Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi there, thanks for your question! Speaking of questions, I have one of my own. What do you mean by "lower pages" when you ask "What is the best method to getting the lower pages indexed?" I am asking for clarification as you have a one-page site, which shouldn't have lower pages. Christy

Thanks for your thoughts Linda - much appreciated

Option A. I wont even worry about it after that. Your time is more important so putting it to work for the other more important parts of your SEO campaign is better. I would worry about/focus on the content of that category page instead.

I think that - adding the new URL while keeping the old ones in XML sitemap for a bit - is your best idea. You can manually add your new URL to index using GWT tools, as well, but I think it's best practice to wait for your site to be crawled again before removing old links from XML sitemap.

Hi Justin, Ahhh the bias of the Google keyword tool. I once read an experiment where a guy built a site, based on a hunch, around a keyword that had zero search volume. After ranking 1st for that keyword for a month, he checked his analytics only to find that his site had received a 1000+ visitors that had all arrived via his main keyword. (This was when analytics used to show your main keyword) For cases like this, I'd just go with my gut instinct Justin, as that's sometimes the best keyword tool. Even your instinctive keyword tool search volume varies a lot, depending if you've had your morning coffee or not. For any keywords with search volume under 1000, I don't pay too much attention to the keyword tool. I have a few home renovation sites targeted to specific areas. All keyword research on these keywords is usually zero searches per month. These are keywords such as 'Home Renovations (Suburb)'. After I rank first for those medium density suburbs with the keyword 'Home Renovations (Suburb)', I usually get about three calls a month for that service. Remember these are home renovation jobs at $20K+ a job, so they turn out to be pretty lucrative jobs leads I can give to my clients. And all from '0' searches per month! Perhaps you'd have better luck asking the physic for next months search volume ... lol.

This is how to do it: https://support.google.com/a/answer/1631861?hl=en "users can transfer all data from one Google+ profile to another, using Google Takeout. Note: Make sure to turn on the Google Takeout service for your organization."

Hi Kaitlin, Consider this perspective regarding your duplicate content, especially seeing as your content and keywords seem to be geo-targeted to different areas. For this example, let's use a keyword like 'air conditioning repair Houston' Let's say that you've written the best 1000+ word page on the internet about the keyword 'air conditioning repairs Houston' and Google have ranked that article/page in the top 3 results. They ranked it because it was highly informative and well written. Now let's say you just swapped the word 'Houston' to 'California'. Would that article technically still be the best information on the internet about 'air conditioning repairs California'? Well, unless someone has written one better in California, I believe it would be. All Google cares about is showing the best information in relation to the search query. They couldn't care less if it's duplicate. That's a problem for site owners to bicker over if someone else is using someone's content. As far as Google is concerned, that article is still the best article on the internet about 'air conditioning repairs California', which is why they'll allow it to rank first. They don't care that there's another 99.9% similar article about 'air conditioning repairs Houston', as that's a different keyword, and the searcher is searching for different information. Even as an internet user yourself, do you care that the amazing information you're reading is available in another state? As long as your query is answered with the best information possible then who would really care. All of the top high authority news and entertainment sites circulate duplicate content all day long. The duplicate content penalty is for pages on your domain only. If you have multiple pages under a single domain that have duplicate content, that's where the misunderstood duplicate content penalty applies. It doesn't apply if you use the same content on a different domain. You might not rank as well using duplicate content on a different domain, but you definitely won't get penalised for it. I've tried and tested duplicate sites a few times, exact same words, images, themes etc. Although the niches weren't that strong, the complete duplicate site was soon ranking in 1st place for all of the same keywords as the original duplicate site, just in a different area. That's because the content answered the searcher's query the best. All that changed was the location, but Google still considered it to be the best content on the net about that particular keyword. Here's another example, let's say you published a great article 10 days ago about a generic keyword. Let's assume my site is a DA60+ and PR5 and your site is a DA10 and PR-N/A. And now I publish the same article on my site, who do you think will rank better. In the worst case scenario, I would rank second, but more than likely I would rank 1st. My point being, that even though it's copied 100%, I'll still rank with it.

I'm glad to hear you've had good results. I'm about to give it a try myself, since it seems to be among the better out there. I've used 'Better Internal Links,' I think was the name of it, and it worked well at the time, so I'm hoping this one is even better. Despite what the other poster says about internal linking plugins (he doesn't seem to have used it, or any other, nor offer a better way than adding each manually, or really seem to know how they work) internal linking is smiled upon by Google, as you know, and if you have a ton of posts already that need links, it may well be impractical to add them manually. The plugin I previously used was very good about linking related content, and your page views should go up almost immediately.

Submitted my survey and suggestions! Love how interactive you guys are with your products. Keeps me learning how to engage our customers better. Can't thank you enough

The good news is you're not crazy - I've tested a few sites I know for sure have rel=publisher implemented correctly and it's not showing the publisher markup in the tool. I imagine it's a bug in the tool (it's a notoriously buggy tool). The bad news is there's not much to be done but wait for the tool to be updated. In the meantime, you can spot-check your markup by googling your brand regularly - sooner or later you should see the publisher markup be added to your brand SERP. You can also check your Google+ page to make sure you get the little check mark that says "verified site." Sorry I don't have a better answer for you, but I don't think there is one!

Hi Chris, Ryan providing you with a good synopsis of next steps to take. Did it answer your question? If so, please mark it as such. If not, please ask for clarification of the response (or an update if you have already resolved this issue otherwise.) Thanks! Christy

Hi Andy, Here are the things that I would do to troubleshoot this problem (you have probably already done some of these things but here we go): Check robots.txt to make sure none of the page's resources are being blocked there Make sure you have no render-blocking CSS or JS happening above the static resources that may be causing the render tool to time out or otherwise not render the text Use the MozBar to view the page with JavaScript disabled, and then with the User-Agent set as Googlebot, to see how the page looks/whether the unrendered content is visible that way Right-click the unrendered content and select "Inspect Element" to get a detailed view of the HTML element and make sure the content is appearing (this will give you a more detailed view than using "View Source" would) Google a block of the unrendered text in quotes to see if that content on that page is, in fact being indexed If the page passes all of those tests, it might just be that the text content on your page is big enough that the Fetch + Render tool isn't rendering all of it to save on bandwidth. This is what I suspect is happening especially since the missing content isn't showing up in the list of resources Google couldn't access. Sometimes the render tool doesn't fully render large blocks of static text content (at one point their guidelines suggested that they started limiting after 200 KB of visible text, but that page appears to have been updated to remove that information). Basically this happens because one of Google's top expenditures is bandwidth - it takes a tonnnnn of data, and therefore money, to crawl and index the web, which is why things like crawl budgets are important. So sometimes they save themselves some bandwidth by not fully rendering static resources in the fetch and render tool. If the content is being indexed, I wouldn't worry about it.

Of all the stores?  If you have access to the overall owner of this have them deal with the store manager.

Thank you so much for replying to me. Sorry I’ve just realise I’ve made a mistake in my first comment. We are using .com for our main site and we plan to add subfolders for individual countries in the future. Currently, we only have /row for all the countries outside of the UK that we deliver to. Thanks again for getting back!

Sometimes the links pointing to the homepage make it strong enough that even a slight mention of the words can make it more relevant than the page in the eyes of the search engine. Other times older versions of a page were redirected to the homepage rather than page > page. What also happens sometimes is that duplicate content on a page will cause a page to be hidden in search results and Google will instead return the homepage in its place (usually in a lower position than the page would have been.)

Dennis & Erica, Thanks for your input. I'll wait for Linkedin to release something. At least I'm not alone with this one.

I'm working on a site that had a very poor disavow file in place from a previous agency.  I went through the link profile with a fine tooth comb and added a bunch more domains to the file.  Organic traffic has gone up over 80%. That is not our only problem and there are other factors to work on but the cleansing is reassuring even though we know the profile is pretty thin.  But again that just goes to show quality always wins over quantity. I would say there may be a whole host of issues hampering ranking but a dirty profile is a must fix, no matter the immediate outcome.  I explain to clients that I anticipate a short term fall and why to set their expectations, then anything positive is a great bonus.

Even if you don't add news too often, it may be best to treat each news post like articles. Meaning, show the most recent 5 (just an example number) on the initial page, from which visitors can view older or "previous" news articles. That creates an organized and simple system for visitors to view the happenings of your company.