Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I don't want to be rude - but why would you think your site is worth to be taken back in the index.

Most of your backlinks can be classified as "forum spam links" - it's nice as long as it works, but only having these type of links is waiting for spam penalties to happen.

I checked some of the content on your homepage - none of these articles seem to be original pieces of content. They seem to be copied from different sites across the web. Examples:

http://www.financialprospect.com/world/zika-virus-dangerous-than-imagination-us-25970.html - identical article here: http://www.livemags.com/2016/04/12/zika-virus-scarier-than-thought-says-us/

http://www.financialprospect.com/india-news/pm-modi-hosts-prince-william-and-kate-for-lunch-25774.html - identical article here: http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/pm-modi-hosts-prince-william-and-kate-for-lunch-1394631

So - no original content - bad link profile = added value for searchers & to be in the Google index?

Dirk

You'll have to add the SearchAction Schema to your pages - however this only makes sense if you have a high number of branded searches.

More info can be found here:

https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2014/09/improved-sitelinks-search-box.html

https://moz.com/blog/sitelinks-search-box

Dirk

Hi,

This is a recurring question on the Moz Q&A - you might want to check Rand's post about fluctuation of the DA in relation to index updates: https://moz.com/community/q/da-pa-fluctuations-how-to-interpret-apply-understand-these-ml-based-scores

Dirk

+1 for Egol here. A canonical is just a request to Google - a 301 is a directive Google has to respect. I don't really understand why your technical team is making such a fuzz about it - enforcing the trailing slash (or not) is just 1/2 lines in your .htacess file. Check Stackoverflow

Dirk

You shouldn't use campaign tracking to check internal links - you have to use event tracking. Check http://cutroni.com/blog/2010/03/30/tracking-internal-campaigns-with-google-analytics/ . Apart from the reporting issue - it's also generating a huge number of url's that need to be crawled by Google bot and is just wasting it's time (most of these tagged url have a correct canonical version). You mention these tags are old - but they are still present on a lost of pages.
For cases like this it's better to check with a local tool like Screaming Frog which gives you a much better view which pages are generating these links.

The other issue you have is probably related to a few pages that have a bad formatted (relative) url in a link - the way your site is configured it's just rendering a page on your site - so the bots are then crawling your site over and over again, each time encountering the same bad relative link - and each time adding the bad formatting to the url. It's an endless loop - best way to avoid this is to use absolute internal links rather than relative links. Not sure if it's the only one - but one of the pages with this error is :http://primepay.com/blog/7-ways-find-right-payroll-service-your-company  - it contains a link to

[Your payroll service is no different.]([Link to - http://www.primepay.com/en/payrollservices/] "Your payroll service is no different.")

This page should generate a 404 but is generating a 200 and the loop starts here.

Again - with screaming frog you can for each of these bad url's you can generate a crawl path report which shows you exactly on which page the error is generated.

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi

Just did the check with the on page grader - and for the combi keyword url you mentioned you get an A grade - without mention of any errors.

Also did a quick crawl with Screaming Frog and all these items are found by their crawler so it's certainly not a configuration error on your site.

May be a temporary glitch on Moz side - you could try again and see if you see still see the issue

Dirk

I don't think they do it on a fixed day - I receive crawl reports for my different sites on different days. It probably depends on the day you first scheduled your campaign; ex. you requested first crawl on Tuesday - you will probably receive your crawls every Tuesday

If you're talking about Moz Analytics: Moz crawls your site once/week - check here: https://moz.com/help/guides/moz-pro-overview/crawl-diagnostics:

'When you set up your campaign Roger Mozbot does a Starter Crawl of your site within two hours, crawling up to 250 pages. After that, he does a full crawl of your site (up to your page limit) and continues to do a full crawl once a week'

Dirk

In your sitemap you only have to link to the pages on your site - there is no need to add a link to the robots.txt file.

Your robots.txt is always on the root of the domain (yourdomain.com/robots.txt). In your robots.txt you can put the location of your sitemap(s) - just put the following line(s) at the end of the file. It is possible to add multiple lines if you have multiple sitemaps. Alternative would be to put a link to the index type of sitemap which contains the links to the different sitemaps you have.

Sitemap: http://www.yourdomain.com/name_of_your_sitemap.xml

It is not strictly necessary to add the link to the sitemap in your robots.txt - you can also just indicate the location in the Search Console (Google) / Web master tools (Bing)

Dirk

You have 2 canonicals on the page - the first one is correct - the second one (line 131) is

Check mistake 3 on https://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.nl/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html

Remove the 2nd one & you should be fine.

Dirk

You are redirecting Google bot to a 500 page. Check http://serverfault.com/questions/238664/block-bots-with-iis-7-5-and-8-0 - this page list a number of ways on how to block bots to access an IIS server. Then check your own configuration. My guess would be that you implemented one of these rules by accident.

Update: you don't block Bing - but you block Yahoo as well.

Dirk

Could you share an actual url? Can you see in the crawl which pages are linking to these strange url's? You could try to replicate the crawl locally (with Screaming Frog) to see if the problem is replicated

Did you check your url rewriting? Maybe you're trying to clean your url structure & the parameter is translated the wrong way?

Dirk

Guess so - the worst that can happen to you with long meta descriptions is that they get truncated.

If they are too short - you are not using the 2 lines that Google allocates you or (like in your case) that Google is just picking some text from your page.

There is no guarantee that Google will use the meta description in the SERP's but you will increase your chances by making them longer;

Dirk

Are you getting a lot of traffic from image search? Are these specific images worth finding (not just generic stock photo's)?

If not - it probably doesn't really matter. Is there a specific reason why they are doing this? Seems a bit odd for normal images (as it's mixing styling with HTML) - most of the time this is done for background images.

Dirk

In the example you give the meta description is too short (70 characters - should be 155 or even longer). If Google thinks your meta description isn't good at describing the content on the page, it will select another part of the content which seems to be more appropriate.

I would try to make the meta description a bit longer & teasing. The text should be both descriptive & teasing for the searcher to click on it. Check here https://moz.com/learn/seo/meta-description

Dirk

Hi Egol,

Interesting question, but difficult to answer. Could be a topic to ask on one of the Webmaster hangouts.

It all depends on how Google handles canonicals internally.

One possibility would be that Google considers the page from A that is syndicated on B not really as a page from B but a page from A. In that case, the links from that page would count as an internal link (A->A rather than as an external link B->A).

Another possibility would be that Google considers the fact that B is republishing the content from A as a kind of endorsement for A (in a non SEO world a site would only republish content from another site if the quality was really good). In that case, the links on the syndicated page would have value.

In both cases I would personally keep the links on the page. If you added them, it implies you think these links have some value for the visitor so taking them off wouldn't make much sense (unless your main goal was to add these links in order to optimise your internal link structure)

If you want to be on the safe side - if the links go to "commercial" pages, you could make them nofollow, if it's to other editorial content if would keep them as follow. I wouldn't omit the links - even when "nofollow" they could still generate traffic for your site.

Didn't found any "hard evidence" to support this, but we seem to have come in the stage where Google scared us so much about "bad links" that we start to question all type of incoming links. 
Sometimes you just have to trust your gut feeling - if the link looks "normal" in the context (and adds some value for the visitor) I would stick to a follow link.

Dirk

No - it won't be seen as manipulative, in fact it is the recommended way to syndicate content. Check https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066:

"Addressing syndicated content. If you syndicate your content for publication on other domains, you want to consolidate page ranking to your preferred URL.

To address these issues, we recommend you define a canonical URL for content (or equivalent content) available through multiple URLs"

Even if the new static page is 100% optimised - if all the internal links on your site are pointing to the less optimised dynamic version of the page, it will still be the dynamic page that will be listed.

If the content is quite similar - you could put a canonical url on the dynamic page, pointing to the new static version. This way you indicate to Google that you prefer the static version to be indexed.

Another possibility would be to redirect the dynamic page with 301 to the static version, my guess would be that this would be more difficult to do.

Dirk

I guess you are referencing the geo targeting in the Search Console - there is no geo targeting in Analytics.
If you have a country specific TLD like .co.uk your site is automatically targeted to the uk market. Geo targeting is only possible for 'neutral' TLD's like .com,.net,.org,...etc. If you site is targeted to one specific country it's very difficult to rank for keywords outside the geographic area. On a .co.uk domain it's virtually impossible to create a section that targets Australian customers.

In that case - you would need to buy a .au domain or a generic domain. If you want to target multiple countries and buying different local tld's is not possible - you can buy a generic one (.com) - and target parts of the site to a specific country like

mydomain.com/uk => target uk
mydomain.com/au => target au ... etc

Don't know what you mean with "canonicalising new url's with relevant keywords" - for international content you shouldn't use canonical url's to point to your main content - rather use href lang tags to make it obvious to search engines which part of the site is targeted to which audience.

Some useful resources:
International SEO checklist (Moz) Hreflang attributes (Google)
International SEO (Moz)
Country Targeting (Google)
Geo-Targeting Your Pages for Specific Audiences (Bing)

Google is indexing both - the url which is referring to the image & the image of the url itself. So yes - you can use two different domains. The domain that only contains the images will normally not be indexed (there is nothing to crawl there - the images are only accessible through the main domain).

Personally, if image search is important for you I would never put the images on a domain that you don't own (like e.g. an amazon s3 url). This isn't the case for Booking - the are also owner of the bstatic domain. The reason why they use this domain is probably performance related. Note that they also redirect the root of bstatic.com to booking.com.

Dirk