Welcome to the Q&A Forum

It's definitely not considered keyword stuffing but if you prefer a shorter URL then use the second option.

AHA! I had a feeling is was something like that. Glad to help!

Thanks Troy! Let us know how it goes. That does sound very promising. Don't forget to create a new profile view so you don't sku the data in your default view.

Hey Colin! I looked at the pages and, I think, not only is the content thin but it may also show as duplicate content. My company creates and provides SEO services for a lot of eCommerce stores and we see this common issue. We typically make products such as these a single product with a way to choose different specs. That way you have the content all on one page and limits the duplicate and thin content that often comes along with an eCommerce store. If that is not an option, I would recommend reworking the content on these pages. I don't recommend canonical due to the URL structure. Noindex will be a way to avoid the duplicate/thin content, but that also means they are not indexed by search engines and limits their possibility of showing up. Hope that helps!

There has even been a Google Webmaster Guidelines Update in February 2016 which states "Limit the number of links on a page to a reasonable number (a few thousand at most)."  (Source: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en) So I really would not bother too much, especially not in a navigation - it often makes lots of sense to have lots of links there. (For example I have several alphabetical selections available on hover from main categories. It would not make sense to remove them just to have fewer links.) More links are of course not always better - consider what the user is likely to expect/need in navigation etc. Of course, more links mean that the relative importance of each link decreases; but google is able to identify navigation and repeating elements that appear on every page. I'd assume that they treat them different to main-content links. Because, well, they feel a lot different. Regards Nico

Hi Martijn.....I have blocked in robots.txt as you have suggested and have fetched as google bot on the soft 404.s and they are blocked. Can i go ahead and mark these as fixed or are they really only fixed if these pages return 404? I am not sure how i can return 404 on them though as they are legit search result pages. I really just want to know the best way to deal with them in wmt now that i have blocked them in robots. thank you

Hello mate, My advice is that the product descriptions and information in text are original content. If the text copied from the manufacturer's website appears on your website, google will penalize impacting well on your positions. Note that surely many of your competitors websites have descriptions and information copied from the manufacturer's website, it is a common practice. If you want to be different from your competition you have to make own original content. I can tell you from experience that also have an online shop, all my items are original descriptions made by me, so I got in just 6 months to live my website get good positions in top10 positions mainly related to the brand. Youtube upload videos is also important for your SEO. The important thing is that descarges videos and upload it to your YouTube channel, I always get on google + and immediately to the web, so you can write your own aspects that also influence the seo as the title meta and keywords.

You have a lot of questions in here. We are going to need to limit this thread to your main question of the https URLs being indexed. Can you share the domain? Have you claimed the https domain in Search Console yet to see if these indexed URLs are being shown in search results?

Thank you

I think Egol covers it very well. I would not be changing pages if at all possible. What I would be considering is how to get the benefit/value of traction of 2015 pages for 2016 events. There are several options. But it could be a revamped page, a CTA which you can click on to go to 2016 page etc.  Also if no page up yet after every 2015 event, you could put on the page "the 2016 events details are not known yet, however leave your email and we will contact you with details of the new event etc" - that gives an opportunity to collate details. You know your business better than anyone, so likely better strategies but the underlying principles enunciated by Egol is the way to go.

Hi Brandon! Sorry to hear you're having trouble setting up your campaign. There are a number of reasons the subdomain in question might be inaccessible. It's possible the crawler is being blocked on a server level, or that AWS is blocked, or that the page is returning another sort of server/client error. We're happy to help diagnose this if you write into help@moz.com with details about the specific domain you're trying to enter!

Thanks EGOL. I like this approach and think we'll give it a try. I think it's a soft approach that can help us get our foot in the door.

Hi Morgan! You will want to check with your hosting provider to look at the https configuration for your domain. They will be able to isolate any issues there as they should not be resolving if it isn't setup. Hope this helps!

Brodie has identified the issue - it is splitting available resources. The work that goes into one domain is huge. If you have two domains - then you are doubling the work. Ie I use the house analogy. Two domains is like owning two houses, two sets of bills, travel between the two, everything different. You likely need different resources, to make it look and feel differently to some extent. If you keep everything on the same domain - it is like adding a new room to an existing house, so overall the bills are kept down. You can tidy up everything as you move around the one house. So I always try and err on the side of caution, and try wherever possible to fit within a existing well maintained domain assuming there is a content and relevant nexus. However if the nexus is not there - then well you have no option.  As stated by Brodie it is a judgment call. The positive is you can always buy a new house later....  even if you start on your current domain. Also if you want to sidestep the decision all together - you can leave the decision to the money men - CFO and let them know they need to double the digital budget - and see what they say... with a brand new domain... Good luck hope you have enough info to make the right decision.

Hi there Lisa - Andrea with the Moz Help Team here. So if I pull up your site yes, I am seeing the title tags at 18 as well as carrying over from Yoast on 125. There's a great article here on multiple page title and description tags, and should be a relatively easy thing to fix!

Just because it says "first seen" by aHrefs, doesn't meant that Google hasn't been looking at it for years.  Google, could have seen and discredited any of the value those links passed long ago.   First seen in aHrefs, simply means their crawlers (significantly less resources than google, and maybe link was built before they even had crawlers out there) are just now getting to that page on the web. For your specific questions: If you’ve gotten through all that, how important does it seem to disavow links now? Given the "impending" Penguin update, I would strongly urge you to do an audit and cleanup anything that looks nasty. You don't want to get stuck in some filter because of old crappy links, waiting until the next Penguin rollout to "unfilter" you.   That being said, if you survived this long without getting a Penguin slap, then you might be okay assuming they having further "dialed in" the thresholds with the upcoming release. How urgent? See above regarding potential Penguin update.  Only issue is we still don't know when. Google claimed by end of year, then by end of Q1, and now most recently "when it's ready".  So the sense of urgency is always there. I’ve heard that disavowing links should be a rare undertaking. If this is so, what would you think of the idea of us disavowing everything or almost everything “first seen” Nov, 2015 and later? Disavowing links is the step you take under one of the following circumstances: You've tried to get webmasters, unsuccessfully, to remove links identified as potentially harmful, and you do not wish to receive credit for them.   This could be part of any proactive link monitoring approach. You have a penalty, and part of showing you don't care about those past paid links, is "taking the hit" and disavowing them.... note: you should have tried removal for these as well. If you don't have a penalty/filter... typically, you don't need to disavow links, as some level of "crap" builds up for everyone.  The real question is if you are noticing a pattern of low-quality backlinks or links from sources you know to be in violation of Google guidelines, and obviously or algorithmically so... and you want to minimize your risk. Is there a way to disavow at the linking domain level, rather than link-by-link to reduce the number of entries, or does it have to be done for each individual link? You can disavow entire domains/subdomains. If we disavow around 5.5k links since Nov, 2015, what is the potential for doing more harm than good? Fairly large.  You don't want to blanket disavow anything.  This should only be done after careful consideration of the value that link likely passes to your site, as well as a consideration to the risk is poses.  You don't want to disavow links that could be supporting your existing authority/rankings.  Disavow is not a tool to be taken lightly, and it is much easier to do more harm than good. If we’re seeing declining organic traffic in the past year on printglobe.com pretty much for the first time in the site’s history, can we attribute that to the links? If it is a steady and gradual decline, it is likely not link related, but rather site quality related... whether in the quality of the site/content itself (read: panda?) or in the experience of users (e.g. pogosticking, not clicking through on serps, etc.) Anything else you’d advise a guy who’s never disavowed a link before on this situation? Since you are doing this proactively, I would recommend you closely review all of the links in question and only disavow the link if you look at it and think "ugh, spam".

Hmmm... I'm seeing the Knowledge Panel for your brand for searches on both "tacticalgear.com" and "tactical gear" (which is generally a good sign), but, as you said, no Google+ (just Twitter). This is a bit of a black box, unfortunately, and a couple of networks disappeared a week or so ago. Many others seem to shuffle. Your structured data looks fine, and your G+ page is successfully linked to your site. So, you've got the right signals in both directions. Your "sameAs" data even checks out on Google's own structured data testing too. Unfortunately, this may be a weird query-time phenomenon that doesn't have much to do with what you have or haven't done. Everything looks by-the-book to me. As Christopher said, you could try to put up a couple of text posts (and not all videos), but at this point it's probably going to come down to some trial and error. Sorry, I know that's not really an answer, but I suspect you're in that frustrating territory where you've done everything you're supposed to and Google is either midway through changing the rules or making some real-time decision that we can't see.