Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Thank you for the reply. Would you consider a view all option a good pagination experience or is there something else I should be looking at? Becky

We went up two clicks Now I know why.

Great thank you. I haven't looked into local optimisation before so this helps!

Hi Yes I agree, to be honest most of our product pages won't have many backlinks, if any so I still want the 301 included on the pages which don't. Thanks

It may end up too deep to count as much as the main subpage would. But in that case, you can create CLEAN URLs for it, meaning, you can have the CMS or ecom solution render the data on maindomain.com/standard-metal-lockers instead of maindomain.com/lockers/standard-metal-lockers (I am not 100% if this is how it looks thogh btw, if it is as simple as this, it is not "TOO" deep tbh). and then you want to make sure the clean URL is marked as the primary source of data and the longer CMS based URL should have a rel canonical associated to indicate this. I would even try to de-index that original page from results entirely. Think like amazon, the king of ecommerce: Although they have categories and sub and even sub sub categories for products, the url for end product and categories look more like these https://www.amazon.com/**Arctic-Silver-AS5-3-5G-Thermal-Paste**/dp/B0087X728K/ [notice the keywords are followed immediately after .com/, then everything else is configured], you see how there are no categories listed before that and there are internal categorization and tracking items written after the keywords. this is obviously going to be hard to impossible to achieve with standard CMS out there unless they are super SEO friendly somehow which most CMS and especially ecom CMS are not out of the box. So you may have to do some research to see if you can pull it off that way. But the earlier method I described is what I have been able to succeed with previously. Now lets take another look at what they do: Parent: https://www.amazon.com/**Computers-Tablets**/b/ref=nav_shopall_basedevices?ie=UTF8&node=13896617011&nocache=1479275082032 If you click on tablets, you get: https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=lp_13896617011_ln_2?node=1232597011&ie=UTF8&qid=1479275076 (non keyword optimized URL) BUT IF YOU INSTEAD SEARCHED FOR AMAZON COMPUTER TABLETS, ONE OF THE TOP RESULTS IS THIS, see the difference? sub-cat: https://www.amazon.com/**Tablets/**b?ie=UTF8&node=1232597011 these two are literally the one and same page, but I guarantee you the latter is specifically optimized and indexed for search while the former is how the CMS sees the links.

Hi Oh not to worry, there's no rush It's a development issue, but they are currently reviewing this and we have requested lower levels in the menu structure.

It's gets everything from Google but it doesn't give you search volume - just different types of questions / searches. -Andy

Great thank you for your help! I'll keep an eye on the comments

Yeh, I have just seen a few ranking drops so I'm now a little concerned. Thanks for your advice!

Hi Becky, Here is what I found: The pros and cons of hiding content using JavaScript and CSS (display: none) has been a topic of some debate within the SEO industry, and Google’s comments over time have somewhat added to the confusion. **November 2014 **– Google’s John Mueller stated that Google _“may not” _index or rank hidden content. In aGoogle+ Hangout the following month, John repeated this, stating that hidden content would be _“discounted”_and has been for a number of years **21 July 2015 **– Google’s Gary Illyes, contributing to a Stack Overflow forum thread , provided clarification of this by stating that this type of content is given “way less weight in ranking” **27 July 2015 **– In a separate Stack Overflow thread on the same topic, Gary Illyes again confirmed that _“[Google] will index that but the content’s weight will be lower since it’s hidden” _ So the content will still be indexed, but deemed less important by the crawlers.

Thank you for your replies. I don't think the content will be exact duplicates, however I haven't seen it yet. My concern is that it will be low quality, product page content, put up quickly (so could be duplicate with supplier sites) because no one can write 17,000 that quickly. Will so much low quality content affect us?

Thank you this is helpful

Hi Jake Thank you for your input. I've looked in what might be blocked & I still have a couple of .js files blocked, they're AJAX e.g. http://www.key.co.uk/wcsstore/dojo18/dijit/nls/loading.js http://www.key.co.uk/wcsstore/dojo18/dojo/fx/easing.js These aren't in the robots.txt files - do you think it's worth finding & unblocking them? Thank you

Regarding the links which point to pages, but include the hash. If Google is only seeing this page http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/workbenches Will it be seeing these as pages which have duplicate content?

Great this helps, thank you!

Hi Thanks for this, I haven't used a scraper before, I'll have a look at it thanks

Great thanks - it hasn't affected everything, just a few things. I'll give it a go and get back to you Thanks!

Perfect thank you!

Thanks! Still not 100% sure what caused it but I'll keep looking!

It would be safe to assume that Panda considers engagement metrics as part of its analysis of site/page quality.  For example, a page with additional UGC, comments, shares, etc.. is likely to indicate a higher quality of content than a page without any of those factors. Jake Bohall