Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thank you, We are also attempting to implement the Google code for social profiles as outlined here: https://developers.google.com/structured-data/customize/social-profiles Thank you again.

Yes, but as you've blocked them now they won't (shouldn't) get reindexed. So you've already taken care of permanently. Using the tool will remove them now and then you've done the rest.

Why don't you use the domain.com to serve a "choose language" page - store the choice in the cookie and for subsequent visits redirect to the chosen language. Example: http://www.volvocars.com. This is a pretty standard approach in Belgium to serve both Dutch/French content on the same domain. rgds, Dirk

So glad to help, Pascal!

Hello LoonyToons! Yes, unfortunately there is a one to one relationship between YouTube and Google+ accounts. I have a few tricks that might work; however, I'm not certain that these will work for a business page. I'd recommend looking to see if these options are also available for your pages. Links go to relevant Google documentation. You can hide a personal Google Profile in the settings menu under the 'Profile' heading. You can also hide a Google Profile by adjusting 'Target Audience' under the settings menu of G+ under the Audience heading. Select Custom under the drop-down menu and change the global setting to No one. The previous link also explains what 'hidden' means. Google states in their documentation that these setting changes do not change the way in which spiders behave so they will still crawl your content and it can be found in search. These just help to minimize exposure. To my knowledge there is no way to get around this issue. That being said, if I were fighting for a single YouTube channel here are some questions that I'd want answered: Will these YouTube channels have different, unique content? Which channel will be the 'Primary' channel that is tied to the 'Primary' Google+ Page? Will the channel that is only used for advertising purposes attract subscribers? If not, why not leverage the news subscribers? (I don't think they do, but if they mean AdWords advertising, I'd be curious as to why they want a dedicated channel.) Obviously I do not know that the details of your exact situation, but I hope this helps out a bit. Try this out and let me know if it works for you! If not, reply to this comment and I'll see if I can help anymore. Best of luck, Trenton

The keywords meta tag doesn't really do anything, so there's no need to even use it. The description tag isn't used as a ranking factor anymore, so you should use that space to craft a message that will entice users to click through from the search result. You may still want to use the target keyword of the post in the description, to reinforce to users that the post is about what they're looking for. If you're using an SEO WordPress plugin that has you enter a specific keyword for the page so it can tell you how well the page is optimized for that term, the best way to figure out what keywords to target for each blog post is to do some research around what that post is about. You can also do it the other way - do some keyword research to find topics that users might be interested in that you'd like to create some blog posts about.

Hello I spotted this thread and was just about to reply, but Dirk has answered it all perfectly. Thanks Dirk! Under 'reports' there's also a 'canonical errors' report which will show canonicals with various technical issues - Those that are blocked by robots.txt, have no response, 3XX redirect, 4XX or 5XX error (essentially anything other than a 200 ‘OK’ response). It will also show any URLs discovered only via a canonical, that are not linked to internally from the sites own link structure (in the ‘unlinked’ column when ‘true’). Hope that helps anyway. Cheers! Dan

Hello, my friend. Here is a video from Matt Cutts exactly on this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pnpg00FWJY

Hi Peter, The conclusion I have come to is to try to keep page links to around 100 but that said there is a lot of conflicting info out there which is where the confusion comes in. I have read that 100-200 is ok now a days but essentially the more links you have the more the page authority will be diluted so it makes sense to keep links down. On this topic Moz’s on page grader tool says “Google has confirmed that the use of too many internal links on a page will not trigger a penalty, but it can influence the quantity of link juice sent through those links and dilute your page's ability to have search engines crawl, index, and rank link targets. Recommendation: Scale down the number of internal links on your page to fewer than 100, if possible. At a minimum, try to keep navigation and menu links to fewer than 100. See http://moz.com/blog/how-many-links-is-too-many.” In my situation there are some unnecessary and duplicated links so I looking at ways in which these can be reduced. My hope is that the page authority will then be channeled to the more important areas of the site. Regarding location of the links, those in the navigation will probably carry more weight than those in the footer so I would try to include your most important links in the top part of the page.  If you look at Moz’s home page for example the footer links are pointing to pages like Contact us, research tools, parents, api and Terms rather than duplicating the main navigation again. That is my take on the situation anyway. Hope this helps, Andy

Hi Sridhar, as Ria mentioned, there are many factors to consider. This is the official MOZ guide; https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-link-building which has plenty of great tips. Often, we get carried away with focusing on external links when it comes to link building. There should be more focus on authority building, and this comes from many more places than just external sites. High quality external links are certainly a large factor in ranking highly. However, link building strategies also need variety. There are link opportunities EVERYWHERE, which are often overlooked. We wrote a blog post on this, which you can see here; http://www.inmarketingwetrust.com.au/link-building-smart-strategy-online-success/ Hope you find that useful!

No problem. Do share screenshots of product pages and the URLs (once available) here. Will be able to help you out with this. Fixing is using canonical or meta robots is not a time taking solution to implement in general and hence, can be fixed at the last moment (before going live) as well. So, this can be parked for now.

It's nothing you should worry about, honestly. Create great content, and if it makes sense to link out to someone, then do it. With or without a rel="nofollow" is up to you. Backing myself up here, in which John Mueller basically says there's no SEO advantage or disadvantage to outbound linking:  https://www.seroundtable.com/google-external-links-20951.html

Unfortunately, Google has had a very spotty record of policing their local-organic results since day one. I totally get how frustrating this is. The only thing a legitimate business owner can do in a scenario like this is work hard to be SO much better than the spammy stuff, that they eventually surpass it. If local business listings are spammy, they can be reported to Google, of course

Yeah, echoing Dmitrii, Google does this quite a lot these days, and a rewrite to include the brand is very common. It's especially common if they consider part of the title to be low value or low relevance, and I'm afraid Google would probably consider "Buy Online Australia" to be low value in most cases. At this point, there's almost nothing you can do about it, other than adjust the title to be more relevant to common searches. If you start hacking away at you G+ business listings, you're just going to harm your brand signals. It's not worth it for a couple of title tag rewrites.

Hello, my friend. https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6216428#content_mismatch Read the "To Fix" part

You will see no benefit from mass-301 redirects to the home page, and it might even hurt. The only way to get value is if you redirect it to identical or similar content. I wouldn't even count on that adding value or traffic now that the site has changed hands and content has been gone for a while. Still, if you can recover (and have the right to use) the old content, it might be worth 301 redirecting - or better yet, putting on the same URL so no redirects are necessary. Only do this if the content was good and the links were quality links. Otherwise let them 404. If you can't put up the same or similar content, don't bother. Focus on building the site naturally.

Thanks Kevin! I was unaware of that email so I'll use that going forward. Thanks, Chris