Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi there! Martijn altered your code snippet, which was missing the rel="author" attribute. You should be able to "select all" and then copy and paste the code. Please let us know if that works. Thanks!

I think AWR (http://www.advancedwebranking.com/) is the best solution for you. Obviously, it is not limited just to Yandex.

Didn't surprise me, instead of trading a link for money you're trading a link for content it's still a paid link.

Thanks! Figured out the problem was on my end

That may be because the previous site owners verified that it was a mirror site and have not undone it. You should contact whoever you purchased the domain from and ask if they could double check they still aren't listing it as a mirror site.

Not having the numbers would probably be less confusing than having numbers that might later duplicate.  If you can produce the news sitemaps (and keep them accurate & up to date) the unique numbers are not technically required for Google news listings.  So if they are hard to add and you are confident in your sitemaps it shouldn't be an issue. If you are less confident in them and being listed on google news is a big deal for you then try to get them added.

I don't hesitate to link between one of my sites and another when the site that is being linked to has strong content that will provide further information of interest to the reader. I don't have a lot of these links. Just a few. I could count them on my fingers. I would hesitate to place footer links, blogroll links or other copious amounts of links between my own site. Those are not offering specific guidance to the visitor. I also have an information site where I run banner ads that click to a retail site that I own. These banner ads compete with Adsense on the basis of value using the DFP ad server. If you have any concerns about the links between your sites you can always add "nofollow".

Check your source code for a no archive tag what to look for http://searchengineland.com/google-explains-the-noindex-nofollow-noarchive-nosnippet-meta-tags-10595 Use https://moz.com/researchtools/on-page-grader to look for a bad tag check your robots.txt file  using http://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/seo-tools/robots-txt-generator/ Then use http://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/seo-tools/free-optimization/ to check for any other thing blocking it REMEMBER your site is new google might not have archived your site yet Hope this helps, Thomas

Hear what Matt says in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=K2mv1KSktLo Could be a data refresh

That's totally optional - but if you want actual users to be able to see your Google+ page, then yes it's definitely a good idea to keep the icon.  So I'd definitely include both. One does not require the other, however, in order to implement the rel=publisher code - so if you ever need to remove the icon, you can do so without any problems.

Could well be, try viewing as googlebot or bingbot in wmt

Thanks - that could be a decent alternative to offer!

The problem with that is maintaining and scaling this structure, now and in the future. From Google Side, its ok to use any of the versions, as if you do a search "Voitures à vendre a paris" you see sometimes that the word "cars" and even "autos" is highlighted in the url. So Google is doing a pretty good job detecting translated versions or even transliterated version. Cheers

Sara Copyscape is your best hope .... They offer a free and premium service and its relatively inexpensive. http://www.copyscape.com/ Regards John

Hi There You might want to give Screaming Frog a shot for creating XML sitemaps. Here's a post which talks about how. Basically, since you can customize the crawl, this will allow you to exclude the parameters etc. I'd give that a shot. -Dan

I don't know one for an h ref, but there is one for <header>: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=189077 I don't know if this is what you are looking for. Hope that helps. </header>

Hi Sara, Google+ required 1,000 followers in order for your Google+ page to be verified, however this did not mean you need to have 1,000 followers in order to add rel="publisher" code to your homepage - that can be done regardless of follower count. You can see this in AJ Kohn's article on proper rel publisher setup: http://www.blindfiveyearold.com/google-plus-seo If you go to the Google+ Page Verification page at Google, you'll now see that the requirement has been changed to state "Your Google+ page must already have a meaningful number of followers." Obviously this is open to interpretation, but based upon that language change, I believe you'll probably be OK with a few hundred followers as opposed to 1,000.

If Page.fr is in French, I'd use rel=alternate/hreflang and not the canonical tag. It should allow both versions to rank for the appropriate audience without causing issues with duplication: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=189077 These aren't "true" duplicates and rel=canonical could disrupt the ranking ability of the French site.

Thanks - I'll do that!

Hi there! You shared that you're using responsive along with dynamic serving (can you please specify more?), since for any of those two approaches you will be providing the same URLs for both mobile and desktop users and crawlers, you won't need to redirect: With responsive: You use CSS Media Queries and the same HTMLs for both mobile and desktop purposes. Your design will be fluid and always "fit" the visitors device, you won't need to serve different HTMLs nor redirect. With dynamic serving: You serve different HTMLs based on the user agent (mobile or desktop) through the same URLs. Since the different HTMLs will be shown through the same URLs no redirect is needed neither. What you need to make sure to effectively implement user agent detection (avoiding the errors specified by Google here), using the vary HTTP header, as explained here. On the other hand, the mobile Web approach that does need redirects is when you set a parallel mobile Website, for which you will enable a mobile targeted Web version through their specific URLs (it's recommended to show them in an "m" subdomain, following a clean and optimized URL naming system that can easily refer to the desktop one), for example: Category A for Desktop version: www.yourbrand.com/category-a/ Category A for Mobile version: m.yourbrand.com/category-a/ For this last setting you do need redirects, along with the usage of rel="alternate" tag pointing to the corresponding mobile URL from their desktop URL version and a rel="canonical" tag pointing to the corresponding desktop URL from their mobile URL version, in a page to page basis, as described here. If at some point you have a desktop URL that doesn't have a mobile version (or viceversa, a mobile URL that doesn't have a desktop version) then you shouldn't really do anything "extra" really, since: If for some reason a user can end-up visiting for a URL targeting another device and you don't have it, then it's better to leave the users browsing through the other Web version, since you don't really have that content still optimized for them and although not optimized from a user experience perspective, this is better than implement "non-relevant redirects" that would "force" these users to go to other URLs that although will be optimized for Mobile, won't provide the content that they're looking to consume. If you correctly configure your mobile and desktop versions tagging they shouldn't rank in the search results that they're not targeting to so the previous situation really would happen mostly if someone directly shares a specific Mobile URL to Desktop users and you don't have that Desktop version for that URL, for example, or viceversa. So to avoid this type of situation directly the best is to have always a mobile version of your desktop URLs and viceversa, although as you can see, if this is not possible, the alternative scenario (to leave it as it is) is not really negative and shouldn't affect a high amount of your users. If you have any question or additional doubt, please let me know! Thanks, Aleyda