Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Doubtful - since you've had redirects in place for so long, Google most likely dropped the old domain(s) from the index long ago.

Thanks FCBM! I hadn't considered the reformatting Google tends to do anyway.At this point, I haven't seen any where this is the case 'in the wild' for our brand (maybe they've recognized that it doesn't affect the clickthrough on our stuff?). They simply just let it cut off since they're mostly over the 55 or so limit. I think a test is in order as well. Thanks!

Hi Blenny, Currently there is no way to associate/merge/split Moz accounts. Generally, a feature request like this ( since we don't support it currently ) should be sent through our Feature Request Forum ( http://seomoz.zendesk.com/forums/293194-seomoz-pro-feature-requests ). This allows us to see what folks want to see & how popular those features would be. You can submit ideas & vote for other features you'd like to see. Both of which help our product team in deciding what to build next. My suggestion is to try and keep your community activity within your personal community account and work related activities ( campaigns, reporting, etc ) in the work account.  That way your reputation stays with you regardless of what happens with work accounts. I know this doesn't help with stuff you've already posted, but would be a good place to start. I hope you have a great day, ..jeff;

Thanks Andy and Travis - Yeah, I think the enhancement and/or citation route is probably the safest for us. Thanks for your help!

Great stuff Corey, thanks for your response. We have made the decision here to implement at our item level, so I'm pretty excited. We're in a fairly competitive niche where no one has implemented this yet (including some REALLY large competitors), so I'm pretty optimistic that ranking and CTR improvements should follow.

Hi, thanks for your response, and I apologize for the delay in responding! In our current state, removing the AJAX links would be extremely difficult. We do actually have the AJAX Crawling Protocol in place, which is, conceivably why Google is able to crawl us and our rankings are basically unchanged. After speaking again with Bing's Support, they did acknoledge that they DO follow the escaped_fragment we set up, but that a rel="canonical" tag to the non-AJAX version was creating what they called in infinite indexation loop..whereby a java redirect at the non-AJAX, sent them to the AJAX, and a rel canonical sent them back to the non-AJAX. They suggested that if we wanted them to index the "Pretty" AJAX version, we remove the rel canonical pointing to the non-AJAX url. They didn't suggest putting the Pretty AJAX url in the rel canonical - I'm wondering if they may be a solution?Ideally, we'd have them index the non-AJAX url (though it seems like that isn't possible? Sorry this is so convoluted!) In the meantime, we've removed rel canonical entirely from this level of our website..but at the moment rankings haven't really been affected. Any suggestions? It feels like AJAX may be just completely inadvisable for Bing.

Hi Nakul, I appreciate your willingness to help! We actually resolved the issue with help from our developer - standard 404 page - both to viewer and bots - but we've implemented a routine to regularly search for viable redirects to eliminate as many as possible. On a related note - pretty good post on SEOmoz blog today about this very topic - coincidence?!

Great stuff..thanks again for your advice..much appreciated!

Thanks David, but at this point that information is outdated. I recently sent a request directly to Facebook regarding this issue - but at the current time, there doesn't seem to be a way to combine the two (at least that I, or anyone I've spoken to can find).

Thanks! I understand what you're saying and I agree...this is exactly the method that our CMS generates these pages. The crawlable, additional pages are unique and should be crawled. This being said, from a search engine's perspective, the obvious "canonicalized" page should be the main category. I believe the robots, no index/follow is the best option for me - though I'm not exactly sure how to implement it with our CMS system.. Thanks.

That was my first instinct as well - but I wanted to check if there was a better move? Thanks for your help!

Thanks a lot Marcin. This totally confirmed what I was thinking and I appreciate the source links.

Google can index and render both CSS and JavaScript, and has an uncanny ability to sort out bad intentions, so if you're trying to mask links with these, Google will (eventually) figure it out.  Your developer's assumption is wrong.  Google has come a long with with this, and can even index some AJAX content (when JavaScript loads additional content to a page from the server). Lots of navigation use accordions and other widgets that will display or hide navigation links depending on the page state.  That's fine.  Just don't go out of your way to hide links.

I think if you have a page of content for arguments sake on bannanas and you add three to four relevant videos on bannans its got to help for sure in making the page more relevant. It will help with Bounce rates also so help towards algo factors.

As much as we love OSE here, it is not a good bet for doing a complete inventory of your entire current site. I'd probably recommend a desktop crawler, like Xenu or Screaming Frog. See my comparison post here: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/crawler-faceoff-xenu-vs-screaming-frog I've got to believe that there's some logic that could connect the old and new URLs, though, even if it has to go through a database look-up. Creating 15,000 manual redirect rules isn't only going to be a huge pain, it may cause a huge processing bottleneck. I'd really push back on what "can't" means and why it can't be done. Too often, "can't" is code for "don't want to", in my experience.