Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Will do. Thank you very much, Sam!

Thank you much. Reading your answer is giving me kind of a "duh" moment. I think if I were looking at this situation from the outside it would be a different story. I definitely am over thinking this. Thanks again!

I'd concur with Marie - the use of noindex, follow is the most appropriate in this case.

gotcha, thanks!

The site does have and has had ranking issues since the first Penguin and has really had problems the last few months. And other than some minor things low quality links are really the only problem with the site.

Thank you very much. That is just what I was looking for.

Update on this issue........ I ended up restoring a few of the links I removed but none of the truly crappy ones. It seems though I was just needing to be a little patient. This latest algo update shot be back up to 8th after I had dropped to 30th (after removing a ton of links). So it seems those links were still passing pagerank even though they were total garbage and didn't offer any value whatsoever. I think this is evidence that Google's quality standard when it comes to links definitely went up. Which I guess goes without saying but it's good to have proof. I also hadn't done anything else to the site for the last couple months other than remove those links so there shouldn't have been any other variables at play.

You're pretty much right! I'd just add a few summary points for clarification: 1. 301-redirect old URLs to the new ones 2. Change any rel=canonical tags on the old pages so that the tags reference the new URLs 3. Add rel=canonical tags to the pages on the new site and make sure that they point to those same pages 4. Inform anyone linking to the old pages that the URLs have changed. 5. Check items on the pages such as media and images so that the URLs of those items themselves are hosted on the new domain and not the old one I would not delete the old pages (at least not right away) because you never know how long it will take Google to understand that their locations have changed. Only delete them unless you have a pressing need to do so. If you have any other questions, let me know!

Thanks Paul, I'm more curious about how and why these links are created.

I've overseen a few websites that duplicated the occasional article between themselves. I always recommended exactly as EGOL said, and it worked fine. The duplicate article on Site B had a canonical link to the original on Site A, and the "Originally published here" link was added at the bottom of the duplicated version of the article. If the page is relevant to the audiences on both websites I don't foresee any major problems. The only issue I'd see is if you overdid this and started to copy a high percentage of pages. The search engines don't always get it right - they can choose to ignore a canonical and sometimes a duplicate on a higher authority website might outrank the original on a lower authority website, but this has never happened to me.

Are you the only one with permission to publish the content? If not, and there are others, you will need to canonical to where the publisher/owner of the content has the content up. If you are the only approved publisher on the web, you can make others canonical to you, but it'll be a battle.

I would suggest keyword research and planning out how you want them to flow. You will also need to look at your permalinks since you are using wordpress as you might prefer to show the category in the URL Easiest path would be to just let the post name be the permalink, excluding categories in the url, then you just move them to their respective categories. Take your time and carefully plan everything out first, you will also need to fix the old URLs to point to the new ones so don't forget that.

Great advice EGOL, in our post-panda world! On that note this should help: http://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/blog/content/content-re-packaging-101/ http://www.jenniferslegg.com/2012/06/27/when-to-rewrite-older-content-instead-of-creating-new-linking/ http://idealware.org/blog/deciding-fate-outdated-content-update-redirect-or-rewrite

Hi moregood, If I were you I would do it the other way around: I would go over all the existing links asking the following question: Is this an "editorial" link? And I would cut out all the rest. I think It's easier to find out the good ones. There are a lot of reasons for which links could be bad for you, you might not even be aware why they are bad. But the good ones are pretty obvious and way fewer :). I think it's easier to recover from a penalty this way, and the chance to cut something good is pretty low. If you go the way you mentioned and avoid cutting the ones that are in a gray area, you might resubmit the website over and over. It will take a lot of time. Meanwhile you could stick with the good links and invest the rest of time to get more of these

4 paragraphs is a bit much, but as long as there's significant content after that (more than 4 paragraphs) then you should be fine. The partial title shouldn't be an issue either.

If you combine them, you'll also need to rel=canonical or 301-redirect the audio pages to the video pages (or vise-versa). To avoid chaining your canonicals, the blog posts should all go back to whichever version (audio/video) you choose as the canonical. It depends on usage, but I'm guessing the videos have higher engagement than the audio? You could just build a longish page that looks like: [Video] [Audio] [Description] [Transcript] Transcripts add a lot of SEO power to a page, potentially, and getting that content right on the main video page could help quite a bit, if you can keep it user-friendly.