Welcome to the Q&A Forum

A Title. But I was confused because he started off with alt tags, then moved to titles, but now I just noticed the reference to URL slugs. In terms of URLs, just go with the product name. In terms of the title, you can go with the product name, followed by your brand, but it's best to customize each one as much as possible for the user. As for alt tags, describe the image. This is where you could use "Blue Sea Glass Necklace" even if it isn't the product title since it accurately describes the image. You can also put blue sea glass necklace in the description and on-page content. But if the title of the product is "By The Sea" then that should be in the title tag and URL, or else every "blue sea glass necklace" is going to end up with the same title and similar URLs, assuming you have more than necklace made of blue sea glass.

I personally always make them the same as the product title. The title of the product should 99% of the time describe the image very well, and the way that most ecommerce platforms are set up it can be done relatively quick for the whole site too.

It sounds like part of the reason for your question is frustration and uncertainty about what to do next. I often feel exactly the same. So you may want to read this post which helps you work out where to start and puts the issues with disavowing well down the line http://savvypanda.com/blog/guide-how-to-use-google-disavow-tool.html In a nutshell Use google webmaster tools to figure out where most of the links are coming from Work down the list in order and email the websites to ask them them to remove the links Once you hit diminishing returns start using the disavow tool. This is a good approach as it makes the problem manageable and you can then be systematic about moving forward. If it's like everything else I've ever done - 20% of the sites will be responsible for 80% of the links and at least some of them will be nice and take stuff down. That will give you a nice morale boost when they do it, and then another one when you get some rankings benefits. And then you will be over the hump and  it will just be another task you have to undertake Hope that this helps Denis

URL Readability = Clickability (providing the URL is not too long.) When you see results in SERPS, the readability (reading ease for a human reader) can help your click-thru rates. It helps the reader to understand if they are interested in your content. Also, it helps search engines to know what your page is about. Underscores are not nearly as good. Category names are often automatically hyphenated by most shopping cart systems, no?

Even if you do a link: search in Google for a major brand it will still omit the majority of the results. I've seen a brand with 1,000's on linking domains bring back 8 listings in Google using link:www... so if you know the links are there it's not something you need to worry about. There are many more ranking factors than just links so you may need to do a full audit on your site: Refresh content, improve structure, review meta data, review internal/external linking, trim any bad links coming into your site, resolve duplicate/thin content, check for broken links and redirect, improve site speed, enhance your brand with social sites.....there's a long list of things you could be doing and it might be just the sites around you are doing all of this better. Kind Regards

2 years back....that's going to be right in the middle of a lot of Google algo changes, both Panda and Penguin.  It might be just a coincidence that your traffic drop was around when the hacking happened. Have you done a backlink analysis?  It could be that the hackers also planted a ton of crappy links in the hopes of short-term getting your site to rank well for whatever they're trying to inject into your site and sell. Sounds like you're doing the right thing with the URLs though.  To do a double-check on the duplicate content side, you could run Screaming Frog against it, and check for duplicate page titles and meta descriptions.  If your pages are getting spit out with multiple URLs, you'll see them all show up with duplicates.

The on-page grader lists the pages that rank in the top fifty for a keyword in one of your campaigns, so it is not the on-page grader that is choosing a particular keyword for a page, it is Google. In other words, even though your "bracelets" page is not optimized for "rings", it still showed up for "rings" in the search results. And obviously since you did not optimize it for "rings" it did not do well for that word. When you see a grade of "F" for a search term that doesn't apply to that page, you don't need to worry about it. Sometimes pages do rank for keywords other than the ones we are optimizing for. If you get a bad grade for a search term/webpage combination that are supposed to go together, that is the time to go back and re-optimize.

thanks for the information I want to upgrade my site : Annonces Au Maroc

QUESTION 1: Setup a catchall .htaccess 301 redirect to point http:// to https:// (So the age of your page is transferred to the https:// pages) QUESTION 2: In short: No But It wouldn't hurt to make sure you have a canonical tag on all your pages pointing to the preferred url structure For example these 2 pages load 1 page (and both URLs work): http://singlespeedbikes.co/abacabb-2-0 http://singlespeedbikes.co/abacabb-2-0/ But the cannonical tag on this page tells Google which URL it should index to avoid confusion with duplicate content etc, example: <link href="[http://singlespeedbikes.co/abacabb-2-0](view-source:http://singlespeedbikes.co/abacabb-2-0)" rel="<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>" />

I assume you mean Search > Crawl Diagnostics > Issues overview There is a note telling you that you have a canonical tag which is fine (a black tag) this is more informational and shouldn't worry about it. When to worry - If you have duplicate content. edit also assuming this in Moz reports

Hi Tiffany, There is a difference between all of these URLs, as far as Google is concerned. If a URL has any one characters different to another, Google considers it to be different. This is true even if the pages each URL loads are exactly the same. For all of these URLs, you should choose one that you consider to be the "proper" URL. Call this the "canonical" URL - the correct version. There is no gold standard for which versions you should choose, besides for one, which I'll get into later: https://www.abc.com/ is realistically not better or worse than http://abc.com/. However, you might have a good reason why the entire site should be on HTTPS URLs, i.e. on secured as opposed to unsecured URLs. Some people choose to not use the "version" of their site that loads with "www" - again, there is no benefit or detriment either way. For the abc.com/blog/ example, the general rule is that **if more content site beneath the /blog/ subfolder, the URL should have a trailing slash. **If "/blog is just a page with nothing housed beneath it (i.e. there are no pages like www.abc.com/blog/2014/post.html), then you can leave the trailing slash off if you like. No matter which versions you choose, all alternative versions should be 301 redirected to the canonical version (the one you chose as your preference). If you choose http://www.abc.com/ and someone types in https://abc.com/, they should be 301 redirected to http://www.abc.com/. The other option is to place the canonical tag on each "alternative" version, pointing to the canonical URL of that page. This means that https://abc.com/, etc. load, but the canonical tag tells Google that the primary version is not on this URL, but on the one you specify in the tag. This is quite easy to do: each URL will be pulling its content from the same file (that is, there are not usually two files for the home page, one populating www.abc.com and one populating http://abc.com - it is the same file being displayed on different URLs). As such, that one file needs to have the canonical tag indicating your desired canonical URL. Each page requires its own canonical tag, indicating the desired URL. 301 redirection to the canonical URLs is the traditional way of getting this done. Cheers, Jane

Hi Tiffany, This looks like you're debating between two approaches to me. approach 1 - is it ok to delete a sitemap file and submit a new one once a month with product updates. approach 2 - Is it ok to resubmit the same existing sitemap with the updates included. also once a month. As Eric mentions below, stick to having your current sitemap file and just updating it rather than having to delete and submit a fresh one each time. Part 2 - Is updating once a month too much? no. Once a month updates are fine and you can still get away with more than just once a month depending on how much content you have available to update.