Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If the only option is to disallow via the robots.txt, then I would agree with your setup - disallow the slugs specific to the tags you don't want indexed. I've heard shopify is a little rough to work with sometimes because of the limitations, so whatever you can do I think is better than nothing. Remember that the robots exclusion is treated as a suggestion and not a command, so if it's possible to assign a no-index meta tag to those URL types that would be best case. Looks like you're on the right track with the post below: { % if handle contains "tagged" % } { % endif % } The one suggestion I would make is that you use noindex,follow so the content will still be crawled, but the duplicate tag won't get indexed. That would create multiple paths to the content on your site, but not create an index bloat issue with multiple tags.

It is hard to predict, but I always say go with a .com if you can get it. The thing to remember is: will the .org rank better due to having more of the keywords placed in it? I thought for sure that Google would have discredited EMDs years ago, but yet you still see them ranking, very much so with local businesses. Here is what I would ask myself if I was in your shoes. 1. What is working for businesses already ranking high for that area/service? If the EMD seems to be working, is the .net version available? I think people would prefer a .net over a .org unless the site was strictly educational or informational. If it is service-based or product based I would use the .net 2. If the EMD .org is available, was it owned before and does it have any history that could be harmful in the short-term? 3. What is the EMD .org site being used for? An add-on domain or site, or as the main company website? 4. If the .com covers the most important two of the three KWs, are they the most important two? Think of webdevelopmentsoftware.org vs developmentsoftware.com. If the 2 keywords are the most important two that cannot be misconstrued or misinterpreted by Search Engines then I would say use the .com In the example above the .org domain specifies WEB, meaning you would be targeting a certain type of software, whereas the .com leaves the interpretation more open-ended and open to misinterpretation. Moz did a study about EMDs and what was used the most often. I think it's worth a read in your case: https://moz.com/blog/bing-vs-google-prominence-of-ranking-elements Hope this helps! https://moz.com/blog/bing-vs-google-prominence-of-ranking-elements

Can you please make a concrete example of a key-word for that you do not rank nicely. Please also specify the thing which in your opinion need to appear nicely inside the serch and the object for the blog of nextgenapk .

Perfect - thanks

Hi Neil, Don't host the video in two separate locations. You don't want to publish it to Youtube and also store it on your own server, for example. In light of your latest comment, I'd suggest you publish the videos to Youtube, embed those videos on your site, and encourage the hotels to do the same. You should associate the Youtube channel with your own site, and provide links back to your site from the videos (as Andy suggested). Follow the steps outlined in Youtube's guide. In an ideal world -- a world where all 90 hotels were happy to link to your website -- this advice might be different. Ideally, you'd have links to your site. But if you self-host, it seems likely that you'll have hardly any views: your hotel partners won't link to the videos, and the videos won't be easily discoverable. By hosting on Youtube and encouraging video embeds among your hotel partners, you can at least, as you said, generate a lot of interest around the content. Google does favour Youtube videos in SERPs, so this strategy should help your Youtube channel perform well for queries related to your partner hotels. You can use cards or annotations in the Youtube videos to direct visitors to your site, as well as providing a link in the description.

It's a Med Spa business, or people from US will not go Canada to take Spa services and all those. My target audience is only from Ontario, Canada..

Hi! If with meta tags you mean Title Tag and Meta Description, the ideal should be to localize them in order to answer better to the peculiarities and cultures of the people living in the different and diverse country markets you are targeting. Because a British users does not think the same way as those living in the USA, and even more of those ones living in Hong Kong or In Geneva (apart that they use a different language). Localization will surely improve the CTR of the search snippets. Said that, I strongly suggest you to implement the hreflang annotations too, in order to be sure that Google will show the correct version of your site to each geotargeted market.

Your domain is already ccTLD. Also in HTML you have code as:

Great -- very thoughtful answer. I've been using restaurant, organization, and LocalBusiness schema. I'm thinking it's prudent to focus on event based schema for most of the restaurants needs.

Well - charts in JS is OK for user but NOT ok for bots. Hiding text is "devalued" them and also not ok for bots. Probably the best is if you use some tool as PhantomJS and make static image of charts. Can be PNG or JPG with lot of text (alt and title) that describing what is this image. I know that this wasn't answer you're expecting, but bots can't see everything that JavaScript make. I forgot... MOZ have same issue with their WBF - text and video only. So look strange for bots. From two years they make text representation of video too. Now layout is text-video-text-text-text-text. Seems that works for them. So mine idea is try to make chart and below make text representation of what is in this charts with lot of text. Bots love this (and humans too!) and you can leave JS code then.

Thanks for the tips. I have reported the images and we will see what happens! Ken

It may not be an issue, but be sure to keep checking Webmaster tools and if needed you might have to disavow those links. Good Luck

"two pages that I've managed to get ranking have ranked between 20 and 23 for the specific term. However, today on the email one of the pages for one search term has bombed out of the top 50 while the other page has remained unaffected." Sometimes, if you have two pages that are ranking for the same search query it's not uncommon for Google to decide that only one of the pages needs to be presented to the user. If both are serving the same user intent then essentially Google may consider it (semantically) duplicate content, despite the fact that both pages may be worded differently, etc. From my experience of having multiple pages ranking for the same keyword, the pages will keep battling it out in the SERPs bouncing up and down. One week, there'll be a cluster of 3 ranking terribly. The next week one will shoot up, while the other is nowhere to be seen. Personally I've found that Google seems to prefer it if there's only one page ranking for the term (it's an easier decision for Google to make and it won't get so confused which one to rank as more relevant to the query). By merging similar pages, I find that it ends up being stronger in Google as it's not having to compete in the SERPs with similar pages on your website. I hope that helps at all, even if it's only from anecdotal evidence.