Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Recommend reading this article about del.ic.ious getting blacklisted by Google. This is very recent. So, consider this news when using bit.ly internal links in blog posts. Even though the links are going to result pages, this could be problematic for an as yet undetermined period of time (basically bit.ly has two issues to deal with - migration away from their .us domain plus vulnerabilities that make it possible for trojans and scripting elements to be used). Of course, if you're not receiving alerts then the issue is reframed. http://www.wordfence.com/blog/2014/10/a-malicious-del-icio-us/ As stated, "Delicious has changed hands several times over the years and recently was re-sold earlier this year to Science Inc. They also rebranded several years ago to delicious.com which is not blacklisted, but there are likely a large number of legacy .us links out there. [Edit: Thanks Kelson]"

Hi Paul, You're not able to get any keyword information out of "not provided" keywords not matter whether they are branded or not. One work around that can give you a rough idea of branded vs. non-branded keyword traffic is to look at what page your "not provided" traffic landed on. If they landed on your homepage, they probably search for a branded term. If they landed on a product page, they probably searched for a term based on the product name. It's not perfect, but it can help give you understand what's going on. You can find instruction on how to look this info up here - http://www.prontomarketing.com/2013/09/unlock-your-not-provided-keyword-data/ Let me know if you have any other questions! Tim

Hi Paul! I have confirmed with our engineers the free api limit for batched URLs is 50 and 200 for paid access. This will go into effect during our next update next month.

Hi Paul, You can disavow the entire blogspot domain, but you may have some good links in there from legitimate blogs on blogspot. I would start first with looking at the links provided to you in webmaster tools. Download the list, filter for blogspot subdomains, and then manually review each of these subdomains. Anything you think in there that should be removed, try finding a contact email of the person who set up the subdomain - if you find it, great and contact them for cleanup. If not, just add it to the disavow list. I would also do this for other potential spammy large sites that allow you to set up sites on a subdomain, like wordpress.com. I would look closely at those subdomains and decide what you want to cleanup and disavow. Good luck, Mark

If it is duplicate but on your site only, I do not think you will have an issue based on what I read from Google. If you are using the same product verbiage as everyone else I think it could be an issue. As to poor quality, this issue would more affect ranking IMO. So, you can no index if it is not a critical page to your business. Or, if it is as I have here, you can simply leave it be until at such time as you believe it is a problem in the eyes of Google. If it is duped content that everyone is using I, personally, would no index no follow. Best

Hi Paul If you're using the disavow tool, you can file a reconsideration request at the same time you submit the disavow file.  There's no need to wait there.  Not only will the manual reviewer spot the file in there, it will take a few days for someone to even start processing the manual reconsideration, so the disavow file will definitely have been processed by then.

Have you found an exact answer to this? I really ned to know it too Thanks

Just curious if you have any Empirical evidence on that thought of it should be used as a last resort? I know that google cautions usage of it, but my hunch is that they are afraid of two situations. The person who disavows all links and hurts their positive link profile and the strategy of someone purposely building suspect links knowing he can remove them. I'd love your thoughts if you've seen harmful results of using the tool.

I hope your right David, I hope this doesn't screw organic ctr% I would like to think people who click the drop down bar would have clicked the pla anyway before it was there.

This post is actually an April Fool's Day joke.

Ok, well that case it just may not be cached yet, i know that being indexed and cached do not necessarily happen concurrently, and the cache should catch up in a few weeks. Im trying to find some resources to back this up now.

Azure does Linux also. Best set up a virtual machine and select an image, there are many to choose from, windows and Linux. http://www.windowsazure.com/en-us/

Thanks guys.

Can you provide keyword phrase for us?

Thanks guys, good stuff

Ah ours are 69 lol, this makes sense. Though it happened today and i saw competitors have it today.

Going back to issues related to rel=publisher ... Linking your brand's website to your Google+ brand page using the rel=publisher attribute (and vice versa) will verify ownership of the page, and may give your website a slight advantage in search rankings as you build up the value of your Google+ brand page. It may or may not help your brand make it into Google's Knowledge Graph (but is certainly worth a shot!), and will make you eligible for Google+ Direct. Google is also now using rel=publisher to determine relevancy. You should place the attribute on your most important page of your website (usually the home page). Do not place it on multiple pages. I hope this helps! Christy

Hiya, well i saw it go from 12th to 20th - this is a very competitive keyword. The landing page is my homepage. I didn't see any other target keywords go though. I saw this happen about 8pm Friday last week (gmt).

After reading this interesting article: http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-to-prepare-for-authorrank-and-get-the-jump-on-google Suggesting not hte ctr% of  picture in results is beneficial but actually Google will take auth rank into consideration. If this happens, its not fair on brands who write quality and trust content.

I see to answer your question, no this will not influence your targeted keywords or help build your site authority.