Welcome to the Q&A Forum

The self referencing canonical advice was solid and I 100% agree with it. The rel=alternate advice, I felt would cause problems (IMO). But as we all know, fiddly issues like this are highly subjective

I second this. Link authority being translated through 301s is subject to similarity checks as I outline here: https://moz.com/community/q/root-domain-change-how-do-we-best-handle-existing-backlinks-from-our-own-content-platforms-on-youtube-etc (just look for my answer)

If everything is done properly, the old site loses rankings for the content which is extracted and placed somewhere else. Hopefully the new site manages to achieve similar rankings for the migrated content, but there are a number of factors which could inhibit that

One thing would be the 'sandbox' that Google often puts around fresh domains which can see rankings inhibited for 3-6 months if the domain is very new (if it's never been used before, if it's only been a domain-sales based holding page before, or if the domain was misused in the past)

Other than that, a proper 301 redirect migration project would be needed to see as small a dip in performance as possible. You hope is that the old site loses all associated rankings and the new site picks them up again, but things seldom go this smoothly with such large and complex projects. What usually happens is that you lose the associated rankings from the old site and on the new site you often see a 10-15% dip in traffic, yes - even if you think all your redirects are perfect!

Remember that page-loading speeds affect rankings. If the new site is seen as a 'small project' and an 'offshoot' it is unlikely to gain the same strong hosting environment as the main site has - even if both sites are built using the same technology. As such you can sometimes see ranking reductions due to that

There's other stuff. Sometimes people only move the content across but don't move any of the Meta / technical SEO which existed on the old pages, to the new pages. Failed tech / Meta migration can also impact rankings quite prominently (thinks like H1s changing, custom URL slugs changing, Meta data changing, Schema getting 'lost' etc)

If the UX of the new site is poor or very different to that of the old site, that could potentially affect results

With 301 redirects there are numerous factors that can dampen their effectiveness:

• Creating too many links to redirects, internally or externally
• Creating redirect chains
• Misuse of redirect types (e.g: using a 302 or Meta refresh instead of a 301)
• Content similarity (e.g: if Google harvests the content on the old page and new page, using something like Boolean string similarity to compare - if the content has a low 'percentage' of similarity, you're not likely to see the SEO authority go across. This is a massively important one
• If Google believes that moving the content is an attempt to manipulate organic-search (SEO) rankings (e.g: if the content is moving purely so it can exist on an exact-match domain, and therefore get higher SEO rankings - but actually no value for the user is added by moving the content out)
• If Google believes the content has been moved from one organisation, brand or entity to another (aka the content has been sold for SEO purposes) that could influence how they look at the movement

... there are so many possible factors. Tread carefully and make sure all the 301 redirects are completely on-point with no errors, and the dip you may observe will likely be short and small. But if you go against Google, you could just lose everything and never see it again!

Full support for this answer

I agree with this response. If the content is mostly under your own control (the main content is yours, maybe with some scattering of UGC 'comments' from parents) then go subdirectory

If in the future you create an area where you have way less control over what is posted (like a forum, which is 99% UGC) then go subdomain

Oh lord I really don't like working with Shopify haha! Basically I avoid it like the plague, although I will admit it is slowly, slowly improving

We have one or two clients who run Shopify and we absolutely do the best we can for them, but the truth is usually their results improve 'more' after they leave the platform. I can say that, Shopify is a good product for one-man-bands and people who 'just need a site' that looks professional (for their business cards etc) but no, it's not SEO-competitive (at all)

I don't make a huge effort to keep up with all of Shopify's changes and stuff, because what I have realised is that the fundamental philosophy of the platform (which is unlikely to change) goes against the competitive art and practice of SEO. When the platform stifles and limits 'what you can do' - how can it ever be bleeding edge? You end up confined

Email is on our Moz profile here if you want to have a chat about it. If you're moving 'away' from Shopify, there may be some pains there in terms of redirect limitations - but I'd need to look again and familiarise myself with what they can currently offer in that regard

If you shed most of your content and / or pages, you WILL lose most of the SEO authority.

301 redirects can transfer 'up to' 100% of SEO authority, from one place to another

They fall down in two situations:

1. Chaining redirects

2. Dissimilar content

Even if 301s go A-to-B, if the content is highly dissimilar, the SEO authority gets vented instead of transferring over. This is to put a stop to black-hat techniques, like buying up old authoritative domains and then 301-ing them all to one page for a giant SEO boost (it used to work, it kind of works now... but not well at all - and not for long)

If a machine can read all the content from Google's last 'active' cache of the old URLs, and then read the content and technical / brand facets of the new URL - and feel they are highly dissimilar (in machine terms, think Boolean string similarity) then... the 301 redirect loses much of its power

Google don't see you, as the owner of your own page's SEO authority. You didn't earn it, the pages did - with their great content. As such, if you're removing content from the web which Google likes, and putting an 'unknown quantity' in its place - that's risk for Google's rankings. Be very careful how you move...

Well, to prevent information / data leakage you should certainly disable directory browsing

For example, on your homepage I can right-click your logo image and copy the image URL: https://www.myqurantutor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MY-QURAN-TUTOR-LOGO-400x56.png

But I can edit the link to the directory level, for example:

https://www.myqurantutor.com/wp-content/uploads/

Now I can see all your uploads, ever:

• https://d.pr/i/C7DTY4.png (screenshot)

I can browse all your folders, even some backup files. There's also some info I can use to fingerprint your site build if I want to. To patch this, usually all you have to do its add "Options -Indexes" to your .htaccess file

I didn't detect a firewall shielding your site, which would make it way easier to DDoS if someone wanted to do that. Some kind of firewall or traffic offloading facility might be useful

Your site isn't using an HSTS entry ("Strict-Transport-Security") in the header so browsers can attempt to connect via HTTP without being intercepted (though you may handle that via redirects instead, an HSTS policy helps). You don't seem to be using "X-Frame-Options" in your header which helps browsers to know, whether content from your site can be rendered inside of frames (on other domains). If you allow frame embeds, that can lead to clickjacking and stuff (though for some webmasters there's no real way around it as allowing their site's content to be embedded, may be a requirement)

I can't really find any fields which seem as if they would be vulnerable to SQL injection, but I'm not really an expert at scanning for that kind of thing. I'd assuredly lock down the site from an SQL-I perspective, if you haven't done so already

If other images are not via CDN, then you can probably also deploy WebP images without the CDN. I would convert your on-site images to WebP and recode your site / theme to serve your WebP images instead, and then code in some fall-backs for browsers which still don't support WebP. What I'm not seeing, is why a CDN is fundamentally required. Adding more unnecessary calls and connections to your pages can slow it down. For large sites with huge traffic-loads, CDNs are perfectly appropriate. With some smaller sites, I have seen CDNs implemented which actually make the pages take longer to load (a CDN isn't always needed). Myself I'd experiment on a couple of pages, replacing all their embedded images with WebP versions and see what difference it makes. If it met with success, I'd then roll the change out across the site (with in-code fall-backs for older or disruptive browsers). But I don't think I'd adopt a CDN at the same time I was trialing WebP, I'd keep it separate (for now). Then I'd try a CDN after and see if that resulted in further uplift or not!

Just so you are aware, the code-sample which you supplied is HTML and not JavaScript (or for that matter, any type of script. Scripting languages include JavaScript, Python, Ruby, Perl etc).

You may be asking one of two things (I think!):

1) Is there a set HTML format for hyperlinks which Google knows how to read?

Yes, and you can find **information all about ** conventional use of the <a></a><a>(HTML) tag here:</a>

<a></a>

<a></a>

• <a></a>https://www.w3schools.com/tags/tag_a.asp

HTML is a static language and is not (unlike many scripting languages) 'object oriented'. You don't define "<a>" and as such</a> <a>is not interpreted based upon your programmed parameters.</a> <a>always means the same thing (to a a web browser). Sure stuff like CSS can style links in different ways, JavaScript can modify</a> <a>tags by injecting event-tracking attributes etc (also a common use of jQuery) but fundamentally the usage of</a> <a>is</a> <a>(mostly) universally agreed. So yes - links are coded according to conventions and Google will interpret those widely accepted conventional use-cases, as well as a few more experimental deployments (possibly through error handling in Google's algorithms). In general, you should follow W3C / W3 Schools guidelines. There are many forms of link (no-followed links, text links, image links) and all are valid but yes - they are predetermined</a>

<a>2) This is the HTML which my JavaScript will output - is it ok?

Yeah it's fine dude. If you can handle JS, you can handle HTML (it's way simpler). One thing though, although Google can deploy rendered (JS-enabled) crawling, that involves using headless browsers and such to render the 'modified' source code (so, what you see in 'inspect element' is the modified source. What you see in "view page source" is different, that's the pre-modified or base-source code).

Usually speaking this takes 10x longer than simple DOM / base-source scrapes. As such if Google were to deploy that tech on every crawl for every page on the web, the efficiency hit to their 'index the web' mission would be colossal. Many studies show that Google will not render JS on all sites (especially one perceived to be low value). Even on sites where they will use this tech, they won't deploy it all of the time. There really is no substitute for forcing your links and content to be readable in the base-source code (un-modified). It's way better for crawlers, way more efficient for them to work with. Just because Google ' can' do something, it doesn't mean they always will. It doesn't mean it's a good idea to ignore basic SEO principles!

Hope that helps</a>

Yes that can hurt Google rankings. Insecure pages tend to rank less well and over time, that trend is only set to increase (with Google becoming less and less accepting of insecure pages, eventually they will probably be labelled a 'bad neighborhood' like gambling and porn sites). Additionally, URLs which link out to insecure pages (which are not on HTTPS) can also see adverse ranking effects (as Google knows that those pages are likely to direct users to insecure areas of the web)

At the moment, you can probably get by with some concessions. Those concessions would be, accepting that the insecure URLs probably won't rank very well compared with pages offering the same entertainment / functionality, which have fully embraced secure browsing (which are on HTTPS, which are still responsive, which don't link to insecure addresses)

If you're confident that the functionality you are offering, fundamentally can't be offered through HTTPS - then that may be only a minor concern (as all your competitors are bound by the same restrictions). If you're wrong, though - you're gonna have a bad time. Being 'wrong' now, may be more appealing than being 'dead wrong' later

Google will not remove the warnings your pages have, unless you play ball. If you think that won't bother your users, or that your competition is fundamentally incapable of a better, more secure integration - fair enough. Google is set to take more and more action on this over time

P.S: if your main, ranking pages are secure and if they don't directly link to this small subset of insecure pages, then you'll probably be ok (at least in the short term)

In general, websites that allow you to 'submit' (and therefore create guaranteed links) are usually of intrinsically low value. At most, they usually don't boost your rankings meaning that you have wasted your own time. In link building, quality trumps quantity (volume) every time.

Instead of thinking which directories or article-wheels to submit your content (or site) to, think about the value-add. Does anyone really browse most of those directories or do most people just Google it? Will anyone see your page? How often - one person per year? **Will they follow the link? **(that's a key question)

Relevance is about more than just semantic contextual word-play. Just because some website is about the same thing as your website, that doesn't mean that any and all links which you place 'must surely be relevant'. Why is it relevant for a user to follow the link? That's real relevance. If you are considering relevance without thinking about end-user value-add, then you're just saying words and not really taking the Google philosophy to heart.

It's about creating something that adds value to the web (something which other websites don't supply). If your site doesn't add value to the web, then it has to do something that another site already does, but infinitely better (in such a way that users flock to it, like how FaceBook killed MySpace). If you're not adding value to the online community and you're not putting in the effort to sink the competition through sheer effort and positive energy, never expect to rank well. Link 'building' isn't what it used to be (in terms of how easy it is to shoot up rankings), Google's Penguin algorithm (now integrated into its core algo-set) can see through thin, 'made just for SEO' content and links in an absolute heartbeat.

You really need to think about your service and how to style it a heck of a lot better. You want people engaging with your female escorts? I'm not here to judge - but those websites don't do much to push their talents as a 'premium' service. Even with solid, powerful links - the sites linking to you would probably just get penalised instead of your site(s) doing well (sorry! But it's probably true).

If you can escape the bare-minimum effort mentality, you can succeed in modern SEO. Ger with the long-termist philosophy. If you just want to make a quick buck with PBNs and stuff like that, there are (assuredly) better communities to service your needs than this one

No, none whatsoever. The old TLD bonus debates drew an accurate correlation but completely inaccurate causality

People thought:

1) I see lots of EDU sites

2) They rank really well

3) If I make an EDU it will rank well

... WRONG! Google aren't that stupid. Otherwise all webmasters would now be using EDU domains and all other domains would be pointless (which would be a weird internet to live on)

The truth was actually this:

1) EDU TLDs (Top-Level Domains) tend to be chosen by educational bodies or organisations

2) Such organisations are usually run by educated people and academics

3) One thing those people are good at, is creating really strong (in-depth) accurate content

4) As such many EDU sites naturally became prominent, because of Google's normal ranking rules (not some weird EDU TLD bonus scheme)

If you're looking for quick and easy answers in SEO, you're gonna have a bad time

If you share the linking site I could probably try and figure it out!

I guess that if Google decides to crawl your site using one of their data-centers from one of the blocked regions, suddenly Google will believe that your whole site has gone down and become inaccessible (as Google rarely launches crawls from multiple multi-regional data centers, for one website - simultaneously)

**Exempting GoogleBot via user-agent would be the only possible work-around **(that I know of) If those trying to access your site (whom you are trying to block out) became aware of this modification, they could alter their scripts, browsers and tools to send you the GoogleBot user-agent (thus penetrating your firewall pretty easily)

In the end, you just have to decide what's more important to you

It might be possible to identify Google's data-centre IP addresses from server logs and exempt those instead of exempting their user-agent, but that would probably need a full time employee just to keep up with all the changes. You can be sure that Google won't make it easy to identify their data centers via IP data

This post is pretty much on the money. Directory links don't really have much SEO 'authority' value anyway, they only really help with geo-relevance. The fact of the matter is, barely anyone uses web-directories any more. Since search, they have become outmoded

As such, 9 times out of 10, no traffic flows through these links. Due to that, Google doesn't weight them very strongly. They can help to confirm the geographic position of your business and stuff like that, but only a select number of directories and directory-aggregators (like Central Index) are effective for that kind of thing

Like Thomas says, don't buy spammy directory links it's not safe. Well... I guess I'd say, you can buy paid links under certain circumstances - but if they're created for advertising purposes, they must be no-followed (so that they don't manipulate SEO rankings). Due to this, you would never create paid links 'just for SEO'. You'd be creating the paid links as part of a 'referral' traffic campaign, when you were certain that the link was priced right and you'd see decent traffic through it. But you'd nullify the SEO impact, to prevent any potential issues with Google

Google only want 'editorial' (not paid for, without bias) hyperlinks, created by editors or webmasters - to alter their ranking positions. If you pay an editor to review content which you might place on their site (but don't pay for the link itself), that's a gray area where you might be alright (as long as you content wasn't spammy). That being said, if you'rte paying for an editorial review process, you could pay and have your content declined (so there's more risk there also)

I second tom's opinion that 'guest posting' in its TRUE form is not dead. The problem with Google's language there is that, they confused 'sponsored' (paid) posting with guest authorship. Too many people did sponsored posts and claimed (falsely, against advertising laws) that they were editorial pieces. Advertorials and sponsored posts are dead. Guest posting, in its real (editorial) format is still very much alive and can work wonders

Completely agree with this.

Also deploy Meta no-index (through the HTTP header / X-Robots, rather than through the HTML if that ends up being a problem... Info on both HTTP and HTML deployments here: https://developers.google.com/search/reference/robots_meta_tag)

Then you're firing both barrels of the shotgun. Telling Google not to index the pages _and _telling Google that the pages won't be coming back

You can call me James nice to meet you Thomas

First of all keep in mind that Google has chosen the pages it is deciding to rank for one reason or another, and that canonical tags do not consolidate link equity (SEO authority) in the same way which 301 redirects do

As such, it's possible that you could implement a very 'logical' canonical tag structure, but for whatever reason Google may not give your new 'canonical' URLs the same rankings which it ascribed to the old URLs. So there is a possibility here that, you could lose some rankings! Google's acceptance of both the canonical tag and the 301 redirect depends upon the (machine-like) similarity of the content on both URLs

Think of Boolean string similarity. You get two strings of text, whack them into a tool like this one - and it tells you the 'percentage' of similarity between the two text strings. Google operate something similar yet infinitely more sophisticated. No one has told me that they do this, I have observed it over hundreds of site migration projects where, sometimes Google gives the new site loads of SEO authority through the 301s and sometimes not much at all. For me, the two main causes of Google refusing to accept new canonical URLs are redirect chains (which could include soft redirect chains) but also content 'dissimilarity'. Basically, content has won links and interactions on one URL which prove it is popular and authoritative. If you move that content somewhere else, or tell Google to go somewhere else instead - they have to be pretty certain that the new content is pretty much the same, otherwise it's a risk to them and an 'unknown quantity' in the SERPs (in terms of CTR and stuff)

If you're pretty damn sure that you have loads of URLs which are essentially the same, read the same, reference the same prices for things (one isn't cheaper than the other), that Google has really chosen the wrong page to rank in terms of Google-user click-through UX, then go ahead and lay out your canonical tag strategy

Personally I'd pick sections of the site and do it one part at a time in isolation, so you can minimise losses from disturbing Google and also measure your efforts more effectively / efficiently

If you no-index and robots-block URLs, it KILLS their SEO authority (dead) instead of moving it elsewhere (so steer clear of those except in extreme situations, they're really a last resort if you have the worst sprawling architecture imaginable). 301 redirects can shift ranking URLs and relevance, but don't pipe much authority. 301 redirects (if handled correctly) do all three things

What you have to ask yourself is, if you flat out deleted the pages you don't want to rank (obviously you wouldn't do this, as it would cause internal UX issues on your site) - if you did that, would Google:

A) Rank the other pages in their place from your site, which you want Google to rank

B) Give up on you and just rank similar pages (to the ones you don't want to rank) from other, competing sites instead

If you think (A) - take a measured, sectioned, small approach to canonical tag deployment and really test it before full roll-out. If you think (B), then you are admitting that there's something more Google-friendly one the pages you don't want to be ranking and just have to accept - no, your Google->conversion funnel will never be completely perfect like how you want it to be. You have to satisfy Google, not the other way around

Hope that helps!

Equally a pleasure, there's a few of us on here today