Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hello! If you want to specifically target the UK you can go into Google Search Console and set that country as your target location.  See full instructions here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/62399

What's likely happening currently since you're on a .com domain is that Google has yet to associate your site with UK only. You'll notice that when you select the country in search tools and then run a broader search, nearly all the results will be directly UK affiliated. Triggering this from search console should help the process along if it's something you'd like to do. Cheers!

It looks like the added portion is going to prevent recognition for the overall meta description tag. Is this a custom tag being used to identify products / pages internally to the CMS? For meta description, you'll want to use the syntax:

Hi Jason. While it is a best practice to use the keyword in the URL, I think you did overdo it and are running into something that would be considered keyword cannibalization within your own site. While an old blog post, the core principles remain the same here: https://moz.com/blog/how-to-solve-keyword-cannibalization.  To get around using 'physical therapy' excessively, you can break down the different types of PT into: treatments, exercises, stretches, and so on.  This semantic use of similarly related keywords is a positive signal versus the negative of keyword stuffing.  Cheers!

You might consider adding to your total link count with some other sources: Google Search Console, Bing Webmaster Tools, Majestic, Ahrefs, etc. to get a larger look into what's going on around links.  Moz's link data has gone through several changes in the past couple of months. See: http://moz.com/community/q/what-s-the-story-on-mozscape-updates and: https://moz.com/products/api/updates

The ranking drop is more concerning and, as Tim suggests below, could be due to duplicate content issues if you're still running both domains in a similar fashion.  Are there any warnings within your GSC?  What has analytics been showing you? Best of luck!

Hi Taysir. It sounds like you're making good headway so far. I'd eliminate duplicate content from each domain so that you're not importing any into the finalized site.  Let's say you have Page1A, Page1B, Page1C, and Page 1D.  Page1A exists on the main site and has had all its duplicates on that domain redirected into it. Page1B through D should likewise be sent to Page1A on the main site along with any of their duplicates.  The good news is you should be able to do all of this within the step you're currently working. Cheers!

I think so in terms of whether or not it helps people engage with your site or spend more time on your site. If a difficult to navigate site is what first greets a user trying to find something specific based on the search result, the bounce back to the search results is going to drive down ranking. It will also lower the likelihood of sharing.

From a technical perspective, if a site's navigation prevents a crawler from adequately indexing a site, that could cause indexation issues which would in turn make fewer pages available for ranking. So yes, it is an element in ranking and site performance overall.  Cheers!

Hi David. Yes, lots of penalties (in the sense of algorithm changes) cause sites to change in rankings as do changes in the competitive landscape, changes in search volumes, changes in link profiles, and so on. During mid 2013, many Panda updates came across (https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change#2013) and could have been the cause, especially if your site was / is struggling to maintain high quality content.  Take a look at the timeline though and your ongoing history and you'll likely see a fairly distinct pattern emerge. Typically a manual spam action causes a near complete removal from the index. Cheers!

Hello. Which services have you been using to keep track of link counts? Have you been keeping archived records to help pinpoint where the links went missing?  Are the numbers you're reporting aggregate for both domains?  Have you lost certain listings based on regions? (EU, US, South America, etc.)

Getting insight into some of those questions will begin to point you in the right direction.  Cheers!

Hi Jason. Beyond the body text, the term physical therapy shows up heavily in many ways.

1. Alt text. 6 times
2. Tag Anchor text. 12 times
3. As 'physical-therapy' in links. 260 times.
4. As 'physical+therapy' in links. 21 times
5. Body text. 4 times.

If you look at the code, it's a pretty heavy usage of the term on the home page and throughout the site in on way or another. I'd work on reducing the presence in links and making alt text more descriptive of the image being described than as a box to tick for the keyword location.  Cheers!

Folders tend to be useful for large structural sections of a site, especially when addressing issues that may arise within a given area, i.e. using folders for blog, forum, FAQ, etc., due to how each one may be running different software and need different analysis with Analytics.

Once those different sections are identified, using filters within those sections is fine, and often a default naming convention for a given software solution. Ultimately SEO is a consideration in URL structure, but not the only one you're going to make. As Andy says above, it's largely dependent on the needs of the site. Plus, getting page-level engagement and sharing will outweigh the URL structure benefits. Cheers!

Like Mike requests, being able to view the landing page plus keyword combination is pretty key to discovering the low session duration. Knowing what the ad copy is would help as well. Currently though you're dealing with way too small of a sample size of 14 users. Something like 140 users would be more indicative of trends, while 1400 users would be even better.

Aside from the low sample size, the basic reason low time on site happens is because people are expecting something different than what they're getting from a site so they leave rather quickly. Specific reasons it could be happening: slow loading pages, poor design, poor matching keyword or ad copy to landing page content, poor user to content match, accidental clicks, etc. Cheers!

This is also a question of usability / user experience. If your page incorporating in-article anchor links is laid out well and has engaged users clicking those links to explore the different sections of the page, you're likely getting a lower bounce rate and better numbers in-terms of users bouncing back to the search results from your page.

In ATPs case, those links were likely causing navigational confusion and/or potential keyword stuffing flags. Cleaning them up served his site better.

In either case, I don't think it's a simple question of solely how many links count, especially in real world usage.  Cheers!

Hello. I wouldn't be too concerned with this as a thin content issue as the content of each page is the image, its attributes, size, etc. Several sites--Instagram, Pinterest, Flickr, etc--are almost all purely image based content with the great bulk of their pages being one image on one URL and very little other content.

Google is aware of image heavy sites and gallery formats and has a system in place for aiding in indexing this type of content, their Image Sitemaps: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/178636  I'd use that system for indexing your separate image URLs and then monitor the success via Search Console.

If your search console (Google Webmaster Tools) is displaying a manual action for thin content, it's likely not the image galleries. Cheers!

Hello Madhukar!  It's likely that Zopim has blocked some resources (javascript, css, etc.) from crawlers on their URLs (not yours). What you'll want to do to get more granular detail though is do a fetch and render of a specific page with the error then scroll to the bottom of that page where it will list the blocked resources.

This discussion on Google's Product Forums outlines the process that a user with a similar issue used to get visibility into it: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!topic/webmasters/vwQnFkGCNaE

The main point form that discussion in relation to your question being, "[when checking] the zopim.com urls, more specifically the us30, they have their own robots.txt file blocking all from the crawlers.  I would assume the remaining zopim.com urls all block crawlers as well." That is most likely what is generating the errors that you see. Cheers!

There are likely enough signals to consider the link similar to an internal link which has similar numbers, meaning: even though they're technically on separate domains, your ownership and relationship of both domains make links between the two more like internal than external links.  So doing nothing is definitely an option, but doing something that enhances user experience should be the guiding force if you do change.  Cheers!

That's something you'd want to test with your users.  Generally though, the easier it is to get from Point A to Point B to Sale the better.

I think Wikipedia does alright using nofollow... ;^)  Still, Paulo would probably be better served by limiting the number of links on a given page, preferably by design to promote certain aspects and conversion paths. All in all though, this is likely a pretty minimal expected improvement.

Sure, you can nofollow duplicate links, but the benefits are fairly minimal. Gaining domain and page authority and making sure page load speeds are at their fastest possible levels will go a lot farther than nofollow, in terms of priorities.  Cheers!

Hi Paulo. Typically allowing links to be followed is fine, but you might consider using noindex instead for pages that would be drawing search equity away from your target landing pages. Good candidates for noindex would be: my account, login, duplicate / close to duplicate category listings, and so on.  If you really want to limit your links, it's best to do so from design  and CRO point so that people are better using and converting within your site.

Another thing to consider is setting up canonical tags for your root product and category pages. Lindsay Wassell wrote a nice article discussing pros and cons of this technique in addition to others here: https://moz.com/blog/restricting-robot-access-for-improved-seo

Still another resource--while specifically for Magento--is here: https://moz.com/ugc/setting-up-magento-for-the-search-engines  You'll find a lot of parallels though between the settings discussed there and your own ecommerce implementation. Hopefully these help point you in the right direction. Best of luck!

On your own site you might consider removing the text based link or being more specific and linking to the calculator page on: www.solarguide.co.uk.  I'd also do an analysis of visits from www.renewablesguide.co.uk to www.solarguide.co.uk via the calculator text link in order to see how users behave when following that link. Is there a higher bounce rate than average? Are they viewing many pages on the solar site? Few? And so on.   You'll get a decent idea though of the user experience from those specific visitors and whether or not the link is worth keeping or in need of better UX optimization in order to really benefit your users.  Cheers!