Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Log into your places account and go to your places page. There is a link to "report a problem." Click that link and explain what the issue is.
Here is the google article on dealing with this problem.http://www.google.com/support/places/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=183009
It can take several weeks for them to get around to correcting this so be patient.
1. It's no guarantee but it's a good place to start. I would reccomend it as a best practice.
2. You could either change the name and 301 redirect the old page to the new one and 9x% of the link juice will pass. The other option is to leave both versions up and add a rel canonical tag to both pages. You would want to have the same tag on both pages referencing your preferred version. If you dont mind having 2 versions I would go with canonical, but you will have to remember to update content of multiple pages which could be problematic on a large scale if not using a content management system. Either solution is acceptable though.
Update - Also remember to update any internal/nav links you may have and any external links that you have any control over.
This is great!!! I only wish I hadn't missed the main post before it got deleted!
SEO is dead because you have spent 1000's of man hours submitting to directories. Thats awesome.
I've read tons of books on baseball and watched hundreds of games!!!! I just dont understand why the Yankees refuse to pick me up? I'm a pro!
Hi Sean,
I guess I am being a little black and white there. I would try and get listed in any directories that your competitors are listed in that show authority in OSE. It may or may not do you any good but it wont hurt.
Here is Yahoo Directory, submit link.
https://ecom.yahoo.com/dir/submit/intro/
I guess what I am saying is that I would limit my time submitting to directories and try to use that time doing something that ads value, like participating in a community. It will pay you back way more than just pure SEO value and directories just aren't a good use of time or money in any large quantity.
Also check these links out for more info (the fact that SEOmoz has not dedicated ANY resources to updating this list or really discussing directories at all since 2008 is a good indicator of what they think of directories.)
If you can get into dmoz (impossible? maybe) and Yahoo sites they are worth while. Unless you are just have absolutely no links I think directories are pretty useless anymore.
If you are looking for quick easy links, maybe spend some time in some forums answering questions related to your business. you get a signature link (for what it's worth) and if you add value as a contributer, you can see some REAL referral traffic.
I would not pay for many directories.
Find some good communities and participate.
Hmmm, that is strange! Check a cached version of one of your URLs to make sure they new version is in the index. If it is, maybe you should switch to option 3.
I am not sure what if any the implications would be of leaving it the way you have it.
Since it is in 2 different areas of search I am not sure that duplicate content issues apply if you were to just leave it be.
There is no search operator, but you can access the cached version in the search results. Just search "url:websiteurl.com" then click the arrow > and it will open up options for the page. There is a link to view the cached version. See the pic below.
The site: search operator works just like it does in Google on Bing!
Hi Rich, JavaScript links are an issue! There is a seriousvrisk that this link will never be counted the way it stands. Here is a recent post on this. http://www.seomoz.org/qa/view/41582/javascript-links Also the webmasterbis not being entirely honest with you. They may be linking out that way in an effort to sculpt their own PageRank, preserving it for themselves instead of their members. I would be irritated by this if I were you.
That is normal i think. You have to fix this. It is a dup content nightmare. It wouldn't hurt to add rel canonical also although it shouldn't matter if you 301.
Google will eventually stop crawling the IP urls once they realize the correct URL.
Did you submit a sitemap too?
I have heard of this problem before. I was about to pitch a client of setting up snippets in their ecommerce site but decided againt it because I didnt want to be held resoponsible when they invest in the development hours and Google refuses to display them for a year.
Is this common? Anyone else had similar experiences.
Or you could just skip 2 latte's at Starbucks, then you don't have to sweat the 9 bucks to maintain it. 
DO NOT add nofollow to your navigation! It still dilutes the link juice you pass out, it just doesn't actually pass the juice. It is like drilling a hole in your boat. Totally wasted link juice, for internal pages that should be getting link juice. The wasted PR doesnt go anywhere when you do that, it's just wasted.
As I understand it nofollow still dilutes your link juice even though it does not pass PR (theoretically).
Google made this announcement to combat PR sculpting in 2009. Here is a post from Rand about it.
Unlsee something has changed that I am not aware of you could link in an iFrame and Google will not see it, nor will it dilute your PR passed out.
Absolutely agree that site navigation is an issue. Not really great for visitors of SEs. I would look at a new theme with better navigation.
Reviews, price and fresh data play a huge role.
This article is from 2009 but still very relevant IMHO.
http://www.seomoz.org/qa/view/7062/google-base-shopping-results
NEVER!
The only downside is the $9.95 you pay to keep the registration. The downside to turning it off are many. You lose the PR that is is passing, even if there is no traffic coming from that old domain it still passes PR! Keep it forever!
They seem to meet these requirements. The only one that is a problem is requirement #3, but it clearly states that is waived with News sitemaps which Matteo said they submitted.
With that said I do like Matteo's option #1 better than the naming convention they chose to go with.
It does sound weird, but I am not sure that search operator works in Google News.
Here is a simple test. Search Google News for "Google"
The second story I see is http://phandroid.com/2011/04/22/will-spotify-be-google-musics-savior/
However a Google News search for "inurl:will-spotify-be-google-musics-savior" returns no results.
Clearly the story is indexed!
I had another thought too. Just because the pages say they are indexed in Google WMT, doesn't mean the new content including the new canonical tags have been crawled or added to the index yet.
I recently did a similar project adding canonical tags to an ecommerce site. The new URLs are only showing up correctly in the search results maybe 10% of the time, even for pages I know have been crawled and I submitted a week ago. The important thing is that more URLs are updated each day.
I dont believe they throw out their index the first time they crawl an established page and something has changed. I believe the index gets changed as they continue to crawl they compare versions and index data based on multiple crawl agregates, especially if it is for existing pages that have been in the index for a while. So in other words, if they compare 20 recent crawls and only see 1 version as being different, they may not throw out the old version right away until they crawl it multiple times and see that the the new version exists, say 5 or 10 of the most recent 20 crawls. BTW I don't have any data to back that up just my personal observation/theory.
Yeah, thats good for a small ecommerce site.
Not practical for an Enterprise solution though.
