Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi there My first question is are you sure removing these pages were your only option? Did you check to see if these pages you removed had decent traffic and rankings? You may have just needed to update your links! If these pages didn't matter in that regard and you can go on without them, I would take a look at your internal links, sitemap, and backlinks to make sure they are updated and don't contain a link to the pages removed. Google also offers resources on how to remove pages from their index if you don't want them to appear anymore. But again, I would run through your Analytics, Search Console, SEMRush data, and Moz analytics (if you have it) to see if those pages you removed had value! You may have removed some great opportunities! Hope this helps! Good luck!

Hi Patrick, Thanks for your response, all sites have sitemaps, I submitted all 3 domains below to through WMT https://www.zenory.com.au/sitemap_us.xml https://www.zenory.com/sitemap_au.xml https://www.zenory.com/sitemap_nz.xml so that they would not be overwriten all top level domains are on the same server.  After this I still have no idea why they are not showing up correctly.  I have limited all the cross referencing from each site to try and better defensiate each site so google could pick up that each one was relevant to the country specified.  For the au it says 74 were submitted and only 2 were indexed. Any advice around this would be awesome Thanks in advance

Hi Patrick Thanks for your response.  I have done a search and found that most of the pages that had these articles up run to a 404 error.  The original author owner of the content has offered them to me as she is part of my site.  But she wanted to give a heads up and say 5 of the articles she gave had already been published and previously taken down as the owner of that blog wanted to renew things... So before I posted I wanted to make sure that it wasn't going to harm my site and against googles rules.  Thanks for your in depth response Patrick, always great getting feedback from you! Thanks

I would most definitely write it out as inch & inches and even in. when necessary. A simple Google search for intitle:48" will show you that Google ignores the inch mark on this search. Another search of intitle:" shows no results. Any search I can find using "inches" does not return a result with " in the title.A simple search for most keywords with synonyms or alternate versions shows the synonym or alt version in at least some pages. Inches does not. (Dinner shows dinner, dining & diner. Autos shows results for cars. Inches does not show " and a search for 10" shows results for 10, not "10 inches") So yes, I would use the full words in this case.

In the product areas where I sell, I doubt that anyone uses the word "retail" when typing a query.   A few people who are resellers or who want to be large quantities will search with "wholesale" or "bulk" in the query.   So, I do not feel a need to do special optimization for the retail buyer. Information that would help me make the decision on adding "wholesale" or "bulk" to a title tag are.... A) How are people searching?  You can get some information on this from the limited number of keywords that show up in your Google Analytics reports, or whatever other analytics you use.   Also, some information can be obtained from word tracker.  How people speak to you when they call on the phone can be useful. B) How are your competitors optimized?  If none of them are optimized with "wholesale" in their title tags then you can probably get away with not including it in the title  but adding it to the description and making it obvious on the page. C) Laws in the state or country where you are selling.  In some jurisdictions there are rules for using "wholesale" in your advertising. I sell some items that are used in crafts and my buyers are split between people who buy an ounce and those who buy a hundred pounds or more at a time.  There are only a couple  genuine "wholesalers" in the USA who refuse to sell to any person who is not a retailer.  To buy from them you must spend a lot more than my typical customer would ever want. Thankfully, they have not optimized their site with the word wholesale. So, I don't optimize as "wholesale".  Anyone who searches for  my items with "wholesale" in their query will find no other websites that are a genuine matche.  I simply optimize my pages for the material that is being sold. My pricing to everyone is "retail" but if you buy a lot you pay a much lower price per pound.   I sell to anyone without regard to the size of their order or their status as "consumer" or "retailer" or "manufacturer"  at the same prices.    These materials are sold on my site in small quantities that the typical consumer would buy and in bulk quantities that would only be purchased by resellers or manufacturers. The only problem that I have with this are people who see the prices on my site and think that I have secret prices for resellers, schools, churches, manufacturers, etc.  I simply tell them that we sell to everyone at the prices published on my site.  There are also the "hagglers" who think that published prices have no meaning or don't apply to them.  I don't haggle because it is a game that cuts profits and wastes time.

Don't think its a red flag, just not getting the maximum benefit from having all of those images.

I would indeed disavow like you are already doing and keep your lists up to date with the data from Google Analytics, Moz, Majestic SEO and the other tools that are available. They'll keep you up to date on new links coming in, mostly GWT is running behind in doing this.

^ Yes, great EGOL!

booya. I think I was remembering an earlier iteration of this, perhaps before the GetListed acquisition. But that's essentially what I'm looking for. Thanks Rand. Don't know why I didn't see that particular link. Have a good one. Take care of my home Seattle for me.

To be honest, it's a huge question that likely doesn't actually have a definitive answer. There could be something going on with each of those sites that's leading them to outrank you. One thing that might give you some insight is the Keyword Difficulty, which is part of Moz Pro. It can run a Full SERP Report that'll give you an analysis of the signals that are _most likely _helping the sites on page rank. Cyrus Shepard make a pretty great video on it here.

Here's a recent article on the subject: http://marketingland.com/googles-horowitz-no-google-plus-is-not-dead-130328 I think the whole 'authorship' and 'publisher' G+ features; linking real entities (people & organisations) to content, as a way of verifying & qualifying the content as being good quality & from a reputable source must be pretty helpful for Google so i would personally be surprised if they did away with those aspects of G+. I know they have scaled back some aspects of 'authorship' such as removing the authors image in the SERPS but that could just be due to needing to reduce the 'computational budget/bandwidth' they allocate to it.

Michael, Many thanks for the reply. In your view then would it then also be treating the search result page as having the same content as the no indexed product page? Thanks Carl

I'm going to give OutBrain a go. Any suggestions?

Hello! We do not have a hashtag tracker. Overall we don't have a strong focus on Social metrics outside of Followerwonk and we're more about tweets to and from particular users rather than a larger trend analysis. If we see more interest in this, it could be something our product team could add to their roadmap. Currently I would recommend checking out https://tagboard.com/ for hashtag analysis.

Fresh links on sites with high authority can queue new links and sites to be recrawled. Our index starts from 0 each update so we would need a reason to recrawl external domain with links. Most sites the have continuous link building are kept updated in our index. There has been new links discovered and are in the queue to be processed which can appear in the next 1-2 updates: https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/just-discovered?site=www.copyblogger.com&filter=&source=&target=domain&page=1&sort=crawled