Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Seems like these results are consistent with each other, 3.66s and 3.52s are very close, if you repeat the test few time and all results are around those times you should consider around 3.5s as the realistic loading time for your users.

Have you checked your analytics account for the site speed section?

My favourite tool (developed and supported by Google) is webpagetest.

If you check your website with it you will notice few area of improvement, in particular the TTFB (Time To First Byte).

The two metric you should care about are TTFB and the total page loading time.

• TTFB is a factor in google algo ranking of your pages.
• The total loading time is affecting your UX, and potentially damaging your bounce rate.

In the webpagetest your site is getting an F for TTFB, which seems to be between 3 and 7 seconds. Which is really bad and potentially hurting your SERP ranking.

Hi Cyrus, thanks for your answer.

The links to the FAQ page where 1M, the second most popular had 300k. And of those 1M link half of them were placed prominently on the top navigation bar. That's why I thought they were detrimental for link equity. Do you think they are still not making much difference?

For a while I hated the look of the internal links page of Google Web Master Tools account for a certain site.

With a total of 120+K pages, the top internal link was the one pointing to "FAQ". With around 1M links. That was due to the fact, on every single page, both the header and the footer where presenting 5 links to the most popular questions.

The traffic of those FAQ pages is non-existent, the anchor text is not SEO interesting, and theoretically 1M useless internal links is detrimental for page juice flow.

So I removed them. Replacing the anchor with javascript to keep the functionality. I actually left only 1 “pure” link to the FAQ page in the footer (site wide).

And overnight, the internal links page of that GWT account disappeared. Blank, no links.

Now... Mhhh... I feel like... Ops!

Yes I am getting paranoid at the idea the sudden disappearance of 1M internal links was not appreciated by google bot.

Anyone had similar experience?

Could this be seen by google bot as over-optimizing and be penalized?

Did I possibly triggered a manual review of the website removing 1M internal links? I remember Matt Cutts saying adding or removing 1M pages (pages) would trigger a flag at google spam team and lead to a manual review, but 1M internal links?

Any idea?

As far as I know. Even after implementing rel prev/next, the pages are still de facto duplicated (unless unique beforehand). What rel prev/next does is just signal google their are part of pagination. Google algo will then pick the page he think more appropriate to show in serp answering a user query.

If you add canonical pointing the series to one page (probably the first) you are again suggesting google algo to pick that one and ignore the others. But most seo crawling tools like moz will keep signaling those pages are duplicate, because in fact they are duplicate. If you look at the crawler report for those duplicate pages you should also see the canonical in another column, so you can just filter them out (as far as this is the result you was expecting).

Rel prev/next is not making duplicate content unique, how could it? I heard of someone who could transform water into wine, but he did't deal with SEO.

Again, same link as before: http://moz.com/products/api/updates

I also find that very annoying.

It all depends on the page code. In general I would not be scared about using JS in your page. But it all depends on how you use it. It's a vast topic.

Let me try to reduce it to something very small. As far as you serve browsers an html page which includes all the content you want google to index, you are probably safe. When you serve an html page with a portion of that content and you load additional content with AJAX, you are almost sure google won't index it properly.

Google notoriously penalize pages which tries to stuff content for google bot manipulating it with JS to hide it from real visitors eyes. That's bad.

But in between are endless possibilities and it all comes to what your JS is doing. So it's hard to define a general rule.

Said that, today you can find examples of tabbed content in pure CSS: https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=pure%20css%20tabs

Like this nice one: http://codepen.io/wallaceerick/pen/ojtal

But, also CSS has it's drawbacks, mainly browsers support: http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/css3_browsersupport.asp

In my opinion this is not the right place for questions like this, try something like this: http://stackoverflow.com/search?q=htaccess+remove+directory

Check my comments here: http://moz.com/community/q/has-google-changed-how-it-displays-metatitles-for-business-listings

Analyze your homepage with your preferred keyword density analyzer, and you will find out the top 2 words keyword is "temporary power" and your top 3 words keyword is "temporary power rentals".

Now guess what google think is the most appropriate title in SERP?

http://moz.com/community/q/how-to-do-ip-canonicalization

Differently from (as an example) facebook, google + API doesn't provide a mean of extracting customer reviews. So programmatically you can't, given you rule out scraping them.

Manually you can do whatever you want.

As for content duplication, is a risk, but there's no such thing as content duplication penalization, when facing duplicate content google just make a choice, indexing one or another.

And to have google consider your content duplicate, you really need to copy everything, and have you page share the vast majority of the html with another page.

Yes, we always include an image when posting a link.

We tried many of the same things they describes and got to the same conclusion. Links posting is getting the second largest reach. In our case differently from others, video uploads got the largest reach.

What google really cares about is the TTFB (Time To First Byte), to check it just head for GWT, in crawl stats.

To date the general consensus is above 1s is bad and google could penalize you, below .5s is good and google could improve your ranking a little bit.

Google suggest using webpagetest to check a website performance: if you run the test for your website you will se the TTFB is not that bad: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/141124_MF_14DY/

Your overall load time is 10s and I agree is too much, it's supposedly worse your user experience, increasing your bounce rate and alienating some of your visitors. You should work to improve it, webpagetest suggest to compress images and use leverage browser cache, which are good suggestions.

Analyze closely the waterfall to investigate further and identify other areas of interventions.

I have a similar experience, we have 10k real fans, with pictures or text we get between 50 and 300 people coverage. Videos are doing better, between 400 and 800 people coverage.

We post three times a day, 0 conversions for the past few months. For us is a waste of time.

The only thing which make sense is offering a coupon in exchange for user email, we also tried promoting it with FB ads reaching outside of our fan base and we were getting emails at around 1 USD each. But nobody was buying and we stopped that too.

Check my answer to a similar question: http://moz.com/community/q/angular-seo

I am a big advocate of Angularjs, it's a great framework and I use it in every project. I always put SEO on top of my priority list when starting a new project and I never use hashbangs.

In my opinion hashbangs are fundamentally wrong, an old hack born when pushstate was not available.

The only case where Hashbangs make sense is for old complex application/javascript website developed without thinking about SEO, when you evaluate to modernize the app is too complex and not worth it.

You can happily use angularjs and benefit from its routing api without messing around with hashbangs.

GWT doesn't have a "mention" concept, it does list only links. If you refer to moz alert "mention" without a link, can't do anything either good or bad. If you refer to a real link, to be harmful should come from a spammy site.

You mentioned 1 result from the site and 1 from ekomi, which is not weird, the same review of the website on both the website and ekomi is the norm. What are the other 8 to get to 10 results?

If you search on youtube you may find a video of Matt Cutts where he is saying redirect a million url overnight to the same page would rise a flag in the anti-spam team and lead to a manual review. If you have nothing to fear and you believe your redirects are legit you don't necessarily have to be scared.

But if the links are due to a bug, I guess they have no juice to pass, so why redirect?

Rich snippet are supported by google and are not spam. As long as you follow google guidelines.

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/99170?hl=en