in what your users need, not what you want or what marketing wants. Do users in the US need to see different content than a user in the UK or Australia? All of those countries have English as the primary language. I am not talking about dialects (UK spellings/words vs US words), but do the users need to see different content due to product set changes, price changes, different marketing tactics, etc.? There are a whole list of questions you need to go through. http://outspokenmedia.com/international-seo-strategy/ - Let me know what your end result is and we'll talk from there. Another resource: https://moz.com/blog/guide-to-international-seo (that will explain a lot)

what are you offering Dimitrii? i am listening!

Hi there! Sam from Moz's Help Team here! Our Helpsters would love to take a deeper look into this for you - could you please pop an email over to help@moz.com and include the name of the campaign you're seeing these duplicate notices for so that we can take a look at what might be going on? Looking forward to hearing from you!

Well After two weeks nothing has changed, Aptitus.pe is still on top of my brand results, making my ranking score go lower since is a different domain and no sight of sitelinks. Is there a way to get rid of that old domain?, no luck yet.