Welcome to the Q&A Forum

So now it's: www.infoaboutbooking.com and www.bookingengine.com ?

and you want: bookingengine.infoaboutbooking.com ?

The only real argument I can think of is speed. That booking engine has to be very very fast. So it needs his own server. (Free from the webserver that hosts the main domain) Usually something that is hosted on another server is hosted on another domain or subdomain (although you can host 1 domain on multiple servers...)

Using a subdomain vs a different domain then the main domain is a non-discussion. Because in SE's eye's they are both different websites. So it doesn't really matter. Especially because there isn't any content on the booking engine website. (I assume) It's just booking. So think only about your users. Make it very fast and very userfriendly and let the tecchies figure out how to measure stuff between the (sub)domains. (conversion, turnover, etc.)

RedirectMatch 301 /subdirectoryA/(.*) http://www.websiteB.com/$1

and

RedirectMatch 301 /subdirectoryB/(.*) http://www.websiteC.com/$1

Otherwise it wont work

About the htaccess from the old site... As long as Website A (the old site) is still up and the redirects on that site is properly set up in the htaccess on that server, I don't see any reason to also use it on the new sites.

No, would be the short answer.

Every domain builds its own value in the SERP's. So registering that domain will involve lots of work to get it ranking.

If you do want to go for a exact match domain, I'd go for red-wagon.com in stead of wagonred.com. That way link building becomes more easy and red wagon and wagon red are two different things.

Using the new domain to help you rank on your main site will be a losing battle in the end. You can't pass a lot of link juice to your main site from your new domain. It's only 1 IP, 1 link (or only a few will count towards your rankings). So if you really want to rank for that keyword, build a niche site on the new domain.

Good tips from EGOL.

How does the bigger site on the keywords that the smaller site ranks for, rank?

If they don't rank for it period.... as in: not in the top 50 for those keywords, it's really no use to redirect the pages. Because probabluy their entire on page optimization is crap. So in the beginning all will be well. Search engines will just give the rankings to the bigger site, but they will drop because the new content and site structure cannot maintain the rankings.

The A and F problem is probably a little bug in the pro tool. Maybe try reporting that and file a bug report.

The rankings that keep going up and down is pretty normal. I manage a couple of sites and I see rankings go up and down all the time. The thing you want it to see an upwards trend. News or other universal search results might push your result more down, changes in the algorithm, etc. They all influence your ranking. So I wouldn't look at it week on week, I would look at the bigger picture and look for a up going trend.

The page isnt indexed

Do this search, and you'll see that it isn't inclued in Google's index: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.florahospitality.com%2Fdubai-flora-grand-hotel.aspx

I don't know why the page isn't indexed though.

It has a ROBOTS index follow and it's not excluded in your Robots.txt. Try linking to it from another spot on your site. Maybe you have some duplicate content somewhere? So content that's the same as the content on that page.

Once the page is indexed, your homepage could still rank higher for the search term (not likely though) but because your homepage always accrues the most links, so will also be the most popular url, according to Google, to show.

(Search volume (exact/phrase match)cpcX) + competitiveness in that market + what the mad man wants to pay for it

Where X would be the earning back period. How long does your client want to pay for the domain before earning it back?

Hmm Well, I'm not that technical either, I just know a little bit about 301's

Try this in stead of the second code snippet:

RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^\.domain\.com$ [NC] RewriteRule ^(.+)/$ http://%{HTTP_HOST}/$1 [R=301,L]

You are correct.

File a bug report for this.

So if you have too long title tags because of this, don't bother changing it because SE's won't cut the title off.

Like:

# /robots.txt file for http://webcrawler.com/
# mail webmaster@webcrawler.com for constructive criticism

**User-agent: ***
Disallow: /_system/
Disallow: /holiday-database/ControlPanel/

Search engines typically only look in the root of your domain to find robots.txt and sitemap.xml files.

You are cloaking your bold font to show normal font.

I'd suggest not to do it. I don't think SE's actually go that deep by looking at the css and trying to determine if your text is bold to the users as well... But because making words bold is probably in the bottom 2% of what you can do to optimize your page.

So before you get there... You should've done every other thing you could think of

I would suggest linking to a page that is relevant to the landing page you are creating. Your home page is usually receiving more than enough links from various sources. The underlying pages are often the problem. So try linking to a page that is relevant to the top 10 you created and is in a competitive space.

In my understanding, affiliate links' value are demoted. I think it's pretty easy for google to see a link is an affiliate link. Clicking it will add a certain type of cookie and I believe Google can easily distinguish between these links. Adding a reL=nofollow to the link is the appropriate way to have these links on your site. Beside that, Amazon's affiliate programme is well known, so Google will definetly compensate for that.

However, people aren't convinced that the rel=nofollow attribute doesn't give any value to the link. Some believe it still adds to domain diversity and other fankers besides the "plain" link juice.

You should indeed create 301 redirects from the old redirects to the new aliases. People could have linked to those url's, so you want to keep benefitting from those links and built up value over the years.

url.com/index.php and url.com are 2 different url's in the eye's of SE's so you should redirect that 2. Basic rule is: 1 unique  page should be available on 1 url.

Good luck redirecting!

You can only do so much on-page optimisation.

Get the value of your domain and pages up by building links. Make something your audience loves, and you can stop crossing your fingers and just see how people naturally link to your site.

That's way better than putting effort in css to avoid text being shown as bold. Might not be in your job description as technical SEO but why not think of a technical solution to a customers problem...

When you're running Wordpress, the best way you can "block" these sites, is to keep updating wordpress as new updates roll out. I think you mean that by: block these sites.

They're sites from hackers who hack old Wordpress sites that have known vulnerabilities. Updating your site will solve that issue, as that's one of the things that gets fixed when you update your core files.

Hope this helps.

1. In my understanding: it flows link equity back to john.long.com if it is a copy of /home.

2. It's not as simple as that. Try not to compare a canonical to a 301. rel canonical tells SE's that there is a copy of the page somewhere else. So putting a rel canonical on the kids toys to the washing machines will do nothing for your rankings. They are not copies of eachother.

I wouldn't do the simple "cut". You have to redo 850 titles? I say do em manually. Believe me, title tags are THE most important on page factor. Just truncating them won't give you any more SEO. Making them better and < 70 chars will.

Yes it sucks, yes it's a lot of manual shitty work, but it will bring you a lot more SEO wise, than just cutting them to 70 or so chars.

Do some proper research into what people are searching for, put your brand name at the end of the title, etc.

Highland has a good suggestion. Otherwise:

You might have found a bug there There shouldn't be any title tags and description tags in XML files. So I suggest you submit it as a bug.

Other thought that comes up: why does the crawler find XML files? That (probably?) means that you're linking to those files on your site? Which isn't really necessary You only need to link to it in your robots.txt file or submit it to Google Webmaster Tools.

In my opinion, if you are pointing to a page as a canonical and the page you are pointing to is not a copy of the page the tag is on, you'll be sending strange signals to SE's and they will ignore it. Worst case they will penalize you. (But I dont think they do that)