Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Guess so - the worst that can happen to you with long meta descriptions is that they get truncated. If they are too short - you are not using the 2 lines that Google allocates you or (like in your case) that Google is just picking some text from your page. There is no guarantee that Google will use the meta description in the SERP's but you will increase your chances by making them longer; Dirk

Hi Miriam, I'm sorry to hear that phone trees are an issue for you, as well. Yes, other than the hope of temporarily disconnecting the phone tree, our only other option that we have found is to set up an @domain email and work with a site's support with that added authority. I hope that your teammates have some additional suggestions; looking forward to your response! Jack

Curious how rank tracker has been impacted by Google's removal of the location filter? It would seem that getting location agnostic requests (United States for example) would be significantly more difficult at scale. I've heard chatter of a few tools having issues now.

Hi there, Your intention is that https://www.mysite.com be the principal page.  So you've done everything just fine. Even more, you've said that have used consistenly the https://www.mysite.com, that's fine in my opinion. Hope it helps. GR

Hi Steven, To my understanding, Bing and Yahoo are essentially the same thing these days; they're the same engine, so that's good news I'm always dubious of "complete list of ranking factors" type blog posts, but check out this post from Matthew Woodward. Beyond the intro, most of the top section is quite irrelevant to you here but scroll down and you'll find a bunch of great resources that might highlight something you can do to see you ranking better. Fixing up that outdated sitemap is going to be a good idea either way. Hope that helps!

Thanks a lot, you really helped me. And the link is excellent reference. Have a nice day

Hi Already there is some equity for duplicate links, wht is going to happen?

Agreed on DA, though I disagree that it's _ever _a good idea to purchase links. In addition to building some high-quality links, you may also want to run a Full SERP Report in the Keyord Difficulty tool. It can be helpful when deciding where to focus next. There's a video on using it here: https://moz.com/academy/competition-keyword-analysis

As long as rel prev/next is correct, and each page canonicals to itself (see second to last bullet on this page), then I think those title tag formats look good. Aside from getting rid of the Moz errors, it sends a stronger pagination signal to Google, and may be useful to the user.

If you are sure you want to downrank the old site, you can contact the webmasters linking to it and tell them about your new site. Telling them that there is no content on the old site should also help.

OK, I see.... Thank you very much Kate Morris.

Thanks Andy Will try that

Hi Becky, If only it was that simple Open Graph, although is picked up by other platforms, is mainly for providing structured data to social platforms (mainly facebook). Plus, when you view source the open Graph tags do not reference the paragraph that Google uses for the "answer" it uses the intro paragraph which doesn't answer the question. The title is the question, so that is a step in the right direction. The answer is the second paragraph which is not referenced in any structured data that I could see. Like many things in the search landscape we do not have direct control on how Google interprets the data and display results. What we can do is place our site in the most optimized position to be interpreted properly and provide results, things like descriptive titles and meta descriptions, Schema, etc. will help position your site for interpretation. But in the end the Google Bot analysis of all of the info on your site is what determines what results are displayed. for me more details check out: http://searchengineland.com/optimizing-google-quick-answers-box-215037 it's a year old, but most of the facts stand true.

Good point Eric! But the number AND quality of links still matter - even if it isn't called PageRank. Just clarifying that link authority and relevancy is being passed from one site to another...

Thanks for your answer Dirk! I will check all links pointing to that old link, and will upgrade them to the link of the new static page. Hopefully that will solve my problem.

Thanks for your thoughts on this, Dirk. I really appreciate them. E

It is considered duplicate. It isn't a huge deal if it's only a portion of the page, the bigger issue is that it will be essentially ignored on all but one of those pages - think of that section like a black spot that search engines won't "see". If it makes up the majority of your content on these pages you're going to have a bad time, but if it's just a small section amongst quality content I wouldn't be too worried from a ranking perspective. Having said that, a better way to deal with this type of situation is to have a separate page that talks about how your product/service works rather than duplicating the same bit of content page after page. It lets you go into more detail since anyone reading it obviously wants to know all about it, and it means much easier editing if this process ever changes, too. Something else to consider is that, admittedly with very little info to work with here, it sounds like your content may be falling into the common trap of telling users what you want them to know rather than offering the info they're looking for. For most users, exactly how your process works may be of 0 importance to them until they're comfortable with what you have to offer, at which point an "our process" type of page is perfect for their next step; "this sounds great, but do they provide xyz with it as well?". If this is correct for your users, that's even more reason to avoid duplicating this same bit of content on these pages - you'd be taking on the risks of content duplication for the sake of presenting users with info they may not care about at this stage of the buying process. If a separate page for this isn't an option for some reason, you might find Rand's WBF on essentially the same topic to be a helpful explanation. I know he's talking about duplication of external content but the concept is the same.

Sure, no problem