Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You would use hreflang tags: https://moz.com/learn/seo/hreflang-tag

The issue of the internal links of your site going through 301-redirects isn't being caused by the htaccess file, John - in fact that file is partially saving you from the bigger issue. The problem is that your WordPress migration to HTTPS was incomplete. After the migration, you missed the step of going through the WP database and changing all the static URLs to the HTTPS versions as well. This can be done using a mySQL query through phpMyAdmin, but the easiest way is to use the Better Search Replace plugin. (You need to be sure you're correctly handling serialised data, which the plugin does automatically.) In addition, you're going to want to insure that you've updated the WordPress Address URL and the Site URL in Settings > General to the HTTPS versions of the URLs. The final check will then be to make certain all the static assets loaded by the site (and any referenced from 3rd parties) are also being loaded over HTTPS as well. Watch especially for 3rd party form codes like newsletter subscription forms, social media widgets, and other widgets in sidebars as these aren't caught by the rewrite plugin I mentioned earlier. This step is essential to insure you don't have "mixed content" on the pages which cause you to get a non-secure warning from the browser. You may have used a "Switch to HTTPS" plugin for this process initially, but the majority of those don't accomplish their task in the most SEO-effective way. Using the method outlines above will both make the search engines happier,and will make for faster webpage performance as well. Let me know if you have further questions. Paul

Hi John, What you are referring to I would roughly term as a 'place label' though your industry doesn't have dedicated icons, as do restaurants or medical centers. Here is Google's somewhat old page on these: https://support.google.com/business/answer/6056435?hl=en&ref_topic=4854129 They state: _The place labels shown on Google Maps are determined algorithmically based on a large number of factors. One factor these algorithms consider is the accuracy of the business information and the richness of the content associated with the business. _ What you're experiencing is not uncommon, and your best hope is in excelling at as many of the factors as possible in the many that Google may take into consideration. How strong are your citations, how clean, are there duplicates, etc. Hope this points you in the right direction.

Hi there. I wouldn't say that those links HAVE to be nofollow. It depends on how client handles it. If basically they'd like to give you credit for that badge than i don't see no reason for using nofollow link. Here is an idea for you. Talk to winners, see if they would like to write (or post pre-written) blog post or an article about how they got that badge, how proud they are etc, and mention you in that post (with a follow (or nofollow) link). That way the badge doesn't even have to have a link. And everything is very organic and natural. Hope this helps

Hey John, Without knowing the complete details of the scenario, I'm not 100% certain (feel free to explain further) but I do believe what you are describing would fall under Google's guideline regarding ineligible business models: An ongoing service, class, or meeting at a location that you don't own or have the authority to represent. Please coordinate with your host to have your information displayed on the page for their business within their "Introduction" field. How I'm understanding your description is that the showroom is actually the host here and that they would need to mention you and all of the other brands they are representing, rather than you building your own GMB listing. If you need to coordinate with the host, I recommend drawing their attention to Google's Guidelines for 'Two or more brands at the same location'. Here are the complete guidelines: https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177?hl=en Hope this helps!

If the address is a legitimate forward-facing public office, then it shouldn't be causing any local or organic issues. I definitely recommend doing a run-through of this https://moz.com/blog/technical-site-audit-for-2015 to see if there could be technical issues holding you back.

Good topic, and I believe what John is describing is a franchise in which there is a national website for the brand, but that individual locations of that franchise are owned by individual owners. Is that right, John? If so, the problem with franchises is that they frequently don't give location owners much or any control over what is on their landing page of the corporate site, so in some cases, the franchise owner might want his own website so that he can work toward building the brand locally more than the franchise is going to do on his behalf. Is this the right decision? It really depends. Honestly, if it's something like a pizza franchise where menus, sales and everything else is the same across the board, I don't see a compelling reason to operate a unique local website. But, if there is a high degree of differentiation between what's being sold or done at different locations, and the business owner doesn't have any control over what appears on the corporate site, then there could be a case for the separate site. How is it with the hardware store? Is everything the same in its Chicago location as in its Denver location, or is something really different happening at the two locations .... different products, different specials, different classes, something else? That's what needs to be determined.

Hi John, As Bill suggests, you're probably best off going with Google's preferred address format, as they are 'the big cheese' in Local. Then, be sure to correct all other citations, and the website content, to match that. I would not be concerned about the business name, though it is rather long. It's true that Google does penalize spammy business names, but they don't do a very good job of catching so many of them, I'd be very surprised if this was the root of your ranking issues. Getting your citations consistent will be a big start, but it looks like you also need to implement a program for earning Google-based reviews, and I would recommend doing a run-through of the Ultimate Local SEO Review by Casey Meraz to see if there are other areas that need improvement: https://moz.com/blog/ultimate-local-seo-audit

Hi John, Hmm, that does make it a bit tougher, having to put everything on the weaker domain, but I see what you mean in regards to having to go that way for branding purposes. I'm reaching out to one of our traditional SEO experts on staff for additional feedback on this. Please, check back.

Hi Miriam. Thanks! Honestly, the mailbox advice was a consideration purely from a privacy stand point as I wouldn't recommend anyone to use their home address for any business based activity regardless of what Google recommends. But you're absolutely correct that Local is designed for physical addresses of public locations open for designated hours. If that's the setup that someone is pursuing than they should definitely make it as straightforward as possible. Thanks for emphasizing that point here and your superb answer below!

Hi John, How is postal mail currently handled with XYZ being inside of ABC building occupied by multiple offices? How to the OB/GYNs receive their mail and not the mail of the chiropractor down the hall?

If their videos are on You Tube, You Tube provides analytics. https://www.youtube.com/analytics

That is a big 10-4, thank you for pointing that out.

Thanks John. Yes, I would definitely verify the individual doctors page so they can get a custom url like you say.

Miriam, you are a rockstar!  I just want to add my two cents. Most citation sources find your listing by phone number so putting more then one phone number per location will generally be rejected or merged by those sources.  I strongly agree that each of your locations should have a separate number.  Your NAP (name, address phone number) consistency is also a ranking factor.  (Here is Miriam's post about local seo ranking factors http://moz.com/blog/top-20-local-search-ranking-factors-an-illustrated-guide) If you are building citations for each of your doctors, I recommend separate numbers for them too (but it's not required).  I use a company called ifbyphone.com.  They have a basic service plan at $49 per month and $2/month per phone number plus minutes.  You have them forward to one number if you want but it's a good way to get around the issue.  That's about $200/month plus minutes but you can use these numbers for multiple things like marketing too (ie AdWords, Billboards, Radio Commercials, etc) That being said, Google Maps said "Some doctors may share the same office address with other doctors. If the listings have different doctor names, they are not duplicates, even if they have the same phone number. The same goes for lawyers, insurance agents, etc."  https://support.google.com/mapmaker/answer/1731387?hl=en The reason I recommend different numbers is for third party citation sources.   If you can justify the $200 per month expense, I would highly recommend using separate numbers for each doctor.  You'll be able to build strong rankings that way.  I always worry about Google changing it's policy in this area so I think that separate numbers is a better idea.

Hi JohnWeb12, Your final link is actually not taking me to the intended results, because it's localizing to my own city, so I can't see this. But, yes, in the other links, there is reason for concern if any third party is creating a Google+ Local page for your client. The one thing I'm not clear on is that, in your provided example, 2 different addresses and phone numbers are being used - one in Edgewater and one in Annapolis. I would need to fully understand the situation to totally 'get' what is going on here. If the company in your example is just one company, and, let's say, the address on the directory page is virtual rather than a real location, then, yes, that could certainly hurt the business. If, in your client's case, 2 Google+ Local pages have been built for the same location, then that is totally a violation. It's fine to list a business on a directory, but I would never recommend that you link a Google+ Local page of any kind to a directory page. In fact, I will go so far as to say that no third party should ever be creating Google+ Local pages for businesses. Those should always, always belong to/be in the control of the business owner, and not anyone else. So, while I wasn't able to access that very important final link to get what's going on here, I do think you have reason for concern, but how harmful the situation may be isn't something I can ascertain unless you can publish your actual client's own details so that the nuances of the situation are clear.

I would personally go for the domain.com/lawn-mowing.html structure, less clicks to get to your information and easier from a crawl perspective, the extra category page seems like you would be having a page for a pages sake and you would just be burying your important content deeper in the site. Having a menu that has these ten services at the top level is much more efficient site architecture in my opinion. Obviously if it starts getting to much you would have to think about categories. Remember you always want the minimal amount of links between the homepage and any other page on the site. For a small site you can have one level on your menu and provide relevant anchor text in the navigation on each page to the corresponding page. Obviously for any bigger site you would want to implement a pyramid structure to order the information efficiently.

I agree with Jonathan on this. Go for the long term strategy and build authority on just one domein instead of splitting everything up into small websites.

ummmmm... I think you should be using your main site for the seo and redirect if user is on a mobile.  At least that's what I did. If its a static website I would create static mobile site to redirect through if its a cms like joomla get a good mobile template I tried a few converters they all sucked Eli