Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Robert,

What website are you looking for?

Hi Robert,

Sorry, I am totally lost on what you trying to explain.

The issue is not the way these sitelinks or breadcrumbs look. If I am searching in Google.ie for a particular keyword which my .ie website ranks for, in the actual results it shows breadcrumbs which is great as it may improve CTR, anyway when I click on one of the breadcrumbs in takes me to the .co.uk website, however if I actually click on the title of the result it takes me to the .ie website as expected.

One thing I mentioned is that I am using a canonical tag on the .ie website pointing to the .co.uk website, maybe this is doing something? One thing I noticed is that if I looked at a cached version of the .ie website in Google.ie it shows the .co.uk website.

Hope the above helps

Hi Alice,

Yes, both websites are geo-targeted.

What I can say is recently we added a canonical tag to the .ie website pointing to the .co.uk website as I belief it was having a negative impact on our ranking for the .co.uk website in Google.co.uk, so maybe the canonical tag has some sort of influence on these breadcrumbs?

When I look at the cached version Google has made in Google.ie of the .ie website, it shows the .co.uk version of the website, is this normal?

Hi Robert,

No, not site links.

Just an example:

Click here

Hope that clarify things.

Hi there,

Breadcrumbs now showing for my websites in Google.co.uk & Google.ie

I have 2 websites .co.uk & .ie both having the same content. There are legalities for having 2 separate domains. Anyway...

When I click on one of the breadcrumbs in the SERPs in Google.ie it takes me to the .co.uk website, however the title for that result takes me to the .ie website as it should.

I have checked my breadcrumbs on the .ie website and all is fine, however in SERPs it takes me to the .co.uk website, any ideas why this maybe?

Kind Regards

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the link, very good read.

I also read this:

Clearly, after Panda 3.3, Google implemented some sort of threshold for what they feel is an appropriate ratio of anchor text that any website should have. Websites with a higher ratio than this threshold saw the value of all of those links completely discounted — it was as if they didn’t exist anymore

On http://www.audiencebloom.com/2012/04/how-to-recover-your-rankings-after-panda-3-3-3-4-3-5-or-penguin-delete-or-dilute/

Does this mean going back to these websites where the exact match anchor text is a changing it to lets say phrase or brand will not make any difference?

Hi William,

They are actually placed on good websites, however they have just been excessive in using exact match anchor text which has done them no favours.

Let's say I go and change 40% of these to brand, phase etc would it not be suspicious to search engines that nothing on the page itself has changed apart from the anchor text?

Kind Regards

Hi there,

I have recently been approached by a company looking to do some SEO work for them, having had a look at their link profile, they had being using a lot of exact match anchor and have seen a drop in the rankings, no surprise there.

I was thinking of asking the website where they have placed these links and changing them, so there is a mixture of exact, phrase, brand etc, what do you think? would this be best practice? or just leave these as they are and start building fresh links?

Kind Regards

Hi there,

I am looking at creating some back links into my website using guest blogging, be it product reviews, competitions or writing the post myself. I had a look at my competitors back link profile, all I can say is that they all look artificial (paid for) the article itself reads well, however when I see something like this:

'If you house got burgled and you never had home insurance in place, you could lose thousands of pounds of household goods'

It just looks paid for, the question is if I am placing a guest post on a blog, what is best practice in making the link look more natural?

Thank you

Hi Jonathan,

Thanks for your feedback.

Even though the content is the same, some of the links are slightly different, would that be a problem?

Thanks

Hi there,

I have recently written an article which I have posted on an online newspaper website. I want to use this article and put it on my blog also, the reason the article will be placed on my blog is to drive users from my email marketing activities.

Would it simply be best practice to disallow Google from crawling this page? or put a rel canonical on the article placed on my blog pointing to the article placed on the online newspaper website?

Thanks for any suggestions

Hi Matt,

Indeed, a few months ago I sent a paragraph of text by email to be changed on that article, and no doubt this is the reason why. I have had it removed in the last 10 minutes or so, just for piece of mind.

Thanks for clarifying the issue.

Hi there,

I have recently noticed that we have a link from an authoritative website, however when I looked at the code, it looked like this:

<a <span="">href</a><a <span="">="http://www.mydomain.com/" title="blocked::http://www.mydomain.com/">keyword</a>

You will notice that in the code there is 'blocked::' What is this? has it the same effect as a nofollow tag?

Thanks for any help

I am a little confused, because earlier you had said:

The first link gives you 100% SEO benefit

The second link gives you 25% SEO benefit

The third link gives you 5% SEO benefit

The fourth link gives you <1% SEO benefit

Does the above still apply?

Thanks

Just to clarify David, if I own the domain seomoz.org and place an article on searchengineland.com with 5 links pointing back to seomoz.org those links pass 20%? not:

link 1 :100%

link 2: 50% and so on.....

I THINK I read somewhere that if you had let's say 4 links in your article all pointing to different pages on your website, those 4 links would all pass the same value (link juice) 25%, however if you had just 1 link in the article it would get the full 100%, maybe I am just making this up or dreamt it, who knows.

Your understanding could also be correct, has this came from research? has anyone here at SEOMOZ mentioned anything of this, WBF?

Thanks

This all makes sense David.

My understanding was that if you have 1 link in the article then this gets 100% SEO benefit, if you have 2 links in the article the SEO benefit is 50% for each link, if you have 3 links in the article the SEO benefit is 33.333% for each an so on....

Have I got it wrong then?

Thanks

Thanks David.

The article in question has 3 valid links. You say "After a while there is no additional value at all" what do you mean by this?

Thanks

Hi David,

Sorry for not being clear.

What I meant is an external website, for example let's say my website is seomoz.org and I am placing an article on searchengineland.com, what is the maximum amount of links you would use linking back to seomoz.org? I take it the more links you have pointing back to seomoz.org the less linkjuice this is passed, right?

Thanks

Hi David,

Thanks for your feedback.

What about external blogs pointing back to your website, would you still keep this rule of thumb with 2-3 links per article on an external blog?

Thanks