Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Although your site appears to load fine, Pingdom reported a load time of 6.41S. You have a number of redirect chains, scripts that could be combined, large request size, etc. Most of these things are easy to fix. There are many services out there where you can get a decent report. The report will give you a good list of fixes to make. I use https://tools.pingdom.com I've seen page load time (especially after recent site changes) adversely affect site ranking more than any other single cause.

This "strategy" is well known but almost never used right. Imo maybe not link building but rather brand building/sales generation strategy.

HI James, Thank you for your kind response, Yes it seems to me the best and suitable way of doing in order to address this issue. Thank you

Hi Ikkie, As explained previously, MozPoints don't automatically update due to caching. Caching makes those internet pages load way faster. You have caching in your browser and cookie-related caching, which means if you're constantly checking the page, you're going to see the same version. We have site-wide caching at Moz. We get somewhere around 2 million visitors to Moz.com each month, and in order to load our site faster, we don't update everything on it in real time. One of these things is MozPoints, which are database driven and refreshes to that database take time. There's a ton of studies about site speed out there that tell you things like 40% of your visitors will leave your site if the page doesn't load within 3 seconds. It's great that you care so much about earning MozPoints. They are definitely being kept track of just fine, even if your page due to multiple layers of caching doesn't appear so, it just means that those points don't show up right away. And yes, sometimes that's a week. Thanks,

The XML sitemap is the faster way.

We do cache the pages for quicker loading. This means that you'll sometimes see a lag in MozPoints updating.

Hey there To Quote Google on this, with the issue of ASCII and UTF encoded characters, like Arabic: "Yes, we can generally keep up with UTF-8 encoded URLs and we’ll generally show them to users in our search results (but link to your server with the URLs properly escaped). I would recommend that you also use escaped URLs in your links, to make sure that your site is compatible with older browsers that don’t understand straight UTF-8 URLs" So their recommendation would be to have both URLs available (the English and the Arabic) in order to support all users.  So the fact you already do this is a good thing. The next step would be to make sure you are handling duplicate content correctly.  If the Arabic and non Arabic URLs are linking to a page with the same content - Google _should_be able to recognise this as the same page and not penalise you for duplications.  So if the Arabic URL and the "escaped URL" (ASCII/English equivalent) both go to the same page, you should be fine.  I've experienced this quite a few times with Turkish websites, for example, that also have UTF encoded characters. However, you can eliminate the risk further by adding a canonical tag to each page.  As far as I am aware, the canonical tag will support Arabic characters and so, on each page of the site, add a canonical tag that points to that page.  For example, with the URL above, you would want to place a canonical tag like: You can read more on canonical tags here: http://moz.com/learn/seo/canonicalization Do be aware that for XML sitemaps, the URLs in the sitemap need to be URL-escaped - that is to say, UTF encoded URLs need to be made into their ASCII equivalent.  You can read more about that in this Google guide to using non-alphanumeric characters in Sitemap URLs. Hope this helps.

Hi Again, I showed your image to a few very good Local SEOs and no one had ever seen anything like it before. Maybe some type of radius function. Maybe Google is testing something. Update: I stand corrected. Someone I spoke to says they have seen this in the Google My Business dashboard and that it was called 'hit radius'. It might have been something showing where most calls or traffic were coming from. I guess it's not a well-known feature whatever it is! Might be worth it to take it to the Google and Your Business Forum and see if you can get more info on this from a TC there.

site explorer does not crawl the whole internet, could it be that the 2000 are low quality links from obscure sites. I think SE tries to get the best of the web.

What the problem is with your site I cant say because we don't have the url. But having said that, Why block pages? I find it is very rare that you need to block pages, I remember reading that Google sees blocked resources as a spam signal, that by itself is not a problem but when mixed with other signals can be harmful. so do you really need to block the pages? if you really do, then use meta  noindex, follow. you want the links to be followed so that link juice flows back out of the links to indexed pages. or you will be pouring link juice away via any links pointing to noindex pages

I'm going to assume you're talking about another, smaller website in the same industry. We call these "satellite" websites and, generally speaking, they're not a good idea. As Bryan Leo mentioned below, there are some exceptions to the rule but without knowing more about what you're trying to do I would have to answer "no". Like Martjin said, it would be better to increase your efforts on your main site than to spread them across multiple sites in the same niche.

Are these "Blogs" going to be under the same TLD? I would suggest doing one property that focuses on everything about the product: reviews, information, application stories, etc. that way you can create one giant ball of authority on everything that has to do with that product.  -  If tracking in google analytic there are ways to split out and see what type of content is contributing the most to the bottom line.