Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I'm working on a very similar scenario, where .com.au pages are ranking in Google US and .com pages are ranking in Google AU (above .com.au pages).

We are moving forward with the hreflang attribute since it was specifically introduced to help search engines serve the correct language or regional URL to searchers. In helping search engines index and serve the localized version of your content, “hreflang” also prevents duplicate content penalties by telling Google that each potential “duplicate” is actually an alternative for users who require an alternate language version. * We see this as a short-term goal, as we plan to eventually consolidate the ccTLDs to the .com site.

Here are some international SEO / hreflang resources that might help:

• https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en
• http://moz.com/blog/hreflang-behaviour-insights
• http://moz.com/blog/the-international-seo-checklist
• Anything from Aleyda Solis &/or Gianluca Fiorelli
• http://moz.com/blog/using-the-correct-hreflang-tag-a-new-generator-tool
• http://www.themediaflow.com/tool_hreflang.php

Also, since the AU subdomain pages were ranking well, I probably would have left the redirect in place rather than let it go to a 404. Then focus on mapping out the equivalents between the .com and .com.au sites. This is a very tedious project, but the last 2 links I shared above really help move things along once you have all the URL equivalents mapped out.

I hope this helps!

Oh the woes of exact match domains...

If I were you, I'd try to work in the actual brand name, even if it's just a logo or branded tagline somewhere in the header. As you explained, it wouldn't be very good for visitors to arrive at a site that has almost no reference to the brand they thought they were visiting the website for. I would also look into a possible rebrand that works the primary KW (tattoo removal) into the brand name - "[Brand Name] Tattoo Removal." With that, you could build out a location page that reinforces the target city with local SEO.

The self-referencing canonical tags should only be for your actual preferred URLs. So if www.testwebsite.com/duplicate is a duplicate because of parameters (for example), then no, it should not have the self-referencing canonical tag - it should have a canonical tag pointing to the preferred URL should (www.testwebsite.com/ in this case, which would have the self-ref tag).

Zappos example:

• http://www.zappos.com/beyond-yoga-women-shirts-tops~1 (self-ref canonical tag)
• http://www.zappos.com/beyond-yoga-women-shirts-tops~1#!/beyond-yoga-women-shirts-tops/CKvXARDL1wFSAv0eegLgBIIBAukjwAEB4gIFGAECCg8.zso   (canonical tag points to unfiltered page)

If www.testwebsite.com/duplicate is a static page that you want indexed, but that has the same content as www.testwebsite.com/, then the solution is updating/adding content to be unique (then applying the self-ref canonical tags to both URLs which are now unique).

Make sense?

I agree with Kari's comment. Using this tactic is becoming more and more rare for me, as I have moved towards using tabbed content (which there's also a good amount of debate about its SE-friendliness) and anchor links for having additional content in an easy to navigate, lighter/better designed way. A good example is at http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook-pro.

I hope this helps!

I feel your frustration! You spent months planning & removing any type of old SEO tactic, and your rankings have tanked. I know it's a little late since you've already launched, but the first thing I have to say is how important it is to set the right expectation whenever making large site updates - especially those including URL rewrites. In my experience, it can take anywhere from 1-4 months to see a turnaround, but there are of course things you should be doing in the mean time.

You mentioned removing a lot of duplicate/thin content pages & letting thousands 404 - rather than creating so many broken pages (thus losing all possible link equity from those old pages), I recommend 301 redirecting them to the most relevant new page. So 50 pages with thin content about 'carpet cleaning equipment' should be 301 redirected to /cleaning-equipment/carpet-cleaners.

Other things to consider if you haven't already:

• updating all internal links
• updating all external links on sites you own (social!)
• stepping up paid ads at least until rankings turn around
• stepping up other inbound marketing tactics - email marketing
• stepping up social engagement, especially on Pinterest! Think of all the homeowners/DIYers/potential customers on that site!
• generating new content that will engage your audience & also build quality links
• ideas from this article: http://moz.com/blog/domain-migration-lessons

I hope this helps!

I do not have experience with any site using this type of selector, but theoretically you should not encounter any problems as you're showing different content with the intent of improving the experience, not to deceive. If Google handles this like an ip-redirect, then you should be fine.

In scenario 2, however, I'm wondering if you even want Google to index these URLs - since it sounds like these URLs will be dynamically generated & might end up being duplicates of other pages on the site (similar to internal search pages). Something to watch out for!

First off, I like the way you're thinking through this - it's critical to understand that no one solution should be applied to every scenario, so here are my thoughts on what you should do:

• For programs no longer offered, I would leave the page up with a notification that it's discontinued plus related products ('this program is no longer offered, but here are some other programs you might like'). Your idea of having a custom 404 for discontinued products (with the same type of language) could also work. If you do 301 redirect visitors, I suggest going to the category page & also incorporating some way of letting the visitor know. You basically want to avoid confusing the visitor by taking them somewhere different than expected.
• For the programs temporarily on hold, do not 302 redirect them - 302s should be avoided in almost all cases. Instead, leave the page live & let the visitor know that this program is currently unavailable, with a CTA to be alerted via email as soon as it's available. Also have related products in case they need the program/service now.

There's an old Moz post (that I can't find atm) where Rand explains how he dealt with this situation - I believe he had the same idea as I shared, followed by closely monitoring the traffic to the pages; then adding 301s to the very low trafficked pages & working to improve the messaging/CTA/UX of the ones still receiving traffic.

I hope this helps!

If you're getting the dup content error reports in the Moz crawl diagnostics, see the Staff response here: http://moz.com/community/q/duplicate-title-tags-even-with-rel-canonical

As gazzerman1 shared, you should be in the clear from any duplicate content penalties caused by URL parameters, especially with having rel next/prev or canonical tags setup.

It's very common for responsive sites to reduce the content for mobile devices, without any penalty. This is not a deceptive or black/gray hat tactic, as long as you're not cloaking the text. In fact, you're just making a better UX.

In my experience, the hover-state text will be indexed (as a link). You can see an example on my company's work page here - notice how the hover-state content reduces as the site responds to different devices. Also see how the hover-state text is showing (as links) in the cached version of the page.

I hope this helps!

http://www.rei.com/video/  Pretty much everything here is awesome!

Do you mean that your Moz Analytics Crawl Diagnostics Report is showing duplicate titles for pages that have rel=canonical? If so, this is something I noticed a few months ago & brought up to the Moz team. I believe it's something they're working to implement/somehow allow us to 'check off' pages in the report that we've already implemented a solution for. Also, if this is your situation, I think you should add your experience / request to Moz's feature request forum.

I hope this helps!

Don't forget to pull from your own experience. We've all encountered easy & difficult to navigate sites or frustrating checkouts - take the good, avoid the bad.

This article is about removing blog posts, but I think it's still relevant: http://www.koozai.com/blog/search-marketing/deleted-900-blog-posts-happened-next/

The 'removals/redirects' & 'lessons learnt' sections are particularly important to consider.

Moz.com does this as well and you may also see an "Insight" in your Moz Analytics account recommending site-wide implementation 'to prevent any unforeseen duplicate content issues.' I have started following this practice since it really can't hurt & sometimes dup content pops up in the weirdest, most 'unforeseen' ways.

All good points you're making here. Unfortunately, there isn't a consensus on whether it's best to use the tool or not. I fall into the category of SEOs who disavow obvious spam/low quality links even without any manual penalty notification... I feel it's the honest thing to do & also don't like the idea of waiting for Google to really penalize the site. I then focus on creating unique, engaging, possibly long-format content pieces that the audience will love & share (building up authentic, high quality, contextually-relevant links that support on-site optimization & outnumber/overshadow any residual low quality links).

This Moz post walks through some critical steps for using the tool: http://moz.com/blog/google-disavow-tool

Rel=canonical is great for helping search engines serve the correct language or regional URL to searchers, but I'm not sure how it would work for two sites both purposed for the US (.us and .com).

What's the thought behind having two sites - is the .us site intended for Google US searches and .com the default for anything outside of the US? Are there language variations? What are the different "locations" you're referring to?

If 301 permanent redirects are used, then yes, about 90% of link equity is passed on. You can read more here: http://moz.com/learn/seo/redirection

I usually encounter this when I'm logged in to my work email/Google account. Try opening your browser in a "new incognito window" and make sure you're logged in to the Google account used for the site's GA account.

Wildcard placements are always tricky, so be sure you test it in GWT's robots file tester. You can also look into adding meta noindex, rel next/prev, or canonical tags to those pages.

I hope this helps!

Another vote for SEMRush. I plug nearly every site I come across into it.