Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Without more specific information like the website or pages in question I can only give you some general questions to look into... Have you checked on the specific pages that the crawls says are the duplicates? Since you're on Wordpress then it is very possibly caused by the Category archives, Tag archives, and Author archives still being Index, Follow and duplicating all of your posts. Also, do you have your blog set to show the full post or previews on the homepage and archive pages?

It possibly just hasn't been long enough for the spiders to re-crawl everything yet. Have you done a fetch request in Webmaster Tools for the page and/or site to see if you can jumpstart things a little? Its also possible that the spiders haven't found a path to it yet. Do you have enough (or any) pages linking into that second page that isn't being indexed yet?

Using tools from SEOBook, I'm seeing 228 internal links on your homepage to your category pages and articles. They appear to be legitimate links so I wouldn't worry that there are too many though you should double-check that you don't have too many duplicate links unless they are necessary.

As for http://www.in2town.co.uk/Health Magazine, that's just an improperly encoded space though it would seem given your URL structure that it should be a dash - not a space. Once again, check Open Site Explorer and that should help you find what is linking to it.

That odd URL is the link in the image on the right side of your site for "lose weight today with gastric band hypnotherapy".

I used Open Site Explorer to find what pages were linking in and they all mention "(img alt) gastric" which made it easier to pinpoint where on the pages the link was coming from.

That sounds like the textbook definition of a Relevant Link. Client makes mechanical parts, sells to mining & construction industry, links to/from mining & construction industry... not sure what would make that irrelevant. Google won't penalize you for those.

If your title is concise and within the 10-70 characters limit (though width of letters can throw that off a bit) then you'll more likely appear with your correct title instead of an altered one. In some cases though, if Google considers your page relevant to a query but doesn't think your title is relevant then they will alter it. This may seem like an issue but can in fact allow you to appear for search terms that you didn't think you were relevant for but are. I've seen this happen on pages for one of the ecommerce sites I work on. When i search for one of our core terms I see the correct title and then a search for a synonym to our core term returns our site in the SERPs with an altered title. In this case its fine because the title wasn't originally optimized to the synonym but Google sees it as relevant, changes it, and allows us to rank well for the term. As far as I know though, there is no way to send Google a notice that they shouldn't alter your title in the SERPs. Google somehow reserves the rights to change how they list your site if it improves the search experience of its users.

A one-to-one redirect is usually best but as long as where you redirect to is the most relevant alternative then you are fine. If the original page that is now 404'd was receiving essentially no traffic and wasn't ranking then you can likely let the 404 stick and it will drop from the index (assuming it was there already). If one new page is relevant for 2, 3, 4+ older pages and there's nowhere more relevant to redirect them to, then it is perfectly fine to 301 all of those to the same place. What you don't want to do is blindly decide to bulk redirect everything one level up or to your homepage without doing your research first. You want to make sure that the new URL you're pointing to will serve your customers/visitors as best as it can.

And as Simon said in his response, Cyrus' post on redirects is a great resource for answers on what you should, or shouldn't, be doing.

Rel Canonical is not quite the right thing for this sort of issue.

If you're worried about the 404s sitting around too long and losing traffic for the moment, you can 302 everything to a landing page, category page, or homepage while you work on setting everything else up. You have two choices at this point.... 1) recreate all of the old pages and old URLs then remove the 302s, or 2) Add new products and new URLs, then as Dana said you'll need to map out all your new product URLs and old URLs to determine what old URL should be 301 redirected where. Then set up your necessary 301s and test that they all work.

The pages in question don't have any Meta Robots Tags on them. So once the Disallow in Robots.txt is gone and you do a fetch request in Webmaster Tools, the page should get crawled and indexed fine. If you don't have a Meta Robots Tag, the spiders consider it Index,Follow. Personally I prefer to include the index, follow tag anyway even if it isn't 100% necessary.

Your Robots.txt (which can be found at http://www2.learningtree.com/robots.txt) does in fact have Disallow: /htfu/ which would be blocking http://www2.learningtree.com**/htfu/**uswd44/reston/it-and-management-training from being crawled. While your old page is also technically blocked, it has been around longer and would already have been cached so will still appear in the SERPs.... the bots just won't be able to see changes made to it because they can't crawl it.

You need to fix the disallow so the bots can crawl your site correctly and you should 301 your old page to the new one.

Pro has 5, Pro Plus has 12, and Pro Elite has 30 campaigns. Only active campaigns count towards that cap, not ones that have been archived.

Its like how a Square is a Square but also Rhombus and a Rectangle. Long tail keywords can be any and all of those definitions depending on the moment, your goals and your needs.

In most cases I wouldn't consider a Low Traffic term a "Long Tail Keyword" simply because it has low traffic. But I would argue that Long Tail Keywords are likely to have lower traffic than their short tail counterparts. People are more likely to search using shorter terms and phrases but sometimes a 4+ word combination can be popular. But I would argue that a Long Tail Keyword/term/phrase is likely to be 3, 4, 5+ words long. Can those words be all extremely product specific? Sure. Do they need to be? No. Are they more specific than a one or two word short tail phrase? Yes.

One word with low traffic is probably just a bad keyword to be using. A 4 word phrase with high traffic could just be a popular long tail search. In some cases it will depend on your industry. Some phrases can have multiple meanings. Just because a 4 word phrase has good traffic doesn't mean you need to use it if the first 3 pages in the SERPs are all sites devoted to a completely different concept that happens to have the same phrasing.

I agree with Dana on the Custom 404 for classifieds. A 301 could confuse people and increase bounce rate since you're not serving them what they thought they were getting. Whereas a 404 makes perfect sense given the transitory nature of a classified ad. Just make sure to let people know the product/ad/listing is no longer available and give them helpful links.

This is definitely NOT the best thing to do. Bulk redirects to the homepage will wind up killing a large chunk of the relevancy signals, link equity and traffic since you're not serving the most relevant alternative to your users. They should be redirected to their most relevant live counterpart. And using a plugin that redirects ALL 404s isn't good either since sometimes a 404 is useful. For example, how will you know if a link is broken if it can't 404? In this case, if you just renamed the categories... redirect the old URL to the renamed category it belongs to.

Take a look at Cyrus' blog post from the 18th How to Completely Ruin (or Save) Your Website with Redirects.

Its also important to note that practically all blogging platforms NoFollow the links in the comments.

1. If you have older content and you create newer relevant content that you want people to see instead of the older content, you likely want a 301 redirect. In this way, all (mostly all) of the link equity is passed to the newer content which will eventually rank in place of the older content.

2. If you have duplicate pages like those caused by a parameter where site.com/page1 is the same as site.com/page1?this=x then you should canonicalize the page and its parameters to site.com/page1. In this way, the search engines understand that page1 is the real version of the content and thanks to the canonical will eventually take the place of the parametered versions that had been appearing in the SERPs.

Appendix to 1... down the road, those older pages that were redirect may wind up with no more links pointing to them from anywhere and no traffic going to them. At this point you may consider just 404ing the older page if you'd like to clean up older, less useful redirects.

Appendix to 2... A Canonical is a suggestion, not a directive. This means that the search engines do not have to follow it if they feel it is not entirely relevant.

Sorry... I just had to jump in on this since the other members of the Roberts Tribe of Moz have chimed in. I agree completely with their assessment.

Ha, okay... you got me there. I just figured the "official" google stance would be important to state. If someone really wanted to they could nicely ask for reviews and just happen to also slide a few something or other the way of the reviewer. Though i personally would not endorse that. But yes, he could invite reviewers, give them an "industry rate" on rooms, happen to state that reviews of both a positive or negative stance are greatly appreciated as it allows the hotel to work on improving weakness and help evaluate what the current strengths are, etc. etc. Its all in how you word it and present it.

Normally i fix soft 404 issues by redirecting or adding content to the page. So if you can't redirect then you could try adding some unique content to those pages. Basically its like they're saying the content is soooo thin or non-existent that the page looks like it 404s despite serving a 200 status.

As per the Google Places reviews guidelines (link

Conflict of interest: Reviews are only valuable when they are honest and unbiased. For instance, as a business owner or employee you should not review your own business or current place of work. Don’t offer money or product to others to write reviews for your business or write negative reviews about a competitor. We also discourage specialized review stations or kiosks set up at your place of business for the sole purpose of soliciting reviews. As a reviewer, you should not accept money or product from a business to write a review about them. Additionally, don’t feel compelled to review a certain way just because an employee of that business asked you to do so. Finally, don’t post reviews on behalf of others or misrepresent your identity or affiliation with the place you are reviewing.

So I'd suggest not offering free visits in exchange for trying to get reviews (positive or negative).