Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You'll have to be more specific as to what you are looking for from said report.

Try them both, there's free trials of each.

Personally, I'd go with Wordpress (after trying both myself.) Joomla's platform is inferior and their backend is weaker (opinions, but strong ones backed up with a bit of fact).

Also the community support for Wordpress is larger and there are more plugins and widgets. Not to mention the Yoast plugin is second-to-none in my opinion.

Still; try them both for yourself.

No. Thin content carries algorithmic penalty as well. Careful. Might want to stick with option 2.

Options:

1.) set rel="canonical" tags on all of them referencing the main page within the href portion of the tag

2.) no-crawl, no-index the pages

3.) all of the above

Oof. Well without more information it's hard to say; it could be any number of things. On-page optimization would be my first guess:

• keyword placement
• title tags
• alt tags
• etc

Not sure what to say, honestly.

Don't feel dumb, I only recently started using it myself. Yes it's called their "webmaster tools" and is pretty decent. I'd recommend checking it out.

http://www.bing.com/toolbox/webmaster

Bing?

Yes I would say they're referring to (not provided) which is currently SKYROCKETING at unprecedented levels. I would wonder why they are asking this question and what exactly they are expecting you to do with GA keyword entry data. I would personally try to get to the root of this question.

They may just be testing your knowledge of SEO or they may be wondering how you are going to research keywords and prove that your targeted phrases are gaining visitors. This should be something you can address if so.

But look at this:

http://www.notprovidedcount.com/

"Do you recommend scrapping the subdomain in such an instance and hosting them all in the main domain in a folder?"

Yes.

"Would that impact on page load and speed?"

No.

This PDF is a perfect example of why not to do this, but the same can be said for images. Say you create an awesome infographic that people start linking to/sharing, and it's sitting on your subdomain. There goes your SEO benefit, much like you're experiencing with this PDF.

If you have the right hosting service, none of this should impact performance. Looking into a CDN will help for sure. I've heard good things about cloud flare, for example.

"My developer says it is better to keep images, pdf, css in the subdomain. I see his point"

You do? I sure don't. That sounds ridiculous to me and I see absolutely no reason why this should ever be necessary. I'd be surprised if anyone else did.

Your original plan was the right one; move that pdf to your main domain in a pdf folder or whatever and redirect the original URL right to it. That's the way to go, for sure. If you want to build it as an HTML page that's fine too. I personally would do that if it were an option mainly because I can't stand PDFs. But that's me.

No reason you need to have pdf, css, and images in a subdomain. That's silly.

"domain.com/blog" all the way. Jonathan was spot-on.

Yeah that's definitely a sales call.

Well... I'd use the Moz Rank Tracker but that may be too obvious seeing as how we're on the Moz forums and all. But just in case: http://moz.com/researchtools/rank-tracker

I came here to vote for responsive design and you're already all over it. This means you will succeed in my book!

Have fun, I'm kinda jealous

Yeah I'd have to agree with Marie or at the very least that other domain bringing in 60,000 of your 75,000 links.. why wouldn't that be a factor? Just because it's a "lawyer's site?" What does a lawyer need 60,000 referring links for? That's pretty intense...

Still I'd look closely at your anchor text profile and do a full audit as Marie is suggesting here.

Interesting Kurt, thanks for sharing.

Yes I'm sure it can go either way that makes sense as it's basically what the message says. Something along the lines of "some rankings/keywords/pages may be affected," right? I guess if your ranking is affected though you'll be all over this.

Like I said though it's always a good idea to clean up your link profile. Even if no manual action has been taken you may be surprised what sort of improvements you could make escaping any algorithmic penalties.

Yes I was going to say pretty much exactly what ChilyDigital here is saying. Check your anchor text disparity using ahrefs.com or OSE.

The thing about these partial match penalty warnings that I've found is that while it is good to try and address the root of the problem so as to avoid further problems in the future, Google doesn't really seem to be asking much of you. I'm 99% certain what happens in these situations is Google decides to "disavow" the links in question from their end and not pay any attention to them going forward.

Now if these types of links continue to get built in a major way, then you might be facing a larger site-wide penalty. But so far the "penalty" is doing nothing more than discrediting the poison-links it has identified. This is my current theory anyway based on experience with the same message.

When I got this message, I never saw any ranking or traffic fluctuations. I did some more work removing links and cleaning up my link profile and it went away.. "KIND OF." It was weird, the message still existed but when you clicked it no text was present so I'm assuming the message got bugged but either way I never had any actual noticeable/tangible penalties.

Hope this helps..

It definitely will.

Yes the 301 will solve it but not necessarily any quicker than the robots.txt update. It will still be indexed until Google crawls it again, which doesn't really matter too terribly (especially if you're redirecting)

Chances are your site won't populate for any high-volume keywords since it's new... And it would be de-indexed eventually if you blocked it from the robots. In any case, all of these options will work and you should be fine.

Good luck!

That would be a good way to do it. The other way would be to block it in the robots.txt file on the root directory. Although be careful you aren't blocking both since it's a subdomain.

You could also add a noindex, nofollow tag to each dev page but then you have to remember to remove those when you push them live to your real domain.

I'd probably go with the Robots.txt option since using the redirect will not allow you to view the site live which I'm assuming would take away from the whole point of having this "staging" sub-domain.