Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I can't say I have a complete understanding of what this is explaining, but here's a link to the original paper on Stanford's website if anyone else is interested. http://infolab.stanford.edu/~backrub/google.html

Well hopefully Google will do it's job and recognise the canonicals. Keep an eye on your stats and if you don't see improvements, then you may need to do additional work. -Andy

I would say it depends on whether an entity is detected. Imagine there is a company named "Real SEO." Google crawls a website that mentions them. Google sees the word "real" and then the word "seo." Normally, Google would see that "real" is an adjective that is modifying the noun "seo." So normally, this would be viewed as two separate, distinct words. However, in this example, "real seo" is a brand and an "entity." So, even though the two words are first viewed separately, Google has become smart enough to figure out that when those two separate words are found in that order, then they are together referring to a single "thing." For more on entities in search, I'd read the Moz posts here, here, here, and here.

Pleasure is all mine my friend. You are most welcome. Moz SEO community is an indispensable asset and weapon in any SEO's inventory in my opinion. We learn a great deal here while helping others. I am really thankful to each and everyone here on Moz community. Long live Moz and Mozzers. YOU ROCK!!

Google trys to connect every term and combination of terms within a query to a search query entity. It relates the terms and the entities with a probabilistic model in order to define how closely connected they are. Regarding now the webpage of centerofpolitics it is not in the first 200 results of Google.com (US). Probably, due to the 10 occurences of the word larry in the html of the webpage (some on title, some in body, some in links) Google has a loose connection with the word "Larry" of the "Larry Page" search query. Since, "Larry Page" as an entity is an authority for Google, the webpage of centerofpolitics should be a result ranked low in a search query that matches exactly the name of the entity such as "Larry Page" or "Page Larry".

hey guyz it's so important to know for me please help

I believe the actual calculation comes from Google's internal PR measure, so if you used Toolbar PR, it would be scaled in appropriately. For example, a page with TBPR=4 would only pass 33% more equity than a page with TBPR=3 (if you treat TBPR as linear), whereas it should actually be an order of magnitude higher (we're not sure what power Google uses). Technically, you can't calculate PR without the entire link-graph, since the maximum values are set from the link graph, and the calculation is iterative. On a small scale, you could just pick a log scale to use and approximate what happens. I guess I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish. Beyond a tutorial view, so many factors are laid on top of PR, that even if you could calculate the true values, they would only tell you a small part of the story.

It will show up as N/A in the toolbar until the next time Google updates what it displays to the user in the toolbar. This can be several months behind what the true PageRank is, and can be inaccurate. Google has admitted that the PR displayed on the toolbar is not always accurate, and has been that way for years.

Here's what I mean. When you are deciding whether to do something, if your first question is, "How will this affect PageRank?" then you are asking the wrong questions. For example: If you want to know whether to try to get a link from a website, don't worry so much about its PageRank. Ask yourself whether this is a link you would want even if Google did not exist, whether it is topically relevant to your website, whether you will get quality referral traffic, whether you will be "earning" or "building" the link, and a lot more. All of those things matter more than a number that is increasing arbitrary and rarely updated by Google anymore. The point: Google is thinking more like a human and less like a machine. Digital marketers need to catch up (if they weren't there already).

is there any idea ?

Stackoverflow is always your best friend: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2345038/iis-404-custom-error-url-return-response-code-200-instead

It's always a good practice. It also depends if you are using a CMS that has an automatic 301 for the WWW vs the non for the site. For simple sites that's the only real reason that you would need it. I still like to have the tag, the major search engines have been recommending it and I usually do whatever makes Google happy if I can. You can see if you have duplicate content if you subscribe to Moz in their campaign tools. If not there are a few free tools that will allow you to as well.

Linking with #part1 won't cause issues for indexation and how the site is structured. They're commonly used for internal analytics and other purposes that don't refer back to Id="" or name="" tags on the page. Regarding the rest of it, I'm afraid I'd have to see example code or the actual page to fully understand your question. If it's still an issue, feel free to leave additional code examples here and I can take a look.

This is to target a language specifically. A better explanation of how to utilize this feature is at the link at the bottom of this post. But first, a few snippets: "your ads can appear for customers who use Google products and third-party websites in the languages that your campaign targets. This helps ensure that your ads will appear on sites that are written in the language of the customers you'd like to reach." "Let's say you sell coffee beans online, and you want to target Spanish-speaking customers. You set up an AdWords campaign targeted to the Spanish language, with Spanish ads and keywords. As long as your customers' Google interface language settings are set to Spanish, your coffee ads can show when your Spanish language customers search for your keywords." https://support.google.com/adwords/answer/1722078?hl=en

Strongly recommend Ahrefs and also - http://www.openlinkprofiler.org/ I know you said money isn't a problem but OLP is free and does a killer job, including lots of info that other checkers don't have.

I understand your advices, and thank you very much for them but my boss wants only a one page, I told him not to do that but he didn't listen to me.

Using Majestic historic link function

The date on that post is 2010-- a lot has changed about Adwords since then! Here is a more recent post, hot off the presses: http://www.business2community.com/marketing/google-updates-adwords-keyword-planner-tool-advertisers-need-know-0861602

Hi there, Nope - this shouldn't be an issue, as Marty says, as long as the instances of you linking to this page multiple times are natural and necessary to the content. Avoid using too much optimised anchor text with these links, but Marty is also correct that linking with anchors like this is very common and a good way to point to content within a longer page.

Even though I don't get it yet, I'm so proud of getting answer from Rand Fishkin !! Thanks Rand and all of you guyz.