Welcome to the Q&A Forum

There is no defined time limit for a 302, rather than a clear header response for search engines that the redirect is temporary not permanent (which is a 301 header response).  By default at some point you should correct to a 200 response or a 301 response.  You could in theory leave the 302 but it is not good practice.

Having said that my thought would be how trusting a visitor would be being sent to a different domain mid way through browsing.

On a brief view:

http://www.customgia.com/fashion-beaded-jewelry/shop-for/beaded-bracelets/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8  looks like it is a unique product page with potentially unique description?  If so leave as is.

http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8 looks a duplicate of  http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/ so I would set rel canonical on any http://www.customgia.com/design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/CODE page pointing to ...design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/

I hope this helps.

If you add rules to robots.txt that does not mean those directories will be removed from the index. You will also need to remove them in Webmaster Tools >> Google Index >> Remove URLs >> set Reason to Remove Directory.

Having said that why not use canonical tags on pages like /design-your-own-jewelry/classic-bracelet/AADE17E9BB964352B7A3912294BB5DF8  - http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions

This is more of an observation than anything else.

Has anyone noticed any strange results in Google News, in terms of very old content hitting page 1?  My example is football, I support Newcastle so keep checking for the latest transfer failure or humiliation.  First page for couple of days is showing old articles (April, May) from the same source rather than the usual spread of tabloid and broadsheet news.

A negative exact match should not exclude your search term.  For example:

**-[online payment] **will allow online payment gateway to show.

Check this post by Google and look at the chart of possible combinations - http://adwords.blogspot.co.uk/2007/11/adwords-optimization-tips-more-on.html

You have a robots.txt file in your root - http://www.in2town.co.uk/robots.txt >> add

Disallow: /staging1/

In Webmaster Tools go to Google Index >> Remove URLs >> Create a new removal request >> enter http://www.in2town.co.uk/staging1/ >> Continue >> set Reason to remove directory >> Submit Request.

For canonical refer to http://moz.com/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions

I hope this helps.

Why don't you put /staging1/ in your robots.txt, then remove that directory from index in Webmaster Tools.  Backing that up with canonical tags in case any similar slip through the net.

I'm not a Joomla expert but if you have nothing in your .htaccess like 'ErrorDocument 404 index.php' then Joomla is probably handling the error redirection internally in maybe 'templates/system/error.php' or 'sef.php'

I understand settings in these files can override your .htaccess as well.

You can have any page as the 404 page as long as the header response is 404 - that is all Google needs to know.  The potential downside is user experience - I normally would suggest a custom 404 page with your menu system, or 301 permanent redirects to suitable alternatives (possibly homepage), as you suggest.

Webmaster Tools is not the best place to check current 404s.  I would do some live checking using say Screaming Frog and spot check the exact header responses using Fiddler.  I've seen some strange header codes coming from a problematic Joomla setup.

"4. "In case of Link Building Campaigns what can I say. First you need to remove all the low quality backlinks then think about LinkBuilding, because maybe now you are gaining high quality links but all the bad links, you earned earlier are the problem."

sorry, but not agree with u on it.

5. "Maybe think about running a blog about health where you will produce high quality content about health, diets and stuff like that. I mean high quality content not product advertisement."

Again, not agree with u."

These 2 points are fundamental to success.  If you do not agree you need to do some more research and change your mind quickly.  Also, look into EMD.

I suspect if URLs are being changed then they are either worried about Penguin or have fallen foul of it.  Either way those sites are probably not the best type of links to be hunting out and changing to no-follow has probably done you a favour in the long run.

I suppose you could argue that no-follow links are more important than do-follow.   A thinly veiled bought link not set to no-follow can cause more problems to a domain as opposed to the good ten good do-follow links can do.

But no-follow links do not pass any link value.

Also bear in mind that for a natural looking link profile you will want a mixture of both.

What is the URL, can't find your previous question?

You have to look at the correlation between queries in Webmaster Tools and Analytics.  Queries have dropped but have visitor levels in Analytics?

This might be a temp glitch in WT - http://www.seroundtable.com/google-webmaster-tools-link-count-16315.html

They should still be there - check them in opensiteexplorer.org

"As it's a sidebar link, it shows up for every page on the site (easily thousands due to all posts having a page, tags, categories etc)."

Irrespective of Googles stance on sitewide links you have to ask yourself does that look natural and is the link there to offer value to the visitor.  Invariably it looks spammy and planted - and ignored.

I would definitely avoid without no-follow.

I've noticed a possible discrepancy with my data and the figures in the Ranking Report >> Rankings which leads to this question:

• In top 3 : 10
• On first page: 19

Is this meant to mean 10 of the 19 are in the top 3, or after the 10 top 3 there are 19 more keywords on first page?

This is what made me question.  Competitors are typically returning their homepage so the content is in a different format to this internal page and don't have the rogue keyword.

My gut feeling is to try to reduce the rogue and increase slightly the desired keyword in the content. I might be able to create a key CP = Credit Points and use that just populating CP. I don't have any big problems with ranking and need to get some links going but i'm interested in this specific aspect so I can put it to bed.

I don't think that is what i'm after.

I'm looking for the impact of a rogue keyword that is just within the content and is very popular, but not the keyword i'm optimising for within the content and tagging.  The rogue keyword is out of context as a bona fide keyword itself but is required and works well in the content.

I'm not too worried about keyword density but is there a point when a keyword phrase breaches a certain % even though it is not used within any tagging.

So if my keyword is 'blue elephant' but within the text I have a disproportionate amount of 'credit points' would it be prudent to try and reduce the level of 'credit points' - or ignore as there should be no impact?

I have a page that is optimised - title, URL, content etc for the chosen keywords.

However, within the content are some batches of bullet point text that has repeated text throughout. So for example I have 5 instances of my chosen keyword within the content and 24 instances of the two word text within the bullet points.  Does this kind of scenario have any impact on ranking?

I'm working on a site that is built on DNN.  For some reason the client has set all pages to convert to HTTPS (although this is not perfect as some don't when landing on them).

All pages indexed in Google are straight HTTP, but when you click on the Google result a temp 302 header response to the corresponding HTTPS page for many. I want it changed to a 301 but unfortunately is an issue for DNN.

Is there another way around this in IIS that won't break DNN as it seems to be a bit flaky?  I want to have the homepage link juice pass through for all links made to non HTTPS homepage.  Removing HTTPS does not seem to be an option for them.