Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Using tables in your HTML will produce a poor mobile experience. Because the world is moving more towards mobile everyday, we can't ignore it, and neither can search engines.
I don't think search engines will punish you for having table tags in your HTML, but if your site is consistently producing high bounce rates from mobile users - you're not really winning are you.
You can get a pretty complete list from Open Site Explorer by changing some of the filter settings.
Set Show to only 301 Set **links from **to only external Set pages to pages on this root domain
This should show you a significant portion of your inbound short URLs.
It's more of a warning than a real problem, but it is possible that search engines will see the pages and consider them duplicate content. It's possible that one of those pages won't be indexed.
I've come across this problem before writing for my own blog. I was writing some tips for Apache and .htaccess and found that every post I wrote was tagged to both categories, so the category pages were being flagged as duplicate content. I remedied this by consciously writing a post that only fit into one category, and the warning was removed from my Moz campaign report.
If you're not great at HTML, then perhaps you should consider having your site converted to WordPress. The initial cost will definitely be outweighed by the long-term benefits.
WordPress will allow you to edit and add new content with little or no HTML/CSS knowledge. You'll be able to use a WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) interface to add text and style it however you see fit.
If you install the WordPress SEO by Yoast plugin, you'll be able to update the title tag, meta description tag by post, set up open graph meta tags, the meta robots tag, and much much more - again - all without any HTML knowledge.
I don't see how this could be beneficial to your site in any way.
I would be extremely careful buying services like this. Any black-hat or paid link-building scheme out there that go against Google's guidelines could potentially harm your rankings.
Google tends to "think" for you when running searches. They often assume like words mean the same thing, so running a search query for "funny images" and "funny pictures" will likely produce very similar (if not the same) results. You should take this to your advantage, rather than worrying about it too much.
I see this used a lot when I search for "web developer" and get results for "web development" and "web design." The keywords are bolded as if Google assumed that is what I meant. I don't think it's a problem, just something to account for in your keyword research.
The post excerpt is likely the first paragraph or so of your post, and often times doesn't include your target keywords and is not a good preview of what the post is all about.
You should tailor your meta description to potential readers. Give them a reason to click through and read your article.
Your Open Graph description should also be tailored for social networks to promote sharing. This description is likely different than your meta description and probably much different then your post excerpt.
As Chris stated above, the page is certainly there. Some CMS' will create duplicate pages and it might be as simple as determining where the page is coming from and removing it. I couldn't find any inbound links for this page, so you would probably be ok removing it.
On the other hand, 301 redirecting the page would probably be a cleaner option. If you are running an apache server, you would write a 301 redirect in your .htaccess file like below.
RedirectMatch 301 /extra-services/transportation--car-rails--146.html /extra-services/car-pick-up-service-146.html
This should take care of the problem, and GWMT won't bother you about it anymore.
%0A is the line feed character, so it looks like your CMS may be spitting out links that browsers and crawls interpret as relative links.
If your link appears like this:
[The link will be interpreted as relative and result in the link that you found on your Moz error report.
It's probably a problem with how the CMS is spitting out the href attribute, but it's hard to say without knowing more information.](%0Ahttp://www.yoursite.com/resource.html)
Out of the box it has to be Magento, but you can extend it even further with modules.
I personally choose not to use them, and I know others do as well. In some niches, information gets stale so quickly that linking people to your old content may be counter-productive.
If you do choose to have archives linked to from your site, you can choose to noindex them with the WordPress Yoast plugin.
It depends on what you are trying to get out of it.
If you are using local directories to improve your SEO and inbound link profile, then no - I don't think they are worth the time.
If you are using local directories to get your brand in front of potential customers, then yes, it is definitely worth your time.
Why not try to avoid the problem altogheter? I assume the below line is site-wide:
If you remove the index, follow meta tag, your pages will still be indexed and followed. Then allow your authors to decide on a post-by-post basis if they want to noindex or nofollow the page.
Local directories will help you with expanding your reach for local search. Having a listing on Google Places, Bing, Yahoo, Yelp, FourSquare, etc., will get your brand in front of potential customers faces. Isn't this the ultimate goal? Whether or not this helps you rank in search engines, you still want to turn leads into sales.
If you are looking at local directories as your sole source of inbound links to improve your SEO, you should probably look elsewhere, but if your interested in getting your brand out there for people to see, local directories are essential.
Looks like you missed "http://" in some URLs so the browser is treating them as relative links. There are more.
On this page: http://www.boxtheorygold.com/blog/?Tag=Business+Leader and others like it, I found several URLs that start with "www." which is your problem. This page has a relative link on the anchor text "keep on improving"
Yes - his website homepage has a short excerpt on SEO, so I'm assuming he has a working knowledge of it.
I agree with you that the designs presented are much more appealing than your current design. While your current site is outdated and has a "responsive" (sort of...) design, there is a lot of room for improvement.
It looks like he is an experienced designer that has a working knowledge of SEO, which is really important when considering developing or designing a new site. URL structures, page layout, and usability all play into SEO.
As far as what design to go with, you'll probably want to sit down with your management team and first determine the following:
After defining these answers (you probably already have done this), you'll have a better idea of what type of design you want, what type of call-to-action's you'll have, the layout and structure, etc., etc.
The most recent Google Penguin update was another edition in a series of algorithm updates to fight spam in Google search results. Google recognizes spam as sites that paid for links, or achieved inbound links in unnatural ways.
Take a look at your backlink profile: http://www.opensiteexplorer.org/links?site=www.performanceinsiders.com. There are a lot of inbound links for the keyword "male enhancement" and it looks extremely unnatural. There is virtually no anchor text variation, which is a signal to Google that the inbound link profile is unnatural.
Log into your Google Webmaster Tools account and see if you have any notifications. You may have been assessed with a manual penalty. If not, this is most likely a Penguin hit.
I would suggest using URLs without file extensions. It's cleaner, and easier for users to remember.
Because http://www.vietnamvisacorp.com/faqs is essentially http://www.vietnamvisacorp.com/faqs/index.html (if you don't use Apache to manipulate URLs), you'll need to have a redirect set up to avoid losing any visitor flow and incoming link juice. If you run an Apache web server, you'll want to do this in .htaccess.
As Chris stated above, it does look like a Google Penguin hit.
First plan of action would be to log into Google Webmaster Tools and see if you have any notifications from Google regarding manual penalties. If so, take the necessary steps to resolve these issues.
Second, it does look like you have some really spammy links coming in from spammy sources. I ran an OpenSiteExplorer report on your page and I see the same "cialis" links that Chris alluded to above. You may want to look at disavowing links like these to make your inbound link profile look more organic.
And finally - update your site! If you had somehow managed to make it through Penguin 2.0, you would have eventually lost your rankings anyways because other sites will be coming in and taking advantage of absence.
Hope this helps!
