Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Ouch.
The only thing I'd add to Donford's comments is you're going to want to limit the redirect chain as much as possible when renaming files and folders for a third time. If you can go directly from original folder/file to newly renamed folder/file and skip the interim non-SEO-friendly URLs, that would be best. That said, you're going to have to bear in mind and plan for any newly acquired bookmarks and/or links since the relaunch.
You both (EGOL and DANA TAN) raise good points of consideration. I'm glad this topic came up b/c I have myself been frustrated when my question gets marked "answered" when I feel it has not. I like her proposal.
EGOL, I suspect your first two observations are accurate - that people "mark a question as "answered" when they get a response that they "like" instead of the response that they "need" and that "the best answer sometimes gets thumbed down because it requires work." A suggestion would be that they simply get tagged "closed" with no judgment as to whether the answer was good or bad, answered the intent of the query or not. That might also help when people do a subsequent search for a topic and find conflicting answers. That's happened to me, and to EGOL's point (rules and best practices change over time), I understand why. But seeing the question marked as "answered" just adds to the confusion, especially if you're new.
I think your suggestion about making "active" the default view is a good one.
I also want to say that I love it when Moz chimes in and marks an answer as a good one or endorses it. Really encourages participation and provides helpful information to all readers.
I like this how to retain at least 95% of your organic traffic guide from quick sprout. Very helpful. b-s.ee/1pvTWfc
Hi Jennita.
This statement - "In our mind it simply means that the original poster got the answer they needed." - makes me wonder if you might have missed a key point Dana was trying to make, that being shouldn't the original poster be the one who decides if they "got the answer they needed" or not? Perhaps you got that totally and I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I think her point is an excellent one and that's why I'm circling back on it again... just to be sure.
Steven,
Start by viewing your analytics to see what categories and tags are currently working for your audience. I suspect you have over-engineered your current solution and a lot of category and tag pages aren't being visited, or if they are, not for very long.
Next, make sure you don't have overlapping or redundant categories or tags, for example, "family portraits", "family reunion portraits", "maui family portraits", and "maui senior family portraits". This confuses your audience and makes it hard for you to ensure consistency and analyse results. You might want to have events as categories (weddings, reunions, births) for example, and locations and venues as tags.
Then, don't create a category or tag for everything. Set a minimum number of posts that would fit into the category or tag. You don't want a category or tag page, for example, to contain a single blog post.
Position your search button higher on the page.
Lastly, if you don't want a football field-sized list of categories and/or tags, use a drop-down.
I looked at your site Steven. Do you know that you have a mix of active and indexed pages that are http, https, and blog posts in a subdomain as well as subdirectory? You might want to clean that up.
Dr. Pete, I don't think you sound defensive at all. It's good to share all perspectives. And EGOL, as usual, is very open with his thinking.
Clearly it's a balancing act and there is no miracle cure. I suggest that we could ask the original poster to indicate if they're satisfied with the answer(s) provided and state that the question will be marked closed when we hear back from them OR in X days, which ever comes first.
Of course there's many ways to skin a cat and you've probably considered that, or a similar suggestion and quite a few others. If nothing else, this discussion clearly demonstrates Moz TAGFEE in action!
Understandably. Google has been less than clear on the topic.
I read an article by Marie Haynes Consulting (last updated April 2014) that clearly presents a historical timeline of statements made by our own Cyrus Shepard and John Mueller (Google) on this topic. I suggest you and your team read it a decide what you want to do after that. There is no clear "you should do this" answer because Google hasn't been clear, I don't think any of us have clear evidence what works / doesn't work, just about every scenario is going to be different, and any penalty that gets applied is going to be a manual one, so that translates into inconsistency as well.
Here's the full article - https://www.mariehaynes.com/footer-links-and-penalties/. I think you'll find it helpful.
A similar question was asked a while ago and here's what Moz Staffer Keri Morgret had to say.
"Here's some information from Google itself:
http://www.google.com/support/websearch/bin/answer.py?answer=136861
Words that are commonly used, like 'the,' 'a,' and 'for,' are usually ignored (these are called stop words). But there are even exceptions to this exception. The search
So you can see that there is no definitive list of "stop words"; the answer is contextual. Try your proposed title tag with and without the "stop word". If it has the same meaning both ways, you can safely omit it. If you think it will invoke a better response from viewers or clarifies some subtle distinction and you can fit it in within the known pixel constraints, then consider adding it.
Hi J.P.,
i have personally found this article and the solution it proposes to be the most helpful - http://help.analyticsedge.com/spam-filter/definitive-guide-to-removing-google-analytics-spam/. Hope it helps.
.... "and then build the second site's authority up from there".
He'd be far better off putting that effort and expense into building up his main site's authority. Show him an example of a close or direct competitor who has accrued valuable links (and thereby authority) by researching, publishing and promoting some high-value content.
Highly recommend you start with this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Ultimate-Guide-Link-Building-Credibility/dp/1599184427
It is written by ”link Moses” Eric Ward, prescient in his understanding of how links should and would be interpreted and used to rank websites. It’s he best place to start and will give you a solid foundation to build upon.
You can also use Google Search Console to ask Google to temporarily remove the page from its index. As Linda said, it should eventually drop off the index on its own, but this can help speed it up.
Go to Search Console > Google Index > Remove URLs.
I'd also make sure I wasn't continuing to link internally to the page.
Frustrating isn't it? Trying to get accurate link data? None of the tools are totally reliable and each one gives you a different answer.
MajesticSEO makes it easy to see which links are new and lost during a specific time frame. They have free and paid versions of the tool, with (obviously) more functionality available to paid subscribers. That said, if you register and confirm ownership of a domain, you can see details for free.
See if it gets you what you need.
Here's a discussion from last year on the same topic. The advice given is sound and still applicable.
http://moz.com/community/q/what-is-a-good-affordable-link-building-service-tried-jason-acidre-s
Hi Messichessi,
That question has been asked before. The short answer is about once a month and you can view updates here.
It's always best to search Q&A before posting. You can often find your answer quickly that way. Of course there may be times when you need additional clarification or the answer might need updating, but it's a good place to start.
Agree,
Use your own client's data to support this theory.
Build a case for what seems like common sense to the rest of us.
If your client is like the one Lee describes (fuel, with fluctuating prices), then you should at least provide something helpful like "We don't list prices because they fluctuate daily. Please refer to X to gauge industry pricing."
Very much appreciate this update. Thank you!
As you might expect, some of us rely heavily on the Moz API update. Consistency and quality is more important than frequency and volume. So while I now can better appreciate some of the difficulties and obstacles the Moz team is facing, I would love it if you could give us more than a few hours notice when an update is going to be delayed. Is that possible?
Here's a Q&A that Matt Cutts published in October 2010. The specific question asked was "how does Google determine domain age". In it Matt talks about the fact that Google uses a variety of means to determine domain (and page) age such as when Google first saw a link to a domain or page or when domain or page was first crawled.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pnpg00FWJY
I think the point he's making is that Google doesn't rely on a single variable when making ranking decisions. A change to the DC.date.created will likely be noted, but the fact that your site was previously found and indexed will carry more weight.
I don't know that definitely. I did do a search on Bill Slawski's site (seobythesea.com) to see if he an opinion that was patent-based but didn't find anything.
I say it depends on how you have your images linked on the site. If they point to media files then yes, you will have to redirect them. If they point to the page on which they are displayed to visitors then you will not because you've already accounted for those.
Agree with Andy and Donford.
I've seen it take as long as 8 months. It really depends on how long it takes for Google to reindex your site and every other page that previously pointed (backlinked) to you. It also assumes, as Andy-Halliday has pointed out, you've done your redirects correctly.
Don't give up. Don't change it back. Be patient. The only thing you can do is earn more and better links and that's not really recovering faster, it's augmenting your existing authority.