Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If you want to share a set of urls I'd be happy to take a look at it in case anything else jumps out.

I don't get it.  The code is only <iframe src="http://www.linkedin.com/pub/profile-name/xx/xxx/xxx" width="1" height="1">.</iframe>

Thanks for checking in, Mick!

Thanks Egol, you have some good points.  There has been too much focus on determining (second guessing) where the sweet spot is, hoping that one visitor bites.  Yes retargeting seems to me to be something to follow up. I need to do some convincing so the site becomes an unmissable source for information.  It's tricky because each of the potential key players will have different information requirements, but we have to start somewhere.

Hi Mick, I would recommend that you actually work with the postal authorities in your region to acquire a separate suite number for the business and this should eliminate concerns. Your client legitimately has 2 businesses and should make the effort to set up a proper unique address for both. And, as you've mentioned, a different phone number is essential, of course. You should also be sure you're running unique websites with completely separate content for the 2 businesses. What you're trying to do here is to differentiate for customers and engines, as much as possible, the two companies. On the customer side, you want them to be able to correctly contact and find the two businesses. On the engine side, you want to prevent accidental merging and duplicates by being sure that two businesses are being run as unique entities, if they are unique entities. It is generally not difficult to acquire an official suite number, but who you go to for this depends upon where you live. It is different in different regions. Hope this helps!

Yes. The layout markup should not mess things up. Just put the whole street address within itemprop="streetAddress", and you should be fine.

Ooh good to know! Let us know if you find anything else.

Possibly.  This is on DNN which seems to be like a big old clunky dinosaur.

Yes I know what you mean - the external links are not directly explained, but there are signals on the site to keep visitors shall we say relaxed. I don't like it but i'm not in the position to advise on that site at the moment. It's possibly something on-site going on - same server for both as it's IIS (DNN).  If I overlay the GA organic results  for both sites they are identical (good and bad) apart from the second site being far more accentuated. At least if we separate link wise then that will remove that possibility.

Unfortunately we usually appear to learn more from huge problems than from nice and successful experiences... That’s the massive profit on sharing; we can profit from others experience! Cheers [URL]]([URL=http://imgur.com/yhmjs1P][IMG]http://i.imgur.com/yhmjs1P.jpg[/IMG][/URL])

Hi Michael, First, I need to clarify something. If you have .es, .it. de, those are not language domains, they are ccTLDs, targeted at different countries. .es is for Spain based sites, not Spanish language sites. If your translations are on ccTLDs, you are sending the wrong signals to Google and Bing. A ccTLD is always geo-targeted to that country and for some of these domains, the language you mean to target is actually much larger than that country. For instance, only half of the world's French speakers live in France. If you are just meaning to translate your content, I'd suggest moving that to your main domain and putting them in subfolders, so www.domain.com/es www.domain.com/it (for italian, not Italy). Once that is all settled, linking to the others in the footer is not hurting your link equity, but it isn't necessary either. For translated content, you should be utilizing HREFLANG and the Meta Content Language tag (for Bing) to note to the search engines what pages are translations. Then you simply need to give users a way to change the language either at the top of the page (preferred) or the footer. If you mean to geo-target (developing different sites to target different countries), then my answers change completely, let me know if that's what you are trying to do here rather than just translate. If you're not sure what to do, check out this tool I made to help you pick the best international strategy. http://www.katemorris.com/issg

Are you using the hreflang correctly? it contains both the language and location. If, for example, you french version is being served with the hreflang="fr" that means that users with a French browser should see that page, but not that users in France should see that page. If you are running an German browser, searching in France, you will probably get the German version first, as the hreflang="de" it's doing it's job. If you'd like to have the french version even for German browsers, you will probably need to add an hreflang="de-FR" and point to the french version. Even adding all the hreflang tags you may need, Google will ultimately serve what they think is better to the user. There's no way to "force" them, hreflang is just a "guidance"

Adding the following lines to the bottom of your robots.txt should do it: Sitemap: http://www.example.com/sitemap/uk/sitemap.xml Sitemap: http://www.example.com/sitemap/de/sitemap.xml If you wanted to update the file names to be different it wouldn't hurt, but I don't think you would have any problems with how they are currently set up.  If you have submitted them to WMT and they are being picked up ok I think you are fine.

that's great thanks.  NoFollow in Chrome is not picking up.

It means that you have 9 further keywords ranking from position 4 - 10. It specifies the top 3 because, as you know, these are the sought after positions and take the majority of the clicks.

If you have a landing page other than your homepage ranking for a term for which most of the competitors' results are their homepages, then I'd say your page is quite well zeroed in. Be sure to analyze and document specifically what you're doing on that page before making changes so you can go back to it if necessary.  At this point, it's probably authority that's that's going to push you higher in the rankings.  Even one or two links to that landing page from good resources will pay high dividends for you.

The client does not want to change the HTTPS structure and insists all URLs must be HTTPS.  So I am back to square one. I want the homepage to be HTTP (when a user is not logged in) but I am hitting a brick wall with the client. So at present we have good links coming in to the HTTP url but the indexed is HTTPS and the internal redirect in DNN is a 302 to HTTPS.

Hello PremioOscar, That may be the best option, and probably the one I'd choose, but I think he is hoping to rank for searches specific to each letter (e.g. Letter A Bracelet, Letter H Bracelet...) which may not be possible with a single page. By breaking them up into groups (e.g. A-G, H-M...) he can target at least one letter per group. Each group would have its own unique description, which is scaleable while each letter having its own is not. I would argue that each letter having its own unique description is indeed scaleable if you're talking about one product. I could have written three of them in the time it took to write this reply. However, if this letter situation is repeated across dozens or hundreds of products I would consider the idea presented by  Michael. Does that make sense?

Why don't you choose one (e.g. A) and use the rel canonical tag on the others so the A page benefits from any links going into them? This would take care of your duplicate content and duplicate title tag issues at the same time. While "technically speaking" the "B" page isn't really a non-canonical version of the "A" page, I think the tag would work well in this situation since nearly ALL of the content is duplicated.