Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Both of those pages have canonical tags that point to https://lurento.com/city/ which 404s out.... I would start there.

A test ran about a year ago states that Google has no issue with it....

http://searchengineland.com/tested-googlebot-crawls-javascript-heres-learned-220157

For anyone who may care - this appears to have worked out really well.  So far way better than expected.  Very competitive market and we are on page 1 for most of our most important phrasing.... cool.

No problem at all

The vast majority of my clients are hotels.  Because of this I deal with rebranding all of the time (a property switching brands, a branded property dropping the brand to become independent etc...)  If you feel comfortable leaving your old and new domains I would be happy to take a look for you.  As Ikkie said, it could be any number of things.

I would say--and many may disagree with me--that if you are building a directory to honestly help users than that is great.  However, to do so on a subdomain of your company's website is very likely going to seem fishy.  I wouldn't do that, personally.

Yeah, trust me, I have strongly advised against it.  They don't use us for design, just marketing, and the company they use for design (while, admittedly, very, very good) was almost done with this before we were brought in to the loop about the redesign.  Down the road I hope to convince them to add more pages etc... but for now this is what I have to work with.  I am hoping the rel=canonical will take care of the duplicate content issues while perhaps giving a bit more authority to the content sections of the one page design.  This is something I have not done before, however, and I wanted to bounce it off my peers.  Thank you for the response!  I'll come back and post how it goes in a few months.

I'm sorry if I am giving bad news but 'some good links' just doesn't mean much.  What do your competitors have?  How relevant is your content?  There is just a lot more to it than links.....  give some more info and we can all look in to it.

I have a client who is moving to a one page website design.  So, content from the inner pages is being condensed in to sections on the 'home' page.  There will be a navigation that anchor links to each relevant section.  I am wondering if I should leave the old pages and use rel=canonical to point them to their relevant sections on the new 'home' page rather than 301 them.  Thoughts?

Just curious... if you uninstall the plugin does the page load speed return to what it was before the install?

High high PA and lower DA is simply because the DA is an average of each page's PA (at least that's how I understand it).  It may not be quite that simple with certain page's weighing more in the average but I believe that is the simplest way to look at it.

In my personal market it is very hard, if not impossible to get links to any page other than the home page so I use very thought out internal linking structures to spread authority throughout the website.  However, I do not believe I have ever seen a website who's Home Page Authority was not considerably higher than the over all DA - for instance, the site I am working on right now has a DA of 59 and a PA (on the home page) of 65 while the PA of one of the internal pages is 43...

So this is a little complicated (at least for me...)

We have a client who is having us rebuild and optimize about 350 pages of their website in our CMS.  However, the rest of the website will not be on our CMS.  We wanted to build these pages on a sub-domain that is pointed to our IPs so it could remain on our CMS--which the client wants.  However, they want the content on a sub-directory.  This would be fine but they will not point the main domain to us and for whatever reason this becomes impossible per their Dev team.

They have proposed using a Colo Load Balancer to deliver the content from our system (which will be on the sub domain) to their sub directory.

This seems very sketchy to me.  Possible duplicate content?  Would this be a sort of URL masking?  How would Google see this?  Has anyone ever even heard of doing anything like this?

That makes perfect sense.  Thank you very much

Hello Mozers.  It has been a while

OK - I run an open site explorer report, toggle over to 'Linking Domains' because I am more interested in the number of actual websites that link to my client rather than the number of links my client has (and of course what websites are linking) and although I have been doing this for years there is one little thing I am a bit confused about.

The report shows (from left to right) the 'Linking Root Domain", the "Domain Authority" for the linking domain and then the 'Number of Linking Root Domains" for each 'Linking Root Domain"  My question is (rather stupid, I am sure) is the number of linking root domains for each linking root domain the number of websites linking to them OR the number of websites to which they link?

The only tool I know of that does this for you is BrightEdge.  Otherwise doing it manually is probably the best way to go.  If there are other tools out there that do this I have no doubt someone here will know of it.

Call me crazy but I still find myself using Google Trends to compare different iterations of like phrases.  It also gives related search suggestions...

Not really - the links you find that they have that are viable for you to pursue will be fairly obvious.  Just be diligent.  I do agree with Prestashop - because you are engaged in such a specific location citations will be very good for you.

Citations will help you rank for location specific queries as well.  Also - I do think you should work on your link building some more.  Do a competitive link analysis - you have competitors with much stronger link profiles.

Indeed.