Welcome to the Q&A Forum

The og:title is a meta property that hes been defined for objects in a social graph. They are used for example by Facebook. It will not directly replace your tag, but support it for other platforms searchabilty.

I was reading an article earlier from SEO RoundTable, where it details that Duplicate content is a side issue and not necessarily related to the Panda Update - read more here - https://www.seroundtable.com/google-duplicate-content-panda-issues-different-21039.html

John Mueller stated that sites with low quality content are hit by Panda and that duplicate content is a separate side issue.

Here is the link to the page which explains the URL parameters you can use. It also has a form generator to help you create your tracked links.

URL Builder

Set your campaign source to be either one of your FB pages to help differentiate them.

I think that you will have to wait until Moz put mozcast.com on a SSL certificate.

It is because the widget is trying to reference a HTTP:// site from your HTTPS:// I often get the same issue when trying to reference an image when its is not on the same SSL domain.

Mozcast does not sit behind an SSL.

Hmmmm, not sure they will be ranked better, especially if they already have canonical permanent pages.

Why not use the permanent URLs in the emails also. They will look neater too for the end user and SERPS as the

www.yourdomain.com/storage-boxes/niceday-economy-archive-boxes

Looks better than

www.yourdomain.com/storage-boxes/46546545021.php etc You could always try a 301 redirect for the SKU pages so they point to the nice URL pages.

These are really the only two I am aware of for actual page content over meta etc. Other Mozzers may have some additional tools they could share... Good luck

In that case, if you can I would definitely try and create some unique content for these category pages, I understand it can be difficult when talking about boxes when they all kind of do the same thing. Storage boxes, moving boxes, cardboard boxes, plastic boxes, containers.... what do they all do? they store and hold things right!.

I used to work for a large national office supplies company so know your pain, but a little extra content may help make a difference if you really need a particular category page to rank better against your competitors in what is already a very difficult and competitive area.

By canonicalising the SKU page to your intended landing/product page I think you are doing the best option for your situation, that is providing the URL features the product name etc. You seem to be very clued up and by the sounds of it doing everything right, I would not think that people in general would search for a SKU so having the other page as the dominant authority page is probably best.

However, as an option rather than having two pages surely you could have just one and have the search facility on your site pull back the landing page based in the SKU as a filterable/searchable element.

That way you would not need to have multiple pages and have to create double the unique content as you would only have once page to look after.

As for the similar pages, I agree adding some unique content to help differentiate them would help.

Hope that helps

Just pipped me to it

Hi Xpers.

I was reading a very timely, if not the same issue article today from Barry Schwartz over at SEO Round Table. He has been following a conversation from Gary Illyes at Google, whom apparently does not recommend removing content from a site to help you recover from a Panda issue, but rather recommends increasing the number of higher quality pages etc.

If you are continuing to get more traffic by adding your new larger higher quality articles, I would simply continue in the same vein. There is no reason why you cannot still continue to share your content on social platforms too.

In the past I may have suggested removing some thin/outsdated content and repointing to a newer more relevant piece, but in light of this article I now may start to think a tad differently. Hopefully some of the other Mozzers might have more thoughts on Barry's post too.

Here is the article fresh off the press today - https://www.seroundtable.com/google-panda-fix-content-21006.html

Hmmm, this is probably a devisive question. For me if they are genuine legitimate reviews then it should not be too much of an issue although some sites were recently hit for manipulative fake reviews etc. Rather than using an external review site I for your emailed in survey results I would suggest hosting them on your own site. maybe www.yourdomain.com/reviews or on any particular product pages. You can still use schema mark up on these to gain an organic star rating in the serps.

If you want to get a CTR boost to your adwords content, again with a star rating, then I would suggest re-soliciting your old reviewers with a link and kindly ask them to resubmit their review on your chosen review site. Google has a list of preferred third party partner sites. See below...  More can also be found on google seller ratings / review here 

You could also try using Google consumer surveys.

Ausgezeichnet.org
Avis-Verifies
Bazaarvoice
Bizrate
eKomi
E-Komerco
ECナビ
The Feedback Company
Feefo
FIA-NET
Hardware.info
KiyOh
Klantenvertellen
Poulpeo
PriceGrabber
ResellerRatings
Reviews.co.uk
Reevoo
Shopper Approved
ShopVote.de
ShopAuskunft
StellaService
Trusted Shops
TrustPilot
Viewpoints.com
Yopi.de
Yotpo
お財布.com
クチコミの王様
Zoorate

Hope this helps.

I tend to agree.

I too do not like it when you see the same copy, over and over again. Although on the other hand I do feel that reposting some content still does have its benefits providing it is done sparingly and not in a repetitive fashion (normally months apart). I try to consider any new followers and sometimes, providing the content is useful, may try and highlight a particularly important or time relevant article again.

Flooding people with the same content all the time will lead to a healthy number of lost followers and potential influencers leaving your social channels.

Hello Taraneh,

While I can understand your logic for putting the dates into the header tag to try and influence and reduce duplicate data issues the header title tag really tend to work best when it is a bit more focused. Hence why you probably tend to see a improvement when you just target specific keywords such as "home team vs away team" etc.

I don not feel that the word "preview" would become too repetitive as does actually describe the content well. As would "post match report" etc

To reduce the issues have you considered using the mark-up schema for articles with published dates or maybe even periodical articles. Periodical articles could possibly allow you to have multiple fixture all tagged with a period(volume), in your case each season. This could hopefully allow Google to identify each article as a stand alone item that could be different from season to season.

More information on article schema can be found here

Hope that helps a little.

I would suggest doing a bit of a crawl error report in GSC to establish how many error links are being pointed at your site. I would suggest it is not too late to get them in place.... remember you will possibly have lots of external links that are incorrect and need to resolve to a viable page.

Search Engine Roundtable just released a very timely article - Click to read in full

Google's John Mueller said in the Google+ Hangout from last Friday that he'd recommend you keep your 301 redirects live and in place for at least a year after you set them up. He said "I'd aim for at least a year," when it comes to keeping your 301 redirects in place.

He said it can take 6-months to a year for Google to fully recognize a site has moved. Plus you may have people finding old links and if those no longer have redirects, they may lead to a 404 page or a parked domain, which would result in a bad user experience.

Like the standard level I think it will be split into 50K per campaign. I am unaware there is a setting to limit the page crawled based on your overall amount (in standard there isn't anyway). It could possibly be a nice feature that Moz could include if you have one campaign that is much larger than the rest.

I believe it is an automated process that is done by Moz, the last index broke and is being reworked so may be a few more days yet.

I have personally never heard of them. Whilst this may sound like a quick fix, I would air on the side of caution when outsourcing your link building.

Many a site has been caught out in the past when it comes to this kind of pass off, as the results can often be rather dodgy to say the least. Don't get me wrong, they might be good, but I tend not to trust external link building sources with very little knowledge of my market segment.

I would suggest looking into doing your own outreach as you then know the legitimacy of your targets and that they are relevant to your content and business.

Don't try to manipulate the rankings, don't try a quick fix and don't pay for links as they should be tagged with a rel="nofollow", simply work hard, create engaging content that garners natural links and sharing and the rewards will come.

If you want reputable companies check our moz's list.

Cheers all for the responses, this was pretty much what I was hoping to hear....

Thanks

Tim

I am looking into a .htacess file for a site I look after and have noticed that the urls are all 301 redirecting from a none slash directory to a trailing slashed directory/folders.

e.g. www.domain.com/folder gets 301 redirected to www.domain.com/folder/

Will this do much harm and reduce the effect on the page and any links pointing to the site be lessened?

Secondly I am not sure what part of my htaccess is causing the redirect.

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.domain.co.uk [NC]

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^$
RewriteRule ^(.*) http://www.domain.co.uk/$1 [L,R,NE]

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.php
RewriteRule ^(.)index.php$ /$1 [R=301,L]

or could a wordpress ifmodule be causing the problem?

Any info would be apreciated.