Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I think the community needs to look at the AMP project roadmap and recognize that AMP HTML isn't only for blogs and news sites. Google is very active in promoting AMP standards, and now it's possible to create a full e-commerce website using 100% AMP HTML. And because analytics tells us 86% of visitors find us on a mobile device, we've committed to building out a 100% AMP site. I'll post back after the launch and report on our results.

You're right! To add on to Gaston's response, the nice thing about the rel=canonical tag is the fact that it passes on the same amount of link juice that a 301 redirect does, and it's a lot easier to do (that fact that these links are supported by Google, Yahoo, Bing, and other top search engines doesn't hurt, either). Just always keep in mind that rel=canonical pages won't appear in search results!

Hi Oliver, It might help to think of it this way. Whatever your town is (small or large) that is your local home base. This is the address you'll be using in all of your citation building, the footer and contact page of your website, and in at least some of your website content and optimization, all for the purposes of ranking locally. For any other locations you serve, but where you lack a physical location, you'll be aiming at organic (not local pack) rankings. So, this will have nothing to do with your citations. It will all have to do with service city content you build on the website + additional outreach in the form of social and paid promotions. So, even if your town is small, it's the anchor that proves you to be a local, physical business. It's what proves your eligibility to be included in Google My Business and other citation platforms. It's your best hope of local pack rankings. Everything beyond your city of location is for organic outreach. As for how Google will handle all this, given the user-as-centroid phenomenon, Google will customize local results for the searcher based on his physical location at the time of search. So, you do want to be sure you're making it clear that your physical location is at 'X' so that Google is convinced searchers near there are close to you. Hope this helps, and might like this for further reading: https://moz.com/blog/overcoming-your-fear-of-local-landing-pages

Hello Sandi. I understand. It seems that my backlinks are fine. Thanks again.

Also, if it is a WWW vs. Non-WWW issue, make sure to go into Google search console and set the preferred domain for your site properly.

Hi Becky! First, I would like to say this is it great you are being proactive in making sure your webpage doesn't have too many links on it! But, luckily for you, this is not something you need to worry about. 100 is a suggested number but not something that will penalize you if you go over. Google’s Matt Cutts posted a video explaining why Google no longer has that 100-links-per-page Webmaster guideline—so be sure to check that out! It's commonly thought that having too many links will negatively impact your SEO results, but that hasn't been the case since 2008. However, Google has said if a site looks to be spammy and has way too many links on a single page—Google reserves the right to take action on the site. So, don't include links that could be seen as spammy and you should be fine. Check out this Moz blog that discusses how many links is too many for more information!

Hi David, Thanks for the response we'll discuss trying that!  We actually only have the .com version which is why you're only seeing that version. Thanks again for your input I will let you know whether that has any effect. Vic

Thank you both, finally getting around to doing this now!

Just a little more info from Google here as well on how Pagerank Sculpting no longer works... http://www.thesempost.com/google-pagerank-sculpting-still-doesnt-work/

Hi everyone, I have a related question about personalisation too which is a variation on the theme but which I would appreciate some help with. There is a project afoot within my company to "personalise" the user experience by presenting pages to users which better respond to their interests. That is to say that, when a user visits our page about "tennis-shoes", the next time they visit the homepage they will be presented with a homepage which focusses on tennis-shoes. So far so good. However rather than personalising certain elements of the homepage, the idea is to intercept those users, and 301 them to an entirely different URL, completly hidden from Google, which will contain entirely different content focussing only on shoes. The top navegation will remain the same. This sounds like a massive breach of Quality Guidelines on at least two counts to me. It reeks of cloacking and "sneaky redirects", and I am very concerned this will do us way more harm than good. I'm guessing that the correct way of going about this would be to either generate a great "shoes" page and allow users to navigate to it, visit it, and do whatever they want with it, or to personalise the homepage including some dynamic elements on the same URL, without hiding things from Google or frustrating users by not allowing them to access the page they are trying to access. Any feedback from the community would be a great help. Thanks a lot!

Thank you so much for your feedback.

"Canibalization is when the same page, competes for several keywords." This statement is incorrect. One of the many articles that you can check about it: https://moz.com/ugc/how-to-keep-keyword-cannibalism-from-robbing-your-sites-performance

Hi Ori, No, it wont affect negatively. GR.

If the content of the two pages is related, you might also use an internal link (preferably within the content of the page: e.g. "for more information on KEYWORD"). That will help tell Google you consider ABC the more important/relevant. I still would try to find a closely related keyword for the lesser page if you can; the less keyword cannibalization, the better. Liz

Very few people will be typing https://www.me.website.com, so I believe that you will be fine with https://me.website.com.

Hi There! If the client is running 2 distinct legal businesses (like a landscaping company and an accounting firm) from a single address, then he should get a unique phone number for the 2nd business, be sure the websites feature completely unique content, and then he will be eligible for a Google My Business listing for each. If, however, the client is actually running one business but is attempting to make it look like two companies (like an HVAC company trying to sell its heating services as though they are a separate business from its cooling services), then he is only eligible for 1 GMB listing, regardless of the number of websites he builds. In fact, in the latter scenario, having a second website for the company is not normally advisable, because what you are then doing is putting partial duplicate NAP (name, address, phone) on two websites, instead of one, possibly leading to a loss of trust on Google's part about the authoritative data for the business. In most cases, Local SEOs will recommend that a single business at a single address should go with a single, powerful website. But, if the businesses are legally distinct, it''s normally okay that they share the same address, so long as the phone numbers and websites are unique. Hope this help, and definitely do share Google's guidelines with the client. They help answer many questions like these.

Hi Engine Brasil, I have to agree with Thomas! While I have never tried this tactic, I would not do so in fear that it would devalue the other H1s on the site. As we know, it's important to have only one H1 per page. The search crawlers use the H1 to understand what your page is about so they can show it for relevant search queries. By creating multiple heading tags, you run the risk of confusing the crawlers and ultimately hurting your changes to rank on the SERPs. Hope this helps! I'd be interested to know what you find out if you test this.

See https://moz.com/community/q/in-google-search-console-https-or-non-https The HTTP:// will be added on to any non-HTTPS URL Automatically. I always type it in HTTP://  because of habit, however, it does not make a difference because Google ads it the only time this makes a difference is when adding HTTPS:// So it makes no difference whatsoever as long as you have the four versions of your encrypted site you can choose between Google is indexing more than one of the four below. http:// https:// http://www. https://www. just be certain that all four are there do not worry about the non-encrypted http:// https://moz.com/ugc/accidental-seo-tests-when-on-page-optimization-ceases-to-matter https://www.deepcrawl.com/knowledge/news/https-when-to-act/ https://www.deepcrawl.com/knowledge/best-practice/https-dilemma-security-seo/ I hope that answers your question. All the best, Thomas

Hi Vadim! Thanks for sharing your take on best wording for this. I like your suggestion.