Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Why would you put a nofollow on the link to the homepage? Advice is not to use nofollow on internal links -

sources: http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2298312/matt-cutts-you-dont-have-to-nofollow-internal-links and https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/96569?hl=en

To quote the last link:

Here are some cases in which you might want to consider using nofollow:

• Untrusted content: If you can't or don't want to vouch for the content of pages you link to from your site — for example, untrusted user comments or guestbook entries — you should nofollow those links. This can discourage spammers from targeting your site, and will help keep your site from inadvertently passing PageRank to bad neighborhoods on the web. In particular, comment spammers may decide not to target a specific content management system or blog service if they can see that untrusted links in that service are nofollowed. If you want to recognize and reward trustworthy contributors, you could decide to automatically or manually remove the nofollowattribute on links posted by members or users who have consistently made high-quality contributions over time.
• Paid links: A site's ranking in Google search results is partly based on analysis of those sites that link to it. In order to prevent paid links from influencing search results and negatively impacting users, we urge webmasters usenofollow on such links. Search engine guidelines require machine-readable disclosure of paid links in the same way that consumers online and offline appreciate disclosure of paid relationships (for example, a full-page newspaper ad may be headed by the word "Advertisement"). More information on Google's stance on paid links.
• Crawl prioritization: Search engine robots can't sign in or register as a member on your forum, so there's no reason to invite Googlebot to follow "register here" or "sign in" links. Using nofollow on these links enables Googlebot to crawl other pages you'd prefer to see in Google's index. However, a solid information architecture — intuitive navigation, user- and search-engine-friendly URLs, and so on — is likely to be a far more productive use of resources than focusing on crawl prioritization via nofollowed links.

=> paid liks & untrusted content are not really applicable for internal links - crawl prioritization hardly applies either.

Hope this clarifies

Dirk

The answers above remain valid - check this video of Matt Cutts: http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 - interesting part is at 0:15 - summarising - having multiple links to the same page should be the least of your worries - probably you have more important SEO issues to tackle.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

It will not work when you put it in the body - check mistake 5 on this page: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html

"When we encounter a rel=canonical designation in the , it’s disregarded. "

rgds

Dirk

If it's only a few pages (less than 1 or 2% of total number of pages) you can just leave as it is (almost every site has these kind of thin content pages)

Alternative would be to put a noindex/follow on these pages or enrich them (telling more about your customers, giving a small intro text next to the examples from your portfolio)

Be careful with the links to your customers - you could consider to put them on "nofollow".

rgds,

Dirk

Unfortunately Google is not always using the meta description when showing your site in the SERP's - check this article: https://moz.com/blog/why-wont-google-use-my-meta-description. Basically in your case Google decided that the price of the training is more relevant than the content you provide in the meta description. Try rewriting your meta description - or just accept leave it like it is (if click rates are ok)

You might want to consider to translate the alt texts on your images - they're still in Dutch (which is also the reason why you see these Dutch words appearing in the snippet.

Also note that Google doesn't really like content which is "hidden" under tabs - https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html - you can still use anchors - but it's better to show all the content upfront.

Dirk

It's not as much performance driven (Google doesn't really care about the extension) - it's probably more about separating url's from the underlying technology. If you don't use the extension - you can change from html to .php or .asp without having to rewrite the url.

Having url's without extension also increases readability zalando.nl/shoes is easier memorise than zalando.nl/shoes.html

The reason why product pages are with the .html extension is probably because the cms they use is generating it like that by default & they didn't rewrite it.

Advice from Google: "A site's URL structure should be as simple as possible. Consider organising your content so that URLs are constructed logically and in a manner that is most intelligible to humans (when possible, readable words rather than long ID numbers)."

Check also the answers here: https://moz.com/community/q/removing-html-extension-from-url-benefit

Dirk

Hi Gerald,

Without the url it's difficult to check what's wrong with your site. You could try to use tools like http://web-sniffer.net/ or http://webpagetest.org/ to check what is happening with your pages. If you don't want to disclose your url you could send me a private message so I could have a look & check.

rgds,

Dirk

A good checklist on site migration can be found here: http://moz.com/blog/web-site-migration-guide-tips-for-seos

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi,

Although you don't literally mention the name of the site in your question - it can be found based on the info in the PR message.

If I'm right, the site is entirely made in Flash (never knew this still existed). While technically, Flash can be indexed by Google, it's certainly not the best technology from a SEO purpose (read this article http://moz.com/blog/flash-and-seo-compelling-reasons-why-search-engines-flash-still-dont-mix). It isn't the best technology from a user perspective either (the home page takes ages to load, and the final result doesn't really look very attractive - check http://www.webpagetest.org/video/compare.php?tests=150131_SB_TB8-r:1-c:0). If you really want to stick to flash - there is some info to be found here: http://blog.woorank.com/2013/01/how-to-optimize-flash-for-seo/ - although this post also clearly points out that it's to be avoided.

The biggest problem with your site is that you are serving different content to bots (javascript disabled) and to human visitors (the non-javascript version of your site is completely different than the normal flash version). This is probably done with the best intentions in order to make the flash content accessible for bots, but I fear Google is considering this as cloaking. If you look at how Google sees your site - there is certainly room for improvement: http://goo.gl/Pvj51j . Main content is not really visible, not really easy to read - basically ignoring all the best practices which you can find on Moz.

I don't know why Google suddenly decided to drop your site from the listings, but I doubt that it is the result of any negative SEO effort. To put it very bluntly, it seems rather the result of sticking to a technology which is long past its expiry date.

Dirk

The positions in the SERP's are fluctuating all the time. In fact, there is no such thing as a universal ranking: Google takes user's previous behaviour into account to determine the results in the SERP's (http://googleblog.blogspot.be/2009/12/personalized-search-for-everyone.html). If you try to check the rankings, you should try to do it in a more "anonymous" way. Cyrus Shepard from Moz wrote an interesting blogpost about it which you can read here.

Apart from the personalized search, Google is a learning organisme, and changing positions in the results is part of that learning process. Rather than continuously tracking the small ranking variations, it's better to track if your 'average' ranking, which you can find in Google Webmaster Tools. As long as it's stable or improving you're doing ok.

Dirk

Hi,

I did a quick crawl of your site with Screamingfrog - basic site structure seems to be ok - most of the pages are within 1/2 clicks from the homepage. The url's are pretty long - but that is not necessarily a sign that they are far from the root.

I noticed that you are using a lot of (very) heayv images on the site and that these images are pushing the content to the bottom, invisible without scrolling. Example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/fattransfertobutt2.jpg -> 1.150 KB for one image. This has an impact on the loadtime of your pages - see: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150110_FW_KEY/1/details/ . Some of the images are put on the non-www version, so needing an additional redirect.

If I look at your page titles, H1, meta descriptions - it seems that they are very specific, but not really answering the questions a potential user of this site may have. Example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/services/non-invasive-treatments/skin-rejuvenation/matrix-ir-laser-treatment/ => page title: Matrix IR Laser Treatment - New Radiance Palm Beach H1: Matrix IR - Metadescription: Matrix is an amazing wrinkle reduction procedure that uses ...etc -> few people will be looking for Matrix, so probably you need to do some keyword research and see what are the keywords which by your target audience.

Language used on the different pages is very commercial and not very informative.While most of the images are quite good in terms of quality, the images of staff are not sharp, and certainly do not look professional (example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/about-new-radiance/neil-c-goodman/- the profile picture looks like a scan from a picture taken in the 80ties)

Dirk

Hugh,

Without the actual url is difficult to judge what's going on. If it's a recent site the difference could be related to the crawl frequency. You could always try to double check with a crawler like Screaming Frog (free is you use an url list or for the first 500 crawls).

rgds,

Dirk

You could install the Google Analytics debugger (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/google-analytics-debugger/jnkmfdileelhofjcijamephohjechhna). Check the Javascript console in Chrome for Analytics related error messages to be sure that the event tracking is properly setup (when triggering the event)

Hi Justin,

The tags are now completely wrong - on the .com version it lists (seems the same on .com.au & the .co.nz)

Not really that technical, but check with your programmer - he must be able to find a way to get this right. The x-default is not that important in your case I guess as you mainly target these 3 markets. If you can't fix it it's better to take them off because now you're sending a very confusing message to Google (for en-us it now has the choice between 3 url's - and for the other languages there is no alternate url mentioned...)

rgds

Dirk

I would prefer better load times in Analytics. It samples the actual load time of the pages on your site, and is a good indication on how fast your users are seeing your content. You build your site for users, not for search engines. Normally, the faster your site loads, the better the user experience will be.

Apart from that, Analytics allows you to analyse which browsers, operating systems, etc. have the best/worst loading times, which helps you to prioritise the issues that should be solved.

Page speed insights is a great tool and will give you a lot of useful information on how you can optimise. It's is not a measure of how fast a page is loading. If you have 4 x 200KB images on your site, that are losslessly compressed - the tool will be quite happy to give you a good score on image optimisation, even if images of this size will take ages to load over a mobile connection. On the other hand, it can give you a low score for some render blocking javascript or css file, that in reality hardly has an effect on the user experience.

There is a 3rd tool I often use to measure pagespeed (webpagetest.org) - it also indicates areas of improvement and gives scores on each individual item, and it will also shows you the load time of each individual item on your page. Maybe most important feature: it allows you to see how fast the visible content is completely rendered on screen (which is in fact the most important measure for your visitors).

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi,

it's not really necessary to do it, but can be useful to make sure that the right url is being indexed and to avoid duplicate content issues.. Example - using canonical avoids that pages like site.com/index.htm&trackingid=xyz are indexed - only the correct site.com/index.htm will be indexed. Another example could be articles which could published in two sections, but only may be indexed in one section. Be carefuI, I sometimes see examples where the canonical is always identical to the url - even for the examples  as given before, which basically renders the canonical useles.

If you are sure that each page of your site has one unique url than you don't need the canonical url.

rgds

Dirk

Missing metadescriptions are on your /tag/ pages - but these are noindex so shouldn't be a problem. Few missing metadescriptions apart from that. Normally Moz bot respects noindex - so a bit strange that it's reporting these errors.

Didn't find exact duplicates but I guess these are generated by pages like http://venture.photo/kristine-chris/ - http://venture.photo/danielle-dave/ - the only difference between these pages is the video, which makes it almost impossible for bots to tell the difference between these pages. You could try to add some text & some images (with alt wedding photo) to make these pages more unique or integrate it with the "article style" content you have on site.

The galleries have a bit the same problem - a lot of images - but almost no text. I also noticed that you use "-" between the words in the alt text of the images -which is not necessary - it's even better to make it a plain descriptive text.

rgds

Dirk

Read this, it's obvious

If you are selling to B2C customers in the UK you have to include the VAT in the price your list - it's a legal obligation (this is the case all over Europe)

Quote: Any <abbr title="Value Added Tax">VAT</abbr> due is already included in the price of something you buy in a shop. No tax is added when you pay.

Source; https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-shopping

rgds

Dirk

Hi Justin,

I fear I made a mistake in the url's - you have to use the full url

Sorry.

Dirk