Hi Joseph, thanks for that. Definitely would be looking at the top level for quality but that is still pretty cheap! Not looking to spend more than I have to but want quality.

Thanks again.

Hi mozzers

Just looking for opinions on textbroker.com. They seem very affordable so thinking that post panda this level may not be good enough.....so any experiences shared would be appreciated.

Thanks

I can confirm that Raven would be perfect for this. You can monitor changes in anchor text, destination url, follow status and changes in DA and PA as well. You can upload a csv file too.

Thanks Kieran

Hi Kieran

Thanks for the reply. My question, rather badly worded perhaps, was whether it's normal for a new site to be ranked much higher (in this case page 1) in Bing and Yahoo but much lower (this case page 7) in Google.

Thanks again.

Cheers

Trevor

Hi just wondered what other people's experience is with a new domain.

Basically have a client with a domain registered end of May this year, so less than 3 months old!

The site ranks for his keyword choice (not very competitive), which is in the domain name. For me I'm not at all surprised with Google's low ranking after such a short period but quite surprsied to see it ranking page 1 on Bing and Yahoo.

No seo work has been done yet and there are no inbound links.

Anyone else have experience of this? Should I be surprised or is that normal in the other two search engines?

Thanks in advance

Trevor

Hi Paul, no problem at all. As Ryan says, we all like a mystery.

As for the canonicals they can have a big effect if all variations of the domain are present. i.e.

• www.mydomain.com
• mydomain.com/
• www.mydomain.com/index.php
• mydomain.com/index.php

etc

Not only are these duplicate pages they will most likely split up any inbound link juice as you can see from the PA of the pages you mention. Go to the http:// version and the http://www and you'll see the problem!

Using <link rel="canonical" href="<a href="http://www.vibralogix.com/">http://www.mydomain.com/" /> would probably be sufficient, and should be included, but I think it's best to have the canonicals redirected properly in the htaccess.</link rel="canonical" href="<a>

Very best wishes

Trevor

Hi guys

Not sure if I can get mozpoints for answering my own question - perhaps someone can thumb it up

Anyway below is the .htaccess code that seems to work for canonicalization and allowing POST:

http:// to http://www.

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mydomainexample.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.mydomainexample.com/$1 [R=301,L]

REDIRECT /folder/index.php to /folder/

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^GET.index.php\ HTTP/
RewriteRule ^(([^/]+/))index.php$ http://www.mydomainexample.com/$1 [R=301,L]

Cheers

Yep those PAs are strong even without canonicalization. Let's hope for Paul's sake that the site doesn't get an seo audit anytime soon!

Hi Ryan I noticed that the site has a canonical issue with both an http and www version too. Nice and thorough analysis, really interesting regarding the flag. Now I'm back home I might just have to take a look....although really should think about getting some shut eye here in blighty

Hi Paul

Wow! To me that just looks so spammy and over-optimised. I would think that the SE's would think the same too but as you say the urls rank #1.

What are the other metrics like for the site, perhaps they may show the reasons for high rankings?

Update: Just taken a quick look and it does seem the domain is quite strong with a DA 60. Having said that they have a canonical issue which,, if they sorted may make them even stronger.....so keep that quiet!

Hi guys

I'm after some help with trying to achieve the following:

1. Canonicalise to http://www.

2. Remove the index.php from root and subfolders.

I have the .htaccess code below, which seemed to work fine, but the urls use the POST method and this isn't working with the rewrites.

Can anyone please advise as to what I am doing wrong? As you can probably guess .htaccess isn't my strongest SEO discipline!

The code I have is:

http:// to http://www.

RewriteEngine on
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mydomainexample.com
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.mydomainexample.com/$1 [R=301,L]

/index.php to /

Options +FollowSymLinks
DirectoryIndex index.php

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index.php\ HTTP/
RewriteRule ^index.php$ http://www.mydomainexample.com/ [R=301,L]

Subdirectory /index.php to /

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]+\ /([^/]+/)index.(php|html|htm?)[#?]?
RewriteRule ^(([^/]+/))index.(php|html|htm?)$ http://www.mydomainexample.com/$1 [R=301,L]

Just to add to this I have found this which I think is what I need to restrict it to GET:

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^GET.*index\.php [NC]RewriteRule (.*?)index\.php/*(.*) /$1$2 [R=301,L]

Thank you in advance for any suggestions as to how I may put this code together..

Trevor

Hi Ryan (x2)

Looked at that faqme system and thanks for the tip but would have to agree that faqme looks very seo unfriendly.

We've found a couple which we're looking at and I will update with the 'chosen one' soon.

Thanks again guys for your help.

Trevor

Hi Ennovation Thanks for link - site looks nice. I will chat with my client and see if that could be a better option for them. Thanks again. Trevor

Hi Ennovation Thanks I'll take a look at zend.

Hi Ryan

Thanks for your reply.

Just been looking at knowledgebase-script which seems to offer all that is required as the client is looking for a 'ready to go' kind of solution rather than add on cms like wp - which would be cheaper but require more work to set up.

Any experience with this or similar packages?

Thanks again for taking the time to reply, it's appreciated.

Trevor

Hi I am looking for an FAQ system that is seo friendly, naturally , so wondered what other people use or would recommend for a website that's isn't using a cms like wordpress etc.

Basically looking to add the question as the title and the answer as the page content to get the pages indexed.

Thanks in advance.

Trevor