Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Hi! I wrote that article.
I asked Gary Ilyes about this in a middle of my talk at Big Digital in Adelaide last year as he was in the audience. He said yes, PDF links do pass PageRank. That said, I still use header canonicalisation to consolidate PDF into HTML files. Just to be sure.
Hrefang tag must point to translations of current page and itself. For example on https://www.memoq.com/de/ubersetzungsprodukte and other translations of that page you should add:
Use the same logic for other subpages and you'll be ok.
Cheers!
Both tools are right. You have been testing home page in flang.dejanseo.com.au where you have correct hreflang implementation, and that is why you pass the test.
But if you for example test https://www.memoq.com/de/ubersetzungsprodukte you will get errors, just like you are getting it in google search console. The reason is that hreflang tag is not properly implemented on that page.
If it makes sense to have them there then leave it, however if you feel there has been a traffic drop then it may be worth investigating if it was these 1700 indexed articles that have caused it.
Next step: Check your backlinks for unnatural anchor text distribution.
Panda still runs in installments, not continually. Rewriting content sounds like a massive task, hope it's worth it (e.g. is it better to write new stuff instead?). Have you got any pagination present on the site or indexable search results? We are under assumption here that you are certain that the problem is caused by Panda filter and not other factor and that your page layout and ads are not the cause of the drop or that the problem is not link related. I see no problem with 301 of pages with duplicate content to a new better content page. Sounds like something users might appreciate as well.
Submit a reconsideration request explaining the situation in as much detail as you can. Worst case scenario you will find out if it's a manual or algorithmic penalty. If no manual action has been taken then you will have no other option but to try harder to remove the links from dodgy sites.
My choice with be a rel canonical, however have you considered using rel prev and next?
Here are a few footprints which Google can use when evaluating your links (some are algorithmic and some manual if you are under audit/review and some are cross-referenced):
That one single hour in each day when I get in the "zone" and do week's worth of work in a single shot. Still figuring out how to extend that for the full 8 hours 
Going offline.
Have a TV or radio ad and tell people to search "your keyword".
I believe this was successfully executed for phrase "seo found" in Australia. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=seo%20found I was first suprised to see a peak in search volumes in Google Keyword Tool and was later told that they had a massive advertising campaign for this phrase.
This is something I intend to try in the future.
And if you don't get a link? Nevermind. You end up with a great piece of content that will likely attract a non-negotiated link anyway.
Google has endorsed use of breadcrumbs in several of their videos. They are a helpful device for website with complex structure or hierarchy such as eCommerce sites. They not only aid user navigation but also help search engines get a clearer picture about your site's structure. For example if you're using faceted navigation you could end up on a product page that has a long URL and ambiguous placement in the site's hierarchy. Breadcumbs can aid with this. Another neat thing is in the SERPs when you get little: Top Level > Main Category > Sub Category type links under your snippet.
I would use it at the top only, it's become a bit of a standard and people know where to expect it. Referncing it twice would be just a doubleup of the same set of links.
http://cgi.ebay.com.au/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200622210180
Whatever it sells for I'm giving to: http://www.beaheroaustralia.org/
Thanks guys,
Dan
Alt, although a valid signal is not as heavy as title for example, so I suggest that you do not compromise the integrity and quality of site for SEO purposes only and manipulation of this tag. Use ALT as it should be used and describe your illustrations, photos, products images and diagrams well enough so that a visually impaired may get an idea of what the image is. That's what Google expects you to do and is generally a win-win.
This is a smart move by SEOMoz, this forum will take over dwindling SEO forums we used to visit which are now full of spammers and ridiculous content. Barrier to entry is the key to quality here. Well done.
Just to add that I would personally be scared of having domainname.co if I know my competitor has domainname.com - too easy to spell it wrong and send free traffic the wrong way.
There is absolutely no mystery about whether inbound links can harm you or not. Apparently Google is very good at determining whether it was you buying links or somebody trying to sabotage you. I had a chat with Tiffany from Google's web spam team at SMX in Sydney and she said that there has been no cases when they got it wrong when they issue penalties.
I have a different theory however. To get penalised you need to demonstrate consistent link buying pattern over time. What typically happens is that SEO people buy high PageRank links only with very closely matched anchor text. Often these links are sold to other webmasters with different site topics. This is very easy for Google to spot.
What happens though is that during this process the rankings will shoot up like crazy and if you were to try and sabotage your competitor you would have helped them in the process and also spent an incredible amount of money. All that for them to submit a reconsideration request to Google and be out of jail within weeks.
As far as I know attempts at cheap forms of link spam in order to penalise competitors have so far been unsuccessful.
10/30/2015 16%. That's the percentage of people who read everything you write word-for-word. That number hasn't changed in two decades, which tells us that we've never really learned how to write for the web. In this week's Whiteboard Friday, Dan Petrovic illustrates a new approach to writing for the web to increase reader engagement, and offers some tools and tips to help along the way.
8/24/2015 Do search engines collect and utilise user behaviour data for ranking purposes? We've got a deep-dive into the data and theories behind user behaviour, search visibility, and more.
12/23/2011 “I'm going to register one hundred domains and link them all to my main website." This notion hits most people in their early stages of discovering how search engine algorithms work. Many people give in to temptation and test it out, and some have even built elaborate schemes that appear to work for a while.
6/12/2011 I love freestyle link building. There is hardly anything more satisfying than getting in the zone and branching out into countless search iterations plucking opportunities one by one, thinking of great content ideas, implementing it, sending it out and watching it hatch. This article, however, is not about that. Instead I will take you through methodology evolved within ...
4/1/2009 Viral marketing. We've seen it, enjoyed it, passed it on, and thought, “I could do something like this for my clients.” Most of us, however, do not pass the “I could” stage while others experiment with varying degrees of success. One thing is for sure, a well-executed viral marketing campaign can have a profound effect on traffic and branding. This post will reflect on main characteristics of successful campaigns and cover observations with two successful viral content experiments.
