Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Are you redirecting with a 301 redirect? What is the url of the page you are redirecting from?

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...

Ah yes, didnt see the meta langauge tag. Sorry about that. Try the links approach. Takes more time, but works.

Your meta description is very short. Try to get close to (but not more then) 160 - 165 chars and see what happens.

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

1. Their might be a mismatch between what is in your meta description and what content there is on your site. If you talk about french fries in your description, but it's not in the content of your site. Google will more often choose a snippoet from your site. Second thing that could happen is that if you are listed in DMOZ, Google sometimes takes the description given there, to be your desciption in the search engines.

2. Try <meta http-equiv="language" content="EN">

But number 2 is not so easy. If you get a lot of links to your homepage, google will just decide that the .com url is more relevant to users than the /en/ version when ppl search for vallnord. So getting more link with Vallnord as <a>to the /en/ version might help with that problem.</a>

What's high quality and what would you get for 6k a month? If you get 5 quality links for that, that would be good. Get my point? If you get 5 links in lets say the Guardian, the NY Times, etc. You'd be jumping up and down. If you get 300 links a month for those 6k, than chances are they aren't really of high quality.

It takes time and effort to make something linkable. Do real research, write a decent post, or make a decent linkable piece of video, etc.

I can get you a thousands links a month, good quality (mark my Chinese accent) for only 400 dollars a month!

Ask them for examples and call the companies they do link building for and ask them what their thoughts are on the link builders.

Link building is patching up something that is broken. Make everything on your site with one thing in mind: why and when would this page I'm making now deserve to rank number one? People will than link to it because they really like your content, not because they get paid to post a blog about your site.

Choose 1.

Pick the one they make the most money on, or where they have a lot of staff members sitting on the bench, or where the competition is harder, or where the search volume is higher, or where you know the conversion rate of the keyword is higher .... or...

a combination of all that

GL!

Google won't ban a site just because it got a new owner. Google kicks websites out of their index who violate their guidelines.

So my best guess is that the website already violated the guidelines. You should try to find out why google thinks the website violated the guidelines.

Other thing: filing for a reconsideration request is often done, but not often done with any effect.

The first thing you have to consider BEFORE doing the request: has this action by google been manual, or is this an action based on the algorithm. If you have a poor quality site, lots of low quality back links, 26 adsense blocks on the site (I know you can only have 3, but just to emphasize...) then you can almost be 100% sure that it wasn't a manual action, but an algorithm change that got you kicked out/devaluated.

Thanks And would you suggest removing the old sitelink to make room for the new domain? How could we speed up the process of getting the sitelink up for the new domain?

A client of mine is introducing a new and improved bookingsengine. They're launching it on a different url than the existing one. The existing one needs to stay online a little bit longer for affiliate purposes.

The old engine url has a sitelink in the SERPS and ranks well on a few terms.

I'm wondering what you would do in this case? They want the new url to rank as quickly as possible also as sitelink of course.

Any help greatly appreciated. I have some thoughts of my own of course... But to keep the discussion as wide as possible... I'll wait a bit to add m thoughts.

That helps. So you redirected every url to the matching url on the new domain? Good!

That's all you could've done. Now the problem is: the new domain is new, hasn't built up long time value and probably all the links that are pointing to the old domain, haven't been spidered yet to be redirected to your new domain. That's problem one.

Problem two is a bigger one: all your links are now devalued because they are all being redirected to your new domain.

I'd try to find the low hanging fruit and e-mail them to change the link to the new site and preferrably not to the homepage, but to different pages on you site.

Leave the old code?

Can you explain a bit more about how you did the redirecting? What did you redirect? And how did you do it? So: what url's, based on what assumptions/facts/numbers to what url's did you redirect to.

I don't think there is any reason why you should change the analytics to the new domain.

Good points from Lee. Adding on that, in general: if you get more .co.uk links, you'll be better found in the UK than in the US. If you get a lot of .com links, your findability will be less in the UK and higher in the US. Google will determine that, considering the things Lee said, you might be relevant to US searchers.

And then there is the IP. A .com domain can be hosted in the UK. Adding more to your UK relevance than your US relevance.

And than you have the links the .com domain receives... Same thing...

So not so straight forward to answer.

I don't think you can negatively influence your ranking if you use one capped word. I do think that people will be less likely to click on that result. It's harder to read (proven with numerous studies) so I don't suggest you do the same.

If your entire title is on big mash up of capped words, that I think google would consider spammy. But I don't know if they devaluate your title, of simply uncap the words.

Assuming you use Google Analytics:

http://example.com/?utm_source=bity&utm_medium=click&utm_content=example1&utm_campaign=productName

http://example.com/?utm_source=bity&utm_medium=click&utm_content=example2&utm_campaign=productName

http://example.com/?utm_source=bity&utm_medium=click&utm_content=example3&utm_campaign=productName

Insert these url's in the shortener

I'd say: if url.location==url.relCanonical { leakJuice =0; }

That would be my algorithm for this situation. I don't see any reason why SE's would "punish" you for somethng that could be a mistake. If you rel canonical to a url that is in no way associated to where the tag is placed, I would use the same algorithm.

If the the tag is pointing to a copy of the page somehwere else on that domain I would say: give a minimum link juice leak. If the url is pointing to a different root domain, I would add a little bit more leaking to the algorithm...

Read this:

http://www.bing.com/community/site_blogs/b/webmaster/archive/2011/10/06/managing-redirects-301s-302s-and-canonicals.aspx

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)

Yes. Remove the noindex nofollow for / from the robots.txt. It doesn't add anything. It can only confuse SE's and lose you rankings.