Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Ryan, Thank you for your advise. The marketplace is going to be a big site so I think we will go with using both filters (mostly for product segmentation) and folders for blog pages, contact pages and so forth. Thanks again.

Another cause which is specially common in display networks -not too much in adwords- is that some of the pages which are serving your ads are showing your site with popunder scripts. This allows the site to create the affiliation cookie without the user noticing it. In your case, if it is based only in 17 visits can only be the natural reason: people are not interested in your content for that keyword and leave too soon, as Ryan says.

Hi Stramark, How did you get on in your testing? Just wondering what the latest on this is for 2015-2016? Thanks.

Well thank you for this information Linda

Hello. I wouldn't be too concerned with this as a thin content issue as the content of each page is the image, its attributes, size, etc. Several sites--Instagram, Pinterest, Flickr, etc--are almost all purely image based content with the great bulk of their pages being one image on one URL and very little other content. Google is aware of image heavy sites and gallery formats and has a system in place for aiding in indexing this type of content, their Image Sitemaps: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/178636  I'd use that system for indexing your separate image URLs and then monitor the success via Search Console. If your search console (Google Webmaster Tools) is displaying a manual action for thin content, it's likely not the image galleries. Cheers!

I understand your concern--sometimes you don't want to mess with things that are working. But if it is clear to you that the sites need to be separate, then they need to be separate. When you make a change like this, you will most likely see an impact on search, as Google tries to figure out what is what. Ultimately, the pages will do best on the site that is the most relevant.

Hello Madhukar!  It's likely that Zopim has blocked some resources (javascript, css, etc.) from crawlers on their URLs (not yours). What you'll want to do to get more granular detail though is do a fetch and render of a specific page with the error then scroll to the bottom of that page where it will list the blocked resources. This discussion on Google's Product Forums outlines the process that a user with a similar issue used to get visibility into it: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/vwQnFkGCNaE The main point form that discussion in relation to your question being, "[when checking] the zopim.com urls, more specifically the us30, they have their own robots.txt file blocking all from the crawlers.  I would assume the remaining zopim.com urls all block crawlers as well." That is most likely what is generating the errors that you see. Cheers!

You have some great responses so far, and I wanted to add one additional thought. Header tags are really important for screen readers.   When in doubt about the best way to use page elements, I tend to think to myself about what would be the best case for Accessibility. The answer is usually one of your top options for search optimization also.

Hi Umar, Great links, thank you!

Hey there! Normally, a change of address on a verified Google+ Local page should happen quickly. If it's been a week, I'd suggest phoning Google (https://support.google.com/business/?hl=en&rd=1#topic=4539639). I would also recommend that you use Moz Check Listing to be sure there isn't more than one Google+ Local page in the mix here.

Anyone?

Thanks for the suggestions everyone! This is exactly what I was looking for.

Turns out I wrote a post that expanded on this idea of keyword themes: https://moz.com/blog/keywords-to-concepts Hope that helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

Very good to hear, thanks Shawn!  The goal is to use absolute canonicals, but for a period of time, we may have to use protocol relative.  The redirects in place should avoid any duplicate content issues, which seems to be the big landmine.

I would redirect if you can as there may be duplicate content issues if you simply republish without them... I would also check that your content hasn't been copied by any external sites as well as we neglected this and lost rankings as Google thought we'd nicked the content when we redeveloped our websites. It all worked out OK in the end, we did the DMCA request, and sent letters to the people who copied us asking for removal but it was a pain in the proverbial - and entirely unnecessary if we'd have done this before we switched to a new site hierarchy.