Welcome to the Q&A Forum

James is completely right here! You submit all of them so you can keep track of issues in case they come up with other versions of your site. But there is always a preferred one to use.

It never ends, my friend! Good luck!

Hi Mike, I think you might get a lot of different opinions again (just like in Ruth's WBF comments) but I think it is pretty safe to say that Google likes sites that are consistent and clear in their internal linking and that do not return a bunch of 404 pages due to bad linking structure or linking mistakes. So with this in mind the first thing to do is decide what your final url structure is going to be. Is it https or http? is it with www on non www? Once this is decided then really 95% of any potential troubles should be solvable with a few lines of code in your htaccess file which will 301 any queries to urls that are not in the final format you have decided on to that format. This means that if you have decided on https and non www then even if google (or any user) comes into the site on a http or www url then the redirect takes them to the https:// version and everything else that is crawled from then should be in the format you have decided on. So far so good. There are two main issues where you might still have problems and this is likely where different opinions will appear as to which problem is more likely to happen and/or be more difficult to fix. Problem 1: Bad implementation of internal relative linking The comments on Ruth's post about spider traps due to missing the / at the beginning of relative urls (and lots of other weird relative url formatting mistakes) happens quite often and on larger sites can seriously damage your crawl budget by creating literally thousands of bad links to 404 pages. This is bad news! There are ways to address this either using a base href tag or simply by editing the relevant links. The moz crawl report will flag these kind of issues so you will find out pretty quickly if you have this kind of problem. Problem 2: Having to manually edit absolute urls because you have decided on changing the final url structure of your site. You mention you have a ssl certificate in place but are not using https at the moment. It is probably safe to assume you will be at some point in the future though I would assume? If so, how many man hours are you willing to dedicate to editing all your absolute http urls to https urls if you decide to do this change? Maybe your tech team can do this by editing urls directly in the database and this is not a big issue for you (although these kind of actions need special care to make sure mistakes do not creep in) - if so then this might not be a big issue for you and in that case feel free to use absolute urls and feel good about it! The above is relevant for images as well as for pages. At the end of the day google wants to be able to crawl your site easily and to find real content/images and not 404 errors all over the place. If you ensure this it doesn't matter much if you are using absolute or relative urls (I guess I better say in my opinion) - you are returning the same content on the same urls in both cases so really why would google care? if it is easy to put absolute urls in the main menu then do it. If it is a nightmare to edit 1000's of relative urls in product descriptions then just make sure they return valid urls and you should be fine. A note on your url examples: http://www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm (what I see for most Absolute links) www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm (would this work for both http and https?) //www.company.com/store/pc/Rollators-c379.htm (would this work for both http and https?) Only the first of those is an absolute url, the second and third are relative urls of one sort or another and are likely to cause you lots of problems. Either use absolute urls with full https or http, or use relative urls with a trailing / (and make sure you do not have spider traps). Do not use those other examples, they will cause you grief! Hope it helps, I am sure others will chime in

Hi Mike, Just as Gyorgy.B said, Google is pretty smart and does realize that is crawling an E-Commerce site. The problem that you're mentioning has already been asked, and it might be of some help: How to avoid keyword stuffing on e-commerce - Moz Q&A Keyword stuffind - E-commerce websites - Moz Q&A Also, I'd recommend you to take a deep lonn read of these article, them will clarify you a lot about keywords stuffing and, generaly, about SEO on e-commerce: 5 things about Keyword stuffing and SEO SEO for E-commerce websites - KissMetrics What is keyword stuffing - E-commerce Of course, the general advise is to avoid this issue. I strongly recommend that ecommerce pages shuold be filled with content. At least some text that differenciate one page from another. Hope this was helpful GR

What about the CTR of your website? Google says "increased CTR as well as more traffic makes your website increase in authority" - therefore increasing organic ranking of all or most keywords - (Google didn't say that part but it makes sense). If AdWords provides both of these things to your website wouldn't your organic rankings increase / increase over time?

Many thanks to everyone for the help!

Hey Mike, One of my friend who owns a software company used their services couple of months ago and he was quite satisfied with the quality they provided. Let's see what other experts suggests.

Hey Mike, I do not think Google will consider this as "Keyword Stuffing" as the ability of understanding keywords and the context has been quite matured over time. If you think "Roho" has to be present in your content, keep it and see how thing goes.. I'd also like to see the effect this practice has made so far.. Hope this helps! Umar

Did you get this sorted? looking at your page now, it appears that while you have a lot of occurrences of the same keywords (track 43, curtain 29, and curtain track 22), the density of them is quite low, 4% or less. This wouldn't be classed as keyword stuffing as far as i'm aware as you have plenty of other relevant content to dilute the frequency of them.

Hi Mike, You're correct that the Product markup is really intended for individual items, not a category of items. Under "Multiple Entities on the Same Page" here https://developers.google.com/structured-data/policies Google suggests that you mark up each item on the page individually. Other than that, yeah, not much else to mark up. Hope that helps!

I'm glad you figured it out! Always happy to help, Mike.

They're here, they're here!

I believe most of Aleyda Solis' epic international SEO checklist is still valid. You'll also want to check a couple of updated & interesting articles here and here. If you do end up using hreflang tags you can test them with the Flang tool. This ensures the tags you've setup are done correctly. With hreflang you won't need alt languages but hreflang handles both language & location (region specific). So en-au and en-us are same language, different countries. Take a look through the documentation for it and see if you have further questions.

Hi Mike, Your solution is pretty common and effective. Like James said, this doesn’t transfer all the linkjuice (wide spread misconception). In the original pagerank system there was a damping factor of 0.85. So through every link or redirect 15% pagerank was lost. Although it’s unknown if these rates stayed the same during the years you can expect a small lose in linkjuice. This is why people do outreach to change their backlinks after a sitemigration. In most cases I recommend to only try to change your most important backlinks since it’s probably not worth your time chasing down every link you got. Hope you this helps you plan your next steps.

It is 301 redirected. Why is there a loss of PA and Root Domains?

That must be really frustrating for you Mike. I am not surprised you can't access them at the back-end as these are almost always a by-product of the e-commerce system. So many don't care about what extra churn the sites produce. You could always robots out those bad pages? Just something like: Disallow: /store/pc/www.ocelco.com/* This should still readily allow everything else to be indexed after http://www.ocelco.com/store/pc/... Give it a try and then run the site through Screaming Frog and see if these bad pages are then picked up. -Andy

How much can this affect that specific page?

Hmm, well Slideshare, Scribd and Pinterest are the best for direct / leads and sales. LinkedIn can be a lead generator if you join some groups and watch the discussions. Facebook is a brand awareness tool and hardly anything else.

Hi Mike, I've just done a quick crawl of your site with Screaming Frog and I can already see quite a few issues. I won't bombard you with all of them but I'll list a few things you can start with: Your URLs are a bit messy. There seems to be a pc subfolder somewhere in the site architecture. You may want to remove this folder so that you do not have /pc/ within your URLs. All your pages seem to be contained within a /store/ sub folder. You may wish to change this so that only the store pages are contained within this folder and the rest of your pages are contained within the root. This would remove the unnecessary /store/ from all of the URLs. Your home page goes through a messy chain of three 301 redirects to the eventual page http://www.wheelchairparts.com/store/pc/home.asp I would remove these redirects so that your home page reads http://www.wheelchairparts.com/ - much neater and user/search engine friendly Home page title is too long (>66 characters) and is stuffed with keywords. In fact all the page titles appear stuffed to the brim with keywords. I would change these to be more appealing with your keyword included only once. Some of your meta descriptions are too long (>156 characters). I would consider modifying these too be within the character limit. Consider removing the Meta keywords tag completely. It is unnecessary and you seem to be spamming it anyway. You have several duplicate pages. E.g. http://www.wheelchairparts.com/store/pc/viewCategories.asp and http://www.wheelchairparts.com/store/pc/viewcategories.asp. You will need to fix this issue. Anyway I think that's probably enough to get going with for now. Hope that helps! Adam.

Just a quick note -- I've seen Google index PDFs that were scanned images of a cut-and-paste newsletter from the 1980s with a variety of different fonts. This is not a guaranteed way to keep Google out, and images will also make your files much bigger than just text.