Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Complex question   Caveat: I don't work for Google and the precise workings of the canonical element in Google's algorithm is mostly educated speculation.

The answer is somewhere in-between yes and no. That's because the canonical element means that URL B is treated as URL A. In that sense it really shouldn't pass any direct link authority.

But(!) now let's complicate things. Let's point some links at URL B. (and not at URL A) In theory, those links are then canonicalized to URL A, and that equity passes to your site (yeah!)

So it's not a direct influence, but you can in theory gain link equity from canonicalized versions of URLs that point to your site.

Hi Leo,

Sounds like you were doing the right thing. Different tools will show different numbers, as all tools use different link indexes. In general, Moz is a bit more picky about the links it displays - we try to display the most important links that are likely to have an impact on your ranking. The downside of this is that our index can be smaller than some of the others (Ahrefs, Majestic) and you'll often find a bigger volume of links with those other indexes.

Also, for general help in using Open Site Explorer, here's an excellent resource: https://moz.com/help/guides/research-tools/open-site-explorer

I'm simply going to re-emphasize what others have said here: it's more important how similar the content is than anything else. "Jumpers" is certainly broad enough that you can attack it from several different content angles. If your website sells jumpers, it's not unusual to have multiple pages about jumpers.

The key is that every page should serve a specific purpose. If this isn't the case, work to find ways to either:

1. Consolidate or
2. Make the purpose of each page uniquely valuable.

Hope that helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

The good news is, this actually sounds pretty normal. 24 hours to reflect changes in content is better than many sites. I can't account for why it dropped from 4 to 24, but I'd say this is still in the range of "good"

Howdy,

A couple of questions:

1. Are there certain pages that aren't getting updated, or is it your entire site?
2. How often are changes in the pages reflected in Google's cache?

Is it a case where Google simply displays old/outdated information all the time? Finally, have you done a "Fetch and Render" check in Google Webmaster Tools?

Anything with "Link Exchange" in the title should be bumped to a Spam Score 100

Those are really, really horrible links. I'd probably disavow them just to be safe. On the other hand, unless you've received a manual action notice in Google Webmaster Tools, it's quite possible those links aren't hurting you at all and Google is simply ignoring them.

On the other hand, those links are just awful.

Good question.

On one hand, I'm a fan of linking out with, link equity. There's a good correlation with linking out and higher rankings (though I don't believe we've ever studied the difference between followed and nofollowed in this regard) I hate to see links "nofollowed" simply to protect against Google actions, but it is a reality of doing business.

To me, it comes down to how many of the sites are actual spam. "Low quality" is certainly different than spam. If it's a handful of sites out of thousands, I wouldn't worry about it too much. Generally, tourism websites are a much more trustworthy quality than sites in the gambling/adult/pharmaceutical verticals.

Now, on the other hand, if you do choose to nofollow the links, you probably won't see too many negative consequences.

In the end, I think you have to guage how bad the sites are that you're linking to, and make your judgement from there.

Typically, spam links don't generate much actual traffic. Is it possible that what you're seeing in GA is referral spam instead?  http://www.optimizesmart.com/geek-guide-removing-referrer-spam-google-analytics/

Also, do you see the links in Open Site Explorer? This might help determine if the links are real or if the referrals you are seeing are "phantom"

Not quite sure what you'd like to know about Domain Authority, but you can find lots of information about it here: https://moz.com/learn/seo/domain-authority

If there is a specific question we can answer, be sure to let us know!

Short answer: no (or at least, very unlikely)

Google publicly states they don't pull data form inside GA, and realistically they don't need to. They are only concerned about the performance of their search results, and how that traffic responds to individual results. They also have no reason to lie about not using GA data, as there are so many other sources of information that are better.

"And finally... when is google going to shut these open back doors in Analytics so that Vitaly and his ilk are shut down forever?"

Great question! Hopefully soon.

Short answer: create a custom 404 page, not just for these pages, but one that can show for everypage on your site.

A few resources:

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93641?hl=en

Example: http://moz.com/sadfklfadsadfjs

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=custom+404&pws=0&gl=us&gws_rd=ssl#pws=0&gl=us&q=how+to+create+a+custom+404

Yes, it's possible, but that could be considered cloaking. I'd say best to return a 404.

In that case, sounds like you should either:

• 404 them if you have evidence these have hurt your rankings/traffic (have you experienced a dip?)
• Ignore them and go about your day

If Google thinks the 301 leads to a page that isn't relevant enough, they may flag it as a "soft 404" even though it returns a 301.  That's Google's way of saying they think you should 404 these pages instead.

How much will it hurt you? Probably not much, but it's hard to say.

Let's ask these questions:

• How much traffic goes to these pages? If not much, is it okay to 404 them?
• Are there more relevant pages you could redirect these to? (ideally, something with a similar title as the original page?)
• Have you seen much traffic loss overall? If not, it's likely this isn't hurting you.

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.

There's a 100 different ways to do this, but typically my favorite approach is to try to work the synonym into the same copy without seeming spammy.
For example, if my primary keyword is "GMO" and my very literal synonym is "Genetically Modified Organism" then I'd try to work both variations into the copy.

<title>GMO Dangers - Knowing the Risks of Genetically Modified Organisms</title>

Here's a great article that goes into depth about the advantages of incorporating multiple variants into your SEO targeting http://cognitiveseo.com/blog/5370/941-traffic-increase-exploiting-the-synonyms-seo-ranking-technique/

Likely a coincidence, or at least highly probably there are other circumstances at play.

If you changed platforms, changed content, links, architecture at all, if there have been any changes in the backlinks, if the competition has made changes (something you can't controll!) if Google has made algorithm changes - even specific to your vertical, then you are bound to see changes in rankings that might be hard to pinpoint or explain.

Attorneys, especially those in certain niches like DUI, are especially tough and prone to fluctuation. Might take some extra investigation on your part.

Regardless, the site looks good and fast. Nice work!

Looks like a lot of good information from folks here so I'll be brief.

Technically, there's no practical way to redirect the page without redirecting the links. Unless your page serves a 404 or 410 response code, those links will be associated with your domain.

The only way to disassociate yourself from these links is through use of the Disavow Tool.

Relative URLs can be used, but it's still superior to use absolute URLs to avoid any mistakes down the line. i.e.  you miss a 301 redirect on a subdirectory and both HTTP and HTTPs versions resolve.

Relative URLs can be used in a pinch, but aren't recommended.

It took us 6-8 months to bounce back.

Yes, I'm actually worried about sending confusing signals to Google about where the content is suppose to live.

I don't like making Google think

Keep in mind this is a complex situation with lots of moving parts, so there are no "right" answers.

That said, you're dealing with a lot of potential redirects:

• Site migration
• HTTPS
• .php extension rewriting

On one hand, I'm concerned if you stagger these out, you'll be diluting your authority through several 301 redirects.
In this case, might be best to do it all at once.

On the other hand, doing it all at once greatly increases the chance of something going wrong. In this case, best to stagger things out.

At Moz, we went with "do it all at once" when we migrated to moz.com. Needless to say, we didn't do everything perfect and our organic traffic dropped nearly 30%, instead of the 15% we would have normally expected from a smaller migration.

Regardless, I'd still preference the "all at once" approach, and just be very diligent with your redirects, making sure not to drop pages, rewrite content, change title tags, etc.

As for moving big assets over ahead of time, I know some people endorse it, but I haven't seen a ton of evidence that it makes a significant difference. If it complicates things, I'd likely avoid it.

Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO.