Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks.

We are thinking about turning on the IIS-6 HTTP Compression to help with page load times.   Has anyone had any issues with doing this, particularly from an SEO or site functionality standpoint?     We just want to double check before we take this step and see if there are any potential pitfalls we may not be aware of.  Everything we've read seems to indicate it can only yield positive results.

Any thoughts, advice, comments would be appreciated.

Thank-you,

Matt & Keith

Hi Blas - Very interested in talking to someone at your company about the services you can provide.  Please have someone give me a call 770-391-5054 - Atlanta, USA.   Thanks.

• Matt

Thanks, very interesting.  I'd like to know more about your company's services.  I did complete a "Contact Me" form on your website to get more info.   I'd love to set up a time to chat more about it.   Thanks.

• Matt

Our site currently is focused in the USA and the entire site is in the English language.   We have considered broadening our scope to include content from foreign countries - i.e. Brazil.

What is the best way to approach this -- can we use our existing domain and just have a specific section of the site that is dedicated to a particular Country with content translated into that Country's predominant language?    OR could this create SEO issues -- having a domain with both English and some other language?

Would it be better to have this on a totally different domain with Country extension?

This is totally foreign territory for me - bad pun intended.

Any advice, help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

• Matt

Hi - Here is an example of one that just went live --

http://www.thenewsenterprise.com/business-for-sale

You are correct, these are 100% legit links - no funny business.  They are small community newspaper sites and essentially we are "powering" their business for sale search within their classifieds section.   The one link is in the top right -- it links back to our homepage.   That's the only link we are getting.

Please let me know if this changes anything.  Your thoughts make good sense.

Thanks.

• Matt

Thank-you.   To answer your question, yes, all will be pointing to our homepage.   At least, that is what we planned.      So, if I understand you correctly, if we spread out the links from these sites over the course of 6 weeks and planned to do roughly 8 per week -- 1-2 per day, staggered -- then all should be OK?      Thanks!

Thank-you.   To answer your question, yes, all will be pointing to our homepage.   At least, that is what we planned.      So, if I understand you correctly, if we spread out the links from these sites over the course of 6 weeks and planned to do roughly 8 per week -- 1-2 per day, staggered -- then all should be OK?      Thanks!

We have entered into a partnership with one of our sister companies that owns many different small newspapers and their associated websites -- they have agreed to show some of our content on their site along with providing links back to our website.  There are 50+ of these websites that we will be getting links from.    Does it matter to Google how quickly we add these links to these sites?    They are all very legitimate links with unique content provided.   We just didn’t know if Google would view it negatively if we added a bunch at one time.  Any guidance on the timing of how links are added would be most valuable.   Thank-you.

Thanks, we will opt to stay away from using these type of services.   Appreciate the response.

Any thoughts on using companies like Text Link Ads (www.textlinkads.com) to do link building?   Seems a bit dangerous to me, but if the articles are decent and relevant -- can it hurt you?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.   Thanks.

• MM

Thanks for the quick response -- quick question - when you say "eliminate" do you mean to 301 redirect these pages?   These are all existing pages that are indexed by Google and have various search positions.   Thanks again.

• Matt

We currently have 3 different versions of our State Business-for-Sale listings pages - the versions are:

**Version 1 -- Preferred Version: **

http://www.businessbroker.net/State/California-Businesses_For_Sale.aspx

Title = California Business for Sale Ads - California Businesses for Sale & Business Brokers - Sell a Business on Business Broker

Version 2:

http://www.businessbroker.net/Businesses_For_Sale-State-California.aspx

Title = California Business for Sale | 3124 California Businesses for Sale | BusinessBroker.net

Version 3:

http://www.businessbroker.net/listings/business_for_sale_california.ihtml

Title = California Businesses for Sale at BusinessBroker.net - California Business for Sale

While the page titles and meta data are a bit different, the bulk of the page content (which is the listings rendered) are identical.    We were wondering if it would make good sense to either (A) 301 redirect Versions 2 and 3 to the preferred Version 1 page or (B) put Canonical Tags on Versions 2 and 3 labeling Version 1 as the preferred version.    We have this issue for all 50 U.S. States -- I've mentioned California here but the same applies for Alabama through Wyoming - same issue.

Given that there are 3 different flavors and all are showing up in the Search Results -- some on the same 1st page of results -- which probably is a good thing for now -- should we do a 301 redirect or a Canonical Tag on Versions 2 and 3?     Seems like with Google cracking down on duplicate content, it might be wise to be proactive.

Any thoughts or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!    Thanks.

• Matt M

Hi Vijay - Are you set up with Google analytics?  If so, can you detect any drop in Google search traffic (organic) specifically?   What date exactly did you notice the drop off?   It potentially could be linked to Google's Panda update.   Thanks.