Welcome to the Q&A Forum

As it says on the tin:

http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-clarifies-url-shortenings-impact-on-seo/29312/

Hi bstone81.

Not sure I understand your question. Assuming you're asking why there's a disparity between the "link:" command and what you see in GWT's, here's Mr Cutts himself. From 2009 but I suspect it's still relevant:

http://tinyurl.com/amykbrx

I would start here:

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/the-beginners-guide-to-seo-version-two

No, our market is almost exclusively non-Italian. I see where you're coming from with the idea of translating certain pages into Italian, but only something like 0.01% of our clients are Italian, so -- at this stage -- I'm not sure it's worth it.

Similarish-question to Jozef Majda:

I run website about Italian real estate that's written in English (and 99.99% of the links are in English). I have the opportunity to get a link on a partner's Italian-language website, where whatever anchor text she chooses will be in Italian. Is this of any use to me?

Hi ProspectMX

Don't know if you're still after an answer for this.

I came across this from October last year which may shine some light (with apologies for the crude cut-&-paste job)

|

| Oct 9, 2012Keri MorgretOn-site Community Manager at SEOmoz

Another reason is that we just don't have the same size server farm that Google and Bing have. We could crawl all of Twitter and get nothing else crawled, or we could crawl some of Twitter, and some of the rest of the web. We aren't able to crawl all of the web, and we release a new index about once a month, so that's why you don't see all of your links or see them right away.

However, what we do offer that is different from Google and Bing is that we show you links for sites that are not your own, we add metrics about the trust and authority of the page, etc.

Flag01<a class="image-button add-response-button"> </a> |

I keep hearing that certain types of links (blog comments, low-rent directories, etc) are not worth the bother.

However, I'm with the original poster on this, in that infuriatingly I still see these sites  ranking supremely well for very competitive keywords.

There is one particular site in niche where their ENTIRE link profile is exact-match blog comments and low-rent directories.

And there I am like a fool focusing on high-quality content.

I really despair.

Fair enough. The follow/no-follow issue was really trying to address this comment from William Lau.

I should have made that clear.

Usually links from Wikipedia, YouTube, Twitter are nofollow so it doesn't really boost your PA/DA(correct me if I'm wrong).

Singulars and plurals are different keywords in the eyes of Google.

See, I'm not sure about that: If I Google,say, property in spain, some of the results include sites with properties (but not property) in the title tag.

It may also make sense to create a separate page focused on the second keyword.

But surely this is the definition of webspam? If my first page is about "property", then a second page focusing on "properties" brings absolutely nothing new to the table -- apart from attempting to game the search engines.

Just my two pennies'/cents' worth.

Speaking as an SEO ingenue, I believe the situation is that no one tool gives a comprehensive view of your backlinks, although I'm guessing Google Webmaster Tools runs pretty close.

On the issue of whether no-follow links count, 2 issues in my opinion:

1. Having too few no-follow IBLs suggests an unnatural link profile;

2. Links (even no-follows) from sites such as Wikipedia are a huge indication of authority and boost your site, albeit indirectly.

I'm struggling to understand why I rank for some terms and not for other closely related ones. For example:

property in Toytown but NOT properties in toytown

property for sale in Toytown but NOT property for sale Toytown NOR properties for sale Toytown.

My gut instinct is that I don't have enough of the second phrasing as inbound link anchor text -- but didn't Penguin/Panda make all that obsolete?

Hi

My six-year-old domain has always existed in four forms:

http://www**.**mydomain.com/index.html

http://mydomain.com/index.html

http://mydomain.com/

http://www.mydomain.com

My webmaster claims it’s “impossible” to do a 301 redirect from the first three to the fourth. I need simple instructions to guide him.

The site’s hosted on Windows running IIS

Here’s his rationale:

These are all the same page, so they can’t redirect to themselves. Index.html is the default page that loads automatically if you don’t specify a page.

If I put a redirect into index.html it would just run an infinite redirect loop.

As you can see from the IIS set up, both www.mydomain and mydomain.com  point to the same location ( VIEW IMAGE HERE )

_Both of these use index.html as the default document ( VIEW IMAGE 2 HERE ) _

For what it's worth and to update my previous response, see this from Search Engine Land. I think the URL is self-explanatory:

http://searchengineland.com/links-from-press-releases-do-have-ranking-benefit-despite-what-google-says-145139

Hi William

PM me also as I may be interested in this.

Hi, what I meant was whether I should be looking for robot txt at the top of the page or somesuch

Hi Irvnig

Thanks for the response but the issue of adding tags doesn't apply as it's not my site.

The only other place I've seen that is in spam blog comments (as a desperate attempt to override the blog's default "no-follow")....

Yep, that's what I've read as well.

Now he's changed it to rel="dofollow"  (no, me neither) -- which strikes me as even more gobbledegook.

Obviously I'm going to ask him to leave out the attribute altogether. But what other attributes should I be looking for on the page source (CTRL+U) to ensure he hasn't sneakily no-followed all the links on the page?