Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi, Those keywords are all essentially the same thing, maybe with the exception of 'catered' and 'luxury', but even then, you'd have a hard time writing unique enough content for those 2 variation sets. If you tried to write content for each of those keywords individually, you'd end up with almost identical content, worded slightly different. If the only thing this client does is ski chalets, you'd probably be better served to use the home page as your target URL for these terms. As for additional content, I'd recommend a blog or FAQ section that provides additional information about the area, attractions, things to do, etc. The domain name won't play a role in ranking, that's an old SEO tactic that Google squashed years ago. There are many other things that could be preventing your site from getting to the first page, like overall site quality, backlink profile, the list goes on and on....

Guys, Thank you very much. I really did appreciate the fast response and it did help me clear a few doubts and misconceptions. Koki

I will share about my case and how my business do. 1. We have two site that is http://litextension.com/ and http://blog.litextension.com/ In each site, we set up many paths to other site. We create site blog after main site a long time. However, we focus on content on site blog, almost indexes of http://blog.litextension.com/ are higher than http://litextension.com/ . Then, we add a lot of dofollow link on site blog, which leads to the main site. They are support together. 2. We creates many satellite sites to drive traffic to main site and blog site. Of course, we use social media site maximum.

Looking at Wayback, there have been development changes to the site - some of this included dropping H2 tags and replacing with spans for titles, removing internal links. The drop will most likely be related to content/structure changes.

Thanks Dirk - I only wanted to keep it short term. As long as all link juice is passed to new site then I can just kill it off.  I wanted to redirect specific pages because the new sites page names are different.  That would be the only reason to install WP, to facilitate redirects. The old site is so old it is done in frontpage so there is no htaccess file.  I see you did find a piece of dup content but the errors have been there for months.  I just changed that page name last week and apparently didn't 301 it.   I think the strange url you found might be part of the problem, perhaps they are just bad relative links. I will try screaming frog.  Thank you for your help.

Hi there I would utilize reviews on applicable product pages that have reviews. If I am looking at a stereo and your showing me reviews for TVs, I'm not really going to find it useful. I would find a way to display reviews to the right product. I wouldn't worry about duplicate content at that point, since the product descriptions should be the bulk of the content on the page and those should be unique to the products. I'd also talk to your team about implement Schema for enabling rich product snippets. That will help tie proper reviews to the right product and display in search. Hope this helps! Good luck!

Hi Ruth, Appreciate your response. Trying to get these sorted at a code level, but we currently have six different issues all providing various issues, along with a variety of other features not working correctly. (The joys of working with a 10 year old system that is behind in a few areas) You say the following: Make sure that the pages your canonical tags point to are very similar to the pages the tags are on - if they're too different, Google may decide they both need to be indexed. Is it strange that the canonicals that are not the exact duplicates (category filters on ecommerce) are the main ones that are obeyed, the product canonicals (with exact duplicates, excluding changes to the breadcrumbs) are the ones being ignored. There are pages that are receiving search traffic, but not a massive amount (atleast compared to the true versions of these pages, some of these pages get 10s to 100s of clicks, the canonical pages get thousands/tens of thousands) Would a viable strategy to try and deal with these by redirecting these non-canonical urls to their canonical format? (short term until we can get issues sorted) Final query, if Google ignores the canonical is this potentially going to be penalising us? If the answer is believed to be yes then it'll be a higher priority item to deal with.

Hi Tormar! I agree with Gaston—the subdomain will be seen as a separate domain, so you should really just optimize it as you would any other domain. Is there anything more specific you're looking for, here?

I never see 'Click here' in meta descriptions from the SERPs when I search, I would definitely avoid doing that. Meta descriptions always change with what you search but if you are using the same ones for your open graph data it needs to work well on Twitter, Facebook etc. I like to use descriptions which give enough information to capture your attention but not answer your question/search forcing you to find out more without saying 'find out more'.

Hi there Here are a couple of great links: 2015 Local Search Ranking Factors How to Perform the Ultimate Local SEO Audit Both of those will help you immensely. I would definitely markup branches and also take a look at Moz Local's bulk upload that will help you load all of your branch addresses to local listing aggregators. From there, you can manage your listings and update/remove them as needed. I would review the above links and start focusing on your local SEO efforts. But I would still markup as much as you can that's relevant to the business and searches that are happening around it's industry/area. Hope this helps! Good luck!

If you wish to see performance of KWs or pags you can see few tricks from today post in Moz: https://moz.com/blog/single-best-seo-tip-for-improved-web-traffic Yes - SearchConsole is heavy involved in process.

There are two reasons that i still didn't move to HTTPS: Twitter counter Facebook likes Since Twitter counter was killed only remain likes. But i will move soon w/o waiting for them. Only G+ follow 301 redirect and pass links.

Is this sneaky or not?    It's dumb... and kinda sneaky. Dumb, because they would have been smarter to point the links to their main website, instead of using an intermediate website. It's dumb because they waste money on domain registration and hosting. It's dumb because there is a loss of power in the redirect. It's dumb because Google doesn't like links on press release sites or any kind of site where you pay for a page that has pagerank-passing links on it. So, its dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.. and kinda sneaky.

All the options for fetch in Google search console has a different purposes Desktop - This is default and this option is for the website which can crawl images, videos, webpages and all that. Mobile smartphone - This option is for Google smartphone crawlers. Mobile xHTML - This option does not support rendering and Uses the SAMSUNG XHTML/WML crawler. Mobile cHTML - This option is mostly for the Japanese feature phones which Uses the DoCoMo Google Mobile crawler and this option also does not support rendering. Source here

Thanks David. That's too bad that alternate TLD's aren't supported yet, but I'm definitely relieved to hear that that's what the issue was. Thanks for the quick response! Cheers, Alex

Firstly, please don't assume that you've been hit by Panda. Find out. Indexation count is generally not a good basis for assuming a penalty. Was there a traffic drop around the date of a known Panda update? Check this list. https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change . If the date of traffic drop lines up, you might have a problem. Otherwise it could easily be something else. How many links does your site have? Google indexes and crawls based on your authority. It's one area where it doesn't really matter where the links go: just having more links seems to increase the amount your site is crawled. Obviously the links should be non-spammy. Do you have a site map? Are you linking to all of these pages? It could be an architecture issue unrelated to penalty. If it is a Panda issue: generally I think people take the wrong approach to Panda. It's NOT a matter of page count. I run sites with hundreds of thousands of URLs indexed, useful pages with relatively few links and no problems. It's a matter of usefulness. So you can decrease your Panda risk by cutting out useless pages - or you can increase the usefulness of those pages. When consulting I had good luck helping people recover from penalties, and with Panda I'd go through a whole process of figuring out what the user wanted (surveys, interviews, user testing, click maps, etc.), looking at what the competition was doing through that lens, and then re-ordering pages, adjusting layout, adding content, and improving functionality toward that end. Hope that helps.

Hi John! Ahh! I always think of this as NAP+W (name, address, phone + website) so I wanted to be sure U-NAP wasn't some type of product or service I'd never heard of before. U-NAP ... I like it. Okay, so you should be able to get good guidance on this from Google's guidelines, which state: Containment information indicating that your business is located inside another business (whether or not the businesses are part of the same organization). Not acceptable: "Chase ATM (in Duane Reade)", "Apple Store at Stanford Shopping Center", "Benefit Brow Bar - Bloomingdales", "Sam’s Club Tire & Battery (part of Sam’s Club)", "Geek Squad (inside Best Buy)" Acceptable: "Chase ATM", "Apple Store", "Benefit Brow Bar", "Sam’s Club Tire & Battery", "Geek Squad" So, it's perfectly fine to have both the hotel and restaurant listed. Just be sure you are following the naming convention and that you have a unique phone number for the restaurant and either a unique page on the hotel site for it, or a unique website for it. Does this help?