Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks Gaston, this makes so much sense! Appreciate your added insight!

Agree with Martijn - this is almost always caused by a link not properly including the http(s):// at the beginning.. Since it's occurring an all blog posts, it's likely a link in the navigation/sidebar/footer or other templated area of the pages. You'll need to look in the pages' source code to find it. [UPDATE] Yup, it's an incorrectly formatted link on line 100 of the page - part of your header menu. class="hs-menu-item hs-menu-depth-1 hs-item-has-children"><a <span="" class="html-attribute-name" data-mce-mark="1">href</a><a <span="" class="html-attribute-name" data-mce-mark="1">="</a>www.messinastaffing.com">Staffing Divisions You can see the href is missing the _http. Paul_

Thank you very much for the thoughtful answer and the helpful advice!

Thank you Sam. This is super helpful!

Does it work? Yeah, probably. For now. Should it work? Probably not. I obviously haven't seen the sites, but if they're hosted on the same hosting account with the same IP address, then it wouldn't surprise me if this was eventually hit. And if it was reported, it definitely would not pass a manual review by the Google spam team IMO. As others have said, it's super risky. Just a few weeks ago I didn't let someone join my platform to provide local SEO services specifically because they are doing this sort of thing as their main link acquisition tactic for their clients, and while it works right now it's definitely very grey hat and will stop working at some point. I've spoken with people who used to operate Personal Blog Networks like this, and they always get hit eventually. I'd also hate to be the SEO brought in to clean this sort of thing up and get the clients that this company loses ranking again. Lots of small businesses sound like they'll be harmed because of this, unfortunately. Hope that helps! John

Thanks again for taking the time to help us!

Hi Neil, Agree, this is a little complex. Is there a staffed, physical presence at the health retreat during stated office hours, and do customers come to that location? If so, then, yes, you can create a Google My Business listing for it if you feel it meets all of Google Guidelines: https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177?hl=en Be sure you're carefully reading the guidelines regarding ineligible business models.

Thanks Miriam!

Thank you for the responses everybody I appreciate your input.

Our thought process is that binders.com limits us to binders and as we all know, looseleaf binders are slowly going away. What comes to your mind when you both think about binders.com? I assume ring/looseleaf binders. So our long term goal behind considering building a new website using vulcaninformationpackaing.com is to strengthen our position as a packaging company, not a binder company. So anyway, my question wasn't so much about if it's a good idea to build the new website but if Google and other search engines will have a problem with us having 2 websites representing the same company, which is Vulcan Information Packaging. binders.com will continue to promote binders and the new site vulcaninformationpackaging will promote packaging. But they will both represent Vulcan Information Packaging. thoughts???

I'm not sure why you would want to do this, you use a canonical when page A and B are more or less the same and you want Google to index only page A. When page A and page B are different, a canonical would make no sense and Google will probably ignore it.

Alt tags are more important for SEO as far as I know. I think titles do help, but it can get complicated really fast if you want to have unique filenames for several languages. I'd go with the unique alt tag solution. A strong site structure, some decent backlinks and a strong, optimized site are going to have much more of an impact on rankings anyway. Then again, if you have just a couple of images and are really concerned about everything being perfect to the last detail, you could use different image filenames.

Hi Anouk, I don't see any reason why you couldn't use the generic Article (rather than NewsArticle) markup on your informational pages, if that is how you want Google to view the content (as an informational 'article'). I'd be cautious with it if you want the content type to be seen as something else by Google, and/or if it is very long-form, heavily resourced content. You may want to test it on some of your info pages and compare what happens to the pages with the markup vs the AMP versions that don't include the markup. Hope that helps.

Oh thank you!

Unfortunately I don't do very mainstream stuff, which means that my content isn't very shareable. On top of that, I don't write provocative pieces, which means that they aren't commented on a lot. I know how to do those things and I did them for past employers, but I've chosen personally not to do so because I find them toxic. This also means that my readership, at least on my blog, is very low. Of course I could go back to my old ways - I did here with a lot of success: http://www.thefinediningblog.com/food-bloggers-post-negative-reviews-comped-meals-thoughts-strange-industry/ - but I don't like the vicious arguments that ensue on social media. Can I take a look at your blog? Maybe I could pick up a few ideas! And, once again, I haven't made any money from having a blog. I got, what, $15 from Google once? That's about it!

I have a final update for everyone! We discovered the cause of the mysterious increase in crawling. One of our partners tested out a second version of the content on the website (yes, we have two complete sets of content for every page) by swapping out the first set with the second set. The second set caused Google to reevaluate the entire website, crawl it repeatedly thousands of times for two weeks, then stop. The result of this refresh was a jump in the rankings. We were ranking on page one for about 15% of our targeted keywords and after the new content was inputted it jumped to 71%. Only time will tell if those new rankings will stick, but for now it looks pretty good.

Thanks. I was concerned about the URL because I've read several articles that state adaptive and responsive designs use the same URL whereas mobile dedicated is a different url, usually a subdomain of the root domain. The developers are telling me we have an "adaptive design", but the mobile site is a subdoman setup, where the URL structure for the homepage, some navigational pages and search are different than the desktop site. If you go to a webpage on a mobile phone and it redirects you to a subdomain with a mobile setup, that sounds mobile dedicated to me, and not "adaptive".... but maybe I am having a hard time grasping the true definition of adaptive. http://conversionsciences.com/blog/the-make-or-break-differences-between-responsive-adaptive-mobile-optimized-websites/ http://www.clickseed.com/responsive-design-vs-separate-mobile-site-vs-dynamic-serving/

Hi Cedriklizotte, No, there is no need to put the second link Click here in the body. Only the first link would be enough to put in the section. Regards, Amit Rathi