Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Maybe I'm missing something? You can implement an htaccess rewrite rule (or equivalent for your server stack) using regex/host so that essentially http://example.com/foo OR https://example.com/foo redirect to https://example.com/bar That's the standard approach and serves in one hop. Is there something I'm missing why you're getting into a load balancer etc to accomplish this? P.

Ah, a very interesting question! I'd not be too concerned; you're loading the content in through a data attribute rather than directly as text. However, there are definitely a few options you could consider: Render via SVG feels like the safest bet, though that's going to be a pretty large, complex set of vectors. Save + serve as an image (and overcome the file size concerns by using WebP, HTTP/2, a CDN like Cloudflare, etc) Serve the content via a dedicated JavaScript file, which you could block access to via robots.txt (a bit fudgey!) I'd be keen to explore #2 - feels like you should be able to achieve the effect you're after with an image which isn't ridiculously huge.

Yeah - there is various speculation about how signals or authority traverse folder structures (see for example this whiteboard Friday ) but I haven't seen anything suggesting it's permanent - all of this may be an argument for adding /famous-dogs/ at some point, but I wouldn't personally stress about it not being there at launch.

In theory, there should be no difference - the canonical header should mean that Google treats the inclusion of /images/123456 as exactly the same as including /images/golden-retriever. It is slightly messier so I think that if it was easy, I'd go down the route of only ever using the /golden-retriever version - but if that's difficult, this is theoretically the same so should be fine.

It might be affecting your domain authority, but I would be more worried about those pages negatively affecting your rankings if the large number of pages are creating a poor UX due to a complicated navigation structure or if users are having difficulty finding the content they want. Overall I would say a general rule of thumb should be: does this content serve a purpose and provide value to our visitors? If the answer is no, then I would 301 to a page that provides value. If it's yes, I would keep the page.

Hey, I'm thinking about the basic things. First of all - Google won't take you seriously if you just have a couple of pages, which are new to his eyes, and with no links. More content (dofollow) will immediately mean that it sees you're trying to make an impact. + better chances of backlinks, shares. + better traffic since you have more pages. All of these would show Google that you're the real deal.

I would recommend option #1. It's common for sites without SSL certs not to resolve properly at the HTTPS version of their URLs, and Google handles this fine. You could pull the log files and take a look at how often Googlebot / other users request HTTPS versions of that site A's URLs, to determine if that SSL/redirect set up is necessary. But I would not anticipate any significant negative impact on traffic letting the HTTPS version of site A kick a 404 or server error.

I'll just leave this here. https://twitter.com/SEOmessiah/status/425417000186150913 What is the value to you? Exposure? Traffic? Links? Duplicate content has little value in the eyes of Google. And this: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2008/09/demystifying-duplicate-content-penalty.html