Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Donna Keegan just wrote a post in Site Pro News Saying the "Related Searches" feature is gone. It isn't gone. It's just been moved. That's why I thought they'd taken it down. Google has moved Related Searches out of the tool bar options in the drop down box and is now  automatically including them at the very bottom of the first page of search results. I am including a screenshot so everyone can see what I'm talking about. Donna's post is here: http://www.sitepronews.com/2013/05/08/google-removes-more-search-features/ - I have already left a comment letting her know that, indeed, Related Searches are alive and well, they just aren't hidden in the drop down menu any more. yKhTH3h.jpg

Thanks Don! (and Chris too). I think your guess on the platform is probably correct I appreciate both of your responses very much!

Thank you so much Peter. This is excellent advice and has dot fallen on deaf ears! As we move forward, not only with trying to make the current site better but also to redesign a site on a new platform that is easier for our customers to use, your advice is going to come in very handy. Thanks so much for taking the time to comment and advise! Dana

I think with Google's Keyword Tool you need to choose your match type. If you choose broad or phrase, then it will pick up any and all instances of "presonus 16" but if you choose exact, then it won't. So I think that Google does compile data on the words typed as well as on the suggestions. But I haven't heard of any data that suggests they are willing to be public about how reliant on the data they are. I know for Google Instant Suggest (or whatever it's called) if you click on the suggestion within a second or two the ads don't count that as an impression, so it may be similar to that kind of thing? Google may see the blue linked suggestion click within a specific time as the actual intended search query.

Thanks so much Alan for this great response. While I am not as technically savvy as you and Jason, I knew that I shouldn't 100% rely on Pingdom either, so I am very familiar with the other tools you mentioned and use them routinely. Since my hands are tied as I have no access to either server or source code. as I mentioned to Jason, I will be taking these suggestions to our IT Director to see how far I can get in addressing these issues. I am on the PageSpeed warpath, and really appreciate your generous response. I'll let you know what happens! Dana

Hi Streamline, I thought I would circle back and update everyone as to what I found. You were correct about mal-formed URLs being the culprit of this problem. We have many isolated incidences of URLs for internal links that are missing the "/" at the beginning of a relative URL. There are inconsistencies on the relative URLs all over the site. It's certainly an example of one of many problems that can be caused by using relative rather than absolute URLs. Since we are in the process of completely re-doing the site and moving to a new platform, it's something we can definitely work to get right during the transition. Thanks again to you, Daniel and Keri for jumping in with answers. Dana

Hi Tim, Most likely this isn't built-in to what we've got as we are on a very archaic, custom-coded site. Still, here's a URL just in case you might have any insights: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/product/cad-gxl2200 Let me know what you think (other than the site was coded when dinosaurs still roamed the earth) Dana

Hi all, I got and answer to this question from the great folks at Wistia themselves. Yes, it is possible! They were kind enough to allow me to post how to do it in my blog. The instructions and sample code  for how to do this can be found here: http://www.danatanseo.com/2013/02/how-to-make-video-transcripts-in-wistia.html Enjoy!

Thanks very much Christopher. This is an excellent explanation. What do you think of Charlie and EGOL's suggestions regarding making sure that there are links embedded in these PDFs pointing either back to the product page or even to the home page? In your opinion, is this something worth doing? If so, why?

I can sometimes search for something like "georgia" and then search for "guitars" and the first SERP will include a couple music stores in Georgia. And, if I look at the URL in the address window I can see that both "georgia" and "guitars" are present.  Google sometimes remembers prior queries and uses them to skew your next search.

Thanks Sean. This was a great suggestion. We are going to give it a go. I really appreciate it!

I like that approach a lot. Thanks for the heads up.

Well, I may have answered my own question I found an SEOMoz forum post by Ruchard Baxter (of course!) - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/schemaorg-a-new-approach-to-structured-data-for-seo It appears Schema.org is the way to go....I wish Schema.org hadn't referenced GoodRelations because I feel they sent me hopping down a bunny trail of the "old ways," Still, any insights, ideas or experiences any of you have had with structured data markup on large e-commerce sites would be very helpful and interesting to me.

Hi Jarno, Thanks so very much! I have to say I am really liking the A1 generator. How awesome of you to follow up. I really appreciate that. Yes, if you want to send me the complete sitemap via PM that would be awesome. I certainly hope I can return the favor Happy Holidays! Dana

Thanks very much Phil. I've gotten so much out of your blog posts and I recommend them to everyone who asks me about video SEO. Yes, flat on the page is working pretty well for us right now. The only times it's impractical is when the video is really long. In those instances we are either including the content via a tab, or even by creating a blog post with the video+transcript (much like what SEOMoz does for WBF videos). I appreciate you and all the others here responding to this question.

I try to setup http://www.seopanel.in/ on server few times. Basic package have pure functionality and have bugs. For more advanced functionality you must to buy plugins, not very expensive but I not try to do it.

Thanks Stremline. Yes, it was clear from this report from Pingdom.com that our SSL validation icon was the biggest culprit bogging down our pagespeed. We are moving the JS to an interior page and then linking to that page via the .gif image icon to see if this helps. After that, is seems our next biggest culprits could be images. Some of them are association images that could easily be combined into one optimized image. The two "problem child" javscripts seem to be  "iaf.js" and "CCI-utils.js"  - Although I don't code javascript I believe these pertain to site functions like the popout navigation menus. Awesome tool. Thank you. Do you have any developer tools that can help determine when javascripts load (pre versus post), etc. Thoughts? Thanks again! Dana

To whom it may concern. A word or two regarding your Google tracking dilemma. I have noticed that the domain version need to be the same, both in Moz and Google Analytics - IF you want to get most out of Moz and Google Analytics connection. Especially one of SUPERB function under 'Moz >> Overview >> Manage Keywords >> Find New Keywords'. Clicking on it after a while will actually automatically pull in the keywords from Google Analytics which people has used to find you but you didn't know! Cheers!