Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi,

In my site, I use a php expression - as such -

header.php -

On page -

$canonical = "http://www.domain.com";

Here is a recent Blog Post if the above code does not help

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-advanced-relcanonical-http-headers

Shane

I am not completely sure I get the question -

two ways I interpreted - the easiest would just be the redirect /? to 404

which would be

redirect 301 /? http://www.404pagehere.com

If you are trying to do a wildcard redirect that is a little harder

RedirectMatch 301 /?/(.*)$ http://www.404pagehere.com

I think the easiest might be

RewriteEngine On
RewriteRule ^foldername/* http://www.pagehere.com/ [R=301,L]

Make sure and backup .htaccess before making any changes, as I am not sure what I gave you will fix your specific issue.

Shane

Hi,

I believe what you are looking for is

Options +FollowSymLinks

RewriteEngine on

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^domain.com [NC]

RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.domain.com/$1 [L,R=301]

If I read the post correctly as adding a sitewide canonical in header.php would not work, unless you actually programmed a php statement that all it did was add www, but this would only be a backup, if I was unable to do 301 in my opinion

Shane

Hi,

If the "Author" in question is the owner or operator, or even the "Face" of the brand then - Yes, it is fine as this person most likely wrote this content anyway, or is the "owner" of the content.

I wish i had a source, but I remember this exact question somewhere to Matt Cutts, and he referenced his own website that he does use it, and I believe gave a similar explanation as above.

Also as a note (of course this is not air tight evidence)

But I actually do use it on a homepage on one of my sites, and actually saw a bump a few weeks after it implemented in my "niche" - cause the author only writes about that specific niche (but of course as I said this is only off the cuff evidence, not reviewed)

Shane

I personally go with the "Ghostwriter" option, as having a real person is key - and creating a real "Face" for your Brand is even more important.

I know alot of people on here would suggest the "Create A persona" option and i think there is even a whle webinar on it - But I would completely disagree with this and think as you say it is icky and dishonest - but I know some niches a face is hard to come by

Shane

Not sure I understand the question?

filezilla does not hold the permissions, the user in question does.

Permissions for a linux bases system can be activated with ACL, and would be saved at the OS level (so if you took an image, it would take the file permissions.

I am not sure of a tool, that would do this other than just basic linux tools, and in windows it is saved locally with the user, unless group policy is in control which Active Directory and Registry of host machine would hold the user permissions.

Maybe I misunderstoofd the question though..

Shane

agree completely

Author rank is based on social (amongst many others), so gaining positive social signals would be elevation of author exposure. Just because a site has a bad reputation, does not mean it does not contain the recipes for exposure...

I think you are confusing backlinks or PR with Social Signals that go along with author rank and the signals of content relevance it takes into consideration, and how as the spectrum becomes more crowded, the smallest of differences will affect ranking (much like PR and Backlins does now amongst others)

So in essence we are talking about two different things, squidoo is not a backlink building tool, but it is an exposure building tool, or can be.

Cool you trust a SEO figure over someone youve never heard of that was quite a burn, man you have a razor sharp wit....

LOL thaks for the SEO advice....

Author rank has nothing to do with SEO?

And we all know, that every word a guru says is totally true always LOL =p

LOL and gaining traffic WOULD be a part of SEO, as well as targeting longtail queries for a site with current low authority to gain indirect exposure...

There are many out of the box purposes to SEO, than just "gaining links"

I would completely disagree - It depends on the quality of the article placed and the intention...

If your intention is to use squidoo, as it is supposed to be, then you can make a tiny bit of income, while also gaining traffic. (and depending on the quality/relevance in some cases semi valuable backlinks or author exposure)

The best way to promote squidoo, is socially in my opinion.

Now would i spend any money, or a lot of time and energy on squidoo? No, but it CAN be a valuable resource in you arsenal if used correctly as it is intended.

But as i said, it all boils down to intent, on its level of effectiveness... (basically if you are trying to use it to pad your link profile with low end crap, then you will be wasting your time, but if you write knowledgeable, helpful articles about relevant topics that people actually want to read about, you can get some good longtail exposure and author exposure)

See link for info -

https://sites.google.com/site/webmasterhelpforum/en/faq-rich-snippets#howlong

Just personally, I would still deindex or canonical them - they are just pages with a few images - so not of much value and unless all titles and descriptions are targeting varying keywords and content is added, they will canabalize eachother, and possibly even drag down the site due to 100's of pages of thin content....

So actually from an SEO perspective it probably IS better to deindex or canonical 3 - 5 or so years ago, maybe the advice would have been keep them and keyword target - but not in the age of content

(unless the images were optimized for image searches for sale able products (but I do not think it is)

It depends on how the pages are being created (I would assume it is off of a template page)

So within the template of this dynamically created page you would place

But if this is the global template - you cannot do this as it will noindex every page which of course is bad.

If you want to PM me the URL of the page I can take a look at your code, and see what is going on and how to recitify, as right now i think we are talking about the same principles, but different words are being used.

It really is pretty straightforward. (what I am saying) The pages that you want to be not indexed DO NOT need a nofollow they need a meta noindex

But there are many variables, as if you have already robot.txt disallowed the directory, then no bot will go there to get the updated noindex directive....

If there is no way to add a meta noindex then you need to nofollow and put in for a manual removal

So it is the pages themselves that are dynamically created you want out of index, not the page the contains the links?

If this is so ---

noindex the pages that are created dynamically

Therein lies the problem. I did have the nofollow directive in place specifying the /gallery/ folder, but apparently, the bots still crawled it.

Nofollow does not remove from index, it only tells the bot not to pass authority, as it is still feasible that the bot will crawl the link, so without the noindex, nofollow is not the correct directive due to the page (even though nofollowed) is still being reached and indexed.

PS. also if you have the nofollow on the links, you may want to remove it, so the bots will go straight through to the page and grab the noindex directive, but if you wanted to try to not let any authority "evaporate" you can continue to nofollow, but you may need to request the dynamically generated pages (URLS) be removed using webmaster tools.

?

If a link is coming into the page, and you have Noindex, Nofollow - this would remove from index and prevent the following of any links -

This is NOT instant, and can take months to occur depending on depth of page, crawl schedule ect... (you can try to speed it up by using webmaster tools to remove the URL)

What is the goal You are attempting to achieve?

To get the page out of index, but still followed?

Or remain in index, but just not follow links on page?

?

noindex will only remove from Index and dissallow the act of indexing the specific page (or pages created off template) you place the tag in upon the next page crawl.

Bots will still follow the page, and follow any links that are readable as long as there is not a nofollow directive.

I am not sure I fully understand the situation, so I would not say this is my "reccomendation" but an answer to the specific question.....

but I am wondering if this will stop the bots dead in their tracks or will they still be able to pick-up on the pages generated

Hope this helps!

And as noted in my response above, I do not work for Google, So therefore I nor any (IMHO) can answer that question on this board.

The only answer that can be given (once again IMHO) on that specific question would be speculation and conjuncture. (as i clearly already stated my opinion above)

Below is a link to a calendar, but is subject to change; I believe the rough estimation is every 4 weeks

http://apiwiki.seomoz.org/w/page/25141119/Linkscape%20Schedule

Hi,

Yes, In my opinion those would be paid links

Only one is No-Followed (which is also weird, do they actually have a pay structure for paying for a follow link?) Also there is no Javascript redirect, so this looks like a plain HTML link, that is supposed to be a "Sponsored Link" but does not follow the guidelines below, so it most probably in my opinion is a paid link, but since I do not work for Google, I could not (and not sure who could) tell you why this site has not been penalized for selling links. Maybe it is because the sponsored link is in return for content?

Even below cited from Google, as in everything with Google, It is referred to as "Guidelines" not rules... So this means just in the verbiage it is at the discretion of Google on how closely or far away these "guidelines" are followed at, before a penalty is leveraged. Although this does seem to be the EXACT behaviour Google is looking out for at the moment, from a very visible SEO site - Maybe his social reputation and contribution to the SE community gains him the leverage to do this (since he is doing it "tastefully", as it could just be a mistake (LOL)

"Not all paid links violate our guidelines. Buying and selling links is a normal part of the economy of the web when done for advertising purposes, and not for manipulation of search results. Links purchased for advertising should be designated as such. This can be done in several ways, such as:

• Adding a rel="nofollow" attribute to the <a>tag</a>
  <a>* Redirecting the links to an intermediate page that is blocked from search engines with a robots.txt file"</a>

<a>Source</a>

<a></a>http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66736

....

Not to be a jerk, but "Quality of BMR" hehe BMR had no quality standards... As the sites they used held absolutely no user value.... (who would go to a crappy blog, with crappy content, about crappy sites?)

Not trying to be rude, but just pointing out that if BMR was your standard of High quality, then you might be looking to get yourself in more trouble...

IMHO of course

sorry not to really answer your question, but the question is almost impossible to answer....  As if another BMR type network sprung up, it would be a gamble and high risk to use it.

I personally would stick with services like Myblogguest and put out quality content there, and on your own site - forgetting the "network" mentality.