Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Product / content focus. Some products supplied internationally not supplied in US. Should say that we are not intending to have a complete US sub-folder or sub-domain, simply a variant homepage.

We are building a new site on .com and wish to redirect traffic from US to a dedicated US-specific version of the homepage , whereas international traffic will go to the standard homepage.

We acknowledge the problems of IP redirection and googlebot crawling from US. So instead we are considering a Javascript pop-up if we recognise a US visitor (based on IP) which asks the user if they wish to view the US version or International version. We will store cookie of preferred selection for future visits. Within the site we will have a US/International selector.

Can Moz community members confirm this is the best approach?

Thanks

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your input.

The reason for doing it is part of an SEO site review process to examine pages indexed in Google compared to a site crawl in a tool like screaming frog and the indexed pages defined in GSC.

In terms of the "page 24 of 201 results" example, I mean that when you first use the site:domain.com Google will give you an estimated number of results, e.g. 3000 but actually as you click through the pages you find that the number of results is reduced - sometimes significantly.

The site:domain.com search seems to show less pages than it used to (Google and Bing).

It doesn't relate to a specific site but all sites. For example, I will get "page 1 of about 3,000 results" but by the time I've paged through the results it will end and change to "page 24 of 201 results". In that example If I look in GSC it shows 1,932 indexed.

Should I now accept the "pages" listed in site: is an unreliable metric?

In these days of CDNs does it matter for SEO whether images (and PDFs etc.) are hosted off-site?

Does it make a difference if images hosted on Flickr, photobucket etc.

Thanks

From PR activity we've found that lots of newspaper sites will include reference to a domain name in an article but not actually make this a link through to the domain. For example we will see text like:

For further information read the full report at www.bluewidget.com

Of course we make attempts to contact the newspaper to request they make it a link but this doesn't always achieve a result.

So the question is, does Google place any value for the identified domain in a case like this?

Thanks for your quick response Cristian.

Do you think if the authors share the article from the company page rather than posting it directy to their profile page they will still earn G+ authorship?

I have a client company looking to make use of G+ The company has a high quality, decent traffic blog with articles written by 4 in-house team members. The company has a G+ company page and each of the 4 blog authors has their own G+ profile. None of the G+ authors have any interest in using their G+ profile for general social reasons - simply as a means for sharing content (and consuming content from others) within the scope of the business sector they are in.

In order to take advantage of G+ authorship, we have now linked each user to their own G+ profile page (using Yoast WP plugin) and linked the website to the G+ company page. Rel=publisher also added for the company.

In terms of best practice would you recommend sharing new blog posts to the individual's G+ profile page AND to the G+ company page or just do one or the other?

As a final twist the company also has a G+ Local page which is primarily used for local search/map entry (the company is online but has a physical office address). Should articles also be posted to the G+ Local page?

Thanks Miriam. That post is exactly what I was looking for.

I have an established G+ company page but also want a G+ Local listing in order to appear on Google maps. The company does have a physical address, phone number etc. to qualify for a G+ Local listing. No current local listing exists to claim.

Should I:

a) Switch the currrent G+ company page to be a G+ Local page; or

b) Create a new G+ Local page and keep the G+ company page; or

c) Ignore G+ Local and create the listing through Google Places

Thanks

Hi Greg, thanks for taking the time to reply. I've outlined some further thoughts on my investigations around the size of the radius Google is using when considering  local intent in my comments to Dana. Interested in other members experiences.

Hi Dana, that's an interesting insight about the major competitor outside the city limits. Most of my focus has been on results that don't offer Google Places/Google+ Local but still have local intent. It appears that the ranking boost from local intent is either fully-on or fully-off, because I can rank #1 for approx 40miles from the location of this particular service, but at 50 miles I'm on page 3. I am carrying on my testing, just interested in other members experiences.

Based in the UK, I can see clear differences in search results for terms that Google considers have local intent, based on location. I'm interested in the community's experience of how far in distance local intent reaches. Does it depend on the search?, e.g. If I search for restaurant will it have a different local intent radius to a coffee shop etc.

Hi,

A client has a FB like button on their website but is frustrated that those "likes" are disconnected from their company FB page.

It is possible that they could change their website like button, to a like box, which will then mean people are liking their FB page and give them a greater opportunity for on-going engagement through FB.

However, from an SEO perspective is it better for them to attract likes & potential sharing of their website content rather than their FB content?

Thanks.

Just checking the headers on a client site and discovered a 307 redirect.

General suggestion from http status code sites is that it is similar to a 302 temporary redirect. Can someone confirm this is the case or is there a difference?