Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Are you asking about crawls or indexation?
I can't think of any reason why you would want to decrease crawls, but you could probably do so by getting backlinks removed, blocking sections of your site from being crawled through robots.txt or nofollow links, and decreasing the change frequency in your xml sitemaps.
As long as the transition goes smoothly (no downtime, robots.txt & htaccess files configured properly, no changes to the site) then it should have no impact on your search results. Make sure that everything is configured exactly the same as on your current host, and you should have no problems.
I would go with the canonicals. If there are any links going to these duplicate pages, that will prevent any "link juice evaporation" from links which Google can see but can't crawl due to robots.txt. Best to let Google just crawl the page and see the canonical so that it understands that it is a duplicate page.
Having canonicals on all your pages is good practice anyway, as it can prevent inadvertent duplicate content from things like query parameters.
Crawl budget can be of some concern if you're talking about a massive number of pages, but start by first taking a look at Google Webmaster Tools and seeing how many of your pages are being crawled vs the total number of pages on your site. As long as this ration isn't small, you should be good. You can also get more crawl budget by building up your domain authority by building links.
That's the new way Google is displaying info on profiles and pages. Before they displayed "+1s", which was a metric which included your total number of followers + all the +1s your content had obtained. Now they've broken that out into total number of followers and total number of views.
Who knows how long the new format will last, but we can assume that Google found those numbers to be more useful than the previous format.
I just went through this process. You just leave the day out, like in the example in the documentation:
https://moz.com/local/help/documentation#Hours
So if the business is not open Sat or Sun, you would just put:
2:9:00:AM:5:00:PM,3:9:00:AM:5:00:PM,4:9:00:AM:5:00:PM,5:9:00:AM:5:00:PM,6:9:00:AM:5:00:PM
Ok. Well, to answer your original question I don't think the semantic markup will negatively impact your rankings, but it's not the ideal implementation (the rich snippets will say "votes").
As long as you aren't being deceptive about it, it should still work.
Just put your code into the rich snippet testing tool and see if the semantic markup is implemented properly.
How long did you test the aggregate ratings for? It can take a while for Google to catch up. I don't see why votes would work but ratings wouldn't.
Why would you want to use votes? If the reviews are on a separate tab, why not just include the aggregate rating on the page itself, in order to get the rich snippets showing? You may also be able to implement the tabs in such a way that you still get review snippets.
Definitely don't use nofollow. Using nofollow won't solve the problem of having too many links, and will just end up hurting your site. It is almost never a good idea to use nofollow on internal links.
What you should consider instead is to have navigation that changes in response to what section of the site the user is in. For example, if the user is in the automotive category, it makes sense to have links to tires and oil, but it's not necessary to link to a subcategory for perfume. Having contextual navigation is great from an SEO perspective, and also provides for a better user experience of not overwhelming the user with a hundred choices.
That being said, limiting a site to having 100 links per page is a very old Google recommendation and is not a hard and fast rule. Having a lot of links on a page makes it more difficult for Google to crawl and dilutes the link juice on a page, but is sometimes necessary. Amazon.com, for example, has 300+ per page. How many links Google is willing to crawl is a factor of your site's Pagerank.
Yes, if the old pages are completely outdated, then it makes sense to redirect them to an up-to-date page. If the old pages still have some value, then you may also consider just adding a prominent note at the top of the page linking to the new location.
That's very frustrating! I've never had a problem with HMA specifically, but that script usually works.
You may want to try searching for things like "break out of frame proxy" or "break out of frame php" to see if anyone out there has come up with a better solution.
It's possible, but I haven't seen any studies that are conclusive. However, having additional unique content on your site can help with rankings though, especially if it includes long tail variations of keywords that you didn't include in your article, which you can also rank for.
Interesting. Google is usually smart about not indexing proxies, but here it looks like it's doing exactly that.
You can try using Javascript to break your site out of any frames when a visiting your site. This will break the user out of the frame if they come via the proxy, and may also help prevent Google from indexing the proxy frame:
What query are you searching for? The website comes up fine for me.
Google Images doesn't send much traffic anymore since it was updated, and the quality of traffic was never that good to begin with. However, if you have a lot of high quality images, using an Image Sitemap can help them get indexed:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/178636?hl=en
Also, in addition to the alt tag, make sure to give your images a descriptive file name, so "panda-eating-shoots.jpg" vs "IMG0001.jpg".
It can potentially affect your rankings for some keywords, especially long tail keywords. User comments generally the highest quality content, but they are content nonetheless and indexed by Google.
One solution might be to switch to a comment system such as Disqus. Disqus will still allow users to login with Facebook (as well as Twitter & Google+) and can be configured so that the comments are indexable.
Make sure you have the canonical tag in the header of all your pages. It helps Google tell what is the original source of a page:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139394?hl=en
Also, check in webmaster tools to see if your site has a manual penalty, being penalized can cause other sites to show up higher than you in the SERPs for your content.
The forum is butchering my formatting, but I hope you get the idea.
Try changing the first line of your index file to:
<sitemapindex xmlns="http: www.sitemaps.org="" schemas="" sitemap="" 0.9"=""></sitemapindex xmlns="http:>
That should get rid of the second warning. For the first warning, you are not using enough <sitemap>tags, you need to encapsulate each of the <loc>tags in one, so your sitemap should look like:</loc></sitemap>
<sitemapindex xmlns="http: www.sitemaps.org="" schemas="" sitemap="" 0.9"=""></sitemapindex xmlns="http:><sitemap></sitemap>http://www.westmarine.com/sitemap/wm-products01.xml.gz<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.westmarine.com/sitemap/wm-products02.xml.gz<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.westmarine.com/sitemap/wm-brands01.xml.gz<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.westmarine.com/sitemap/wm-categories01.xml.gz<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.westmarine.com/sitemap/wm-content-pages01.xml.gz<sitemap></sitemap>http://www.westmarine.com/sitemap/wm-commerce-pages01.xml.gz