Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Hmm, this is strange indeed. Google should follow the links on the home page and index the available subpages. 2 months should be plenty of time too. Maybe try these two things:
Allow: /
```Even though the current robots looks in order, this specifically tells search engines to index all except the /wp-pages you excluded.
This might speed it up. BTW, the site is correctly indexed in Bing.
What works pretty good for me usually is linking from the page that does (but should not) rank to the page that should (but does not) rank, using the anchor text you want to rank for.
In this case this means linking from the comparison page to the CPU page with the anchor text including "fx8350".
Hi
It's always difficult to give styleguides to developers if you're not one yourself... As ProfessorBlak mentioned, this stylguide is not always optimal. Personally, I think trying to achieve W3C Validity is a better standard. But even here, it's not always possible, so might have to cut your developers some slack...
As a guideline, I think this stylguide makes sense. Developers should at least be able to give a good explanation if they do not produce code that validates and/or does not follow the styleguide.
Hej Johan!
Ah okay, then the answer is easier: If your visitors won't be able to see those sites, Google must not access them either.
I also suggest not to list them in an XML-Sitemap since only pages with value for users should be listed there. As you asked above, IMO these 3600 low quality pages would not have a positive impact - they might even hurt you.
Focus on pushing those sites for search engines that are of value to users.
Cheers,
Phil
hmm, is there a source for the 15% statement? I never found anything clear about it, but here matt cutts seems to say that the pagerank dilution is a myth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Filv4pP-1nw
Oh yes true, now I see it. You linked to it 21 times, so actually this now looks like you linked too much!
But like you've said, I think relevance is key. Try to add a little bit of content to the CPU page. A quick unique description of it or so. See if that helps. I guess you might have to test a few different approaches to see which ones work. This is actually a really interesting case.
Yep, it looks that way to me... Unless you reduce the amount of links in your CMS, the links you manually put into the content will not have much value. While it is normal that some CMS' might have navigation links in the source code that a user doesn't see, the amount of 400-500 seems way over the top... Maybe you might have to reconsider site architecture in general?
We have a site offering a voip app in 4 languages. Users are currently 302 redirected from the root page to /language subpages, depending on their browser language.
Discussions about the sense of this aside: Is it correct to use a 302 redirect here or should users be 301 redirected to their respective languages? I don't find any guideline on this whatsoever...
Hmm, this might actually be a non-issue. I used http://tools.seobook.com/server-header-checker/, but if I check it with Firebug it correctly returns a 404...
The competitive link finder unfortunately often doesn't serve very helpful data to me. I don't know if this might have to do with the fact that many of my sites are not in english. However, the Open Site Explorer is your tool of choice for finding competitor backlinks. And, of course, Yahoo Site Explorer, as long as it's still around...
Looks like SEOMoz is indexing your AJAX tabs (see the /ajax/ in the second link you posted - these are the tabs that appear on your product pages). From what I can tell, Google does not index them. To be sure, the quickest fix would be to block those AJAX-URLs from being crawled via robots.txt with the following line:
Disallow: /ajax/
I suggest to add the m.abc.com Domain to a mobile Sitemap if you can do it. It's not an important requirement - particularly if you already have a normal XML sitemap and use rel=alternate. But if you can additionally create the mobile sitemap without much effort, why not.
No use in having a blank robots.txt. Minimum requirement if you want to have your site crawled is this:
User-agent: * Allow: /
Note that Gagans example above will block the entire site.
The domain authority doesn't count for much here, as anyone can set up a blog on a blogspot subdomain. Seems to me the best way to check the value of those backlinks is looking at the blogs that link to you: Are they well-written, up-to date and authoritative? Are they topically connected to your own site? Then they probably count for something. Also, have a look at the backlinks of those blogs - if those are valuable, the blogs' links are probably good for you too.
You're welcome!
It looks like you do have to add the above line to your robots.txt. The example URL you gave is not indexed, but several other /ajax/ URLs are. Lookie here: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.orderwigsonline.com%2Fajax%2F
check your analytics if these category pages bring any traffic. probably you don't want to block them via robots if they reffer traffic. these category urls don't look too bad. i guess your duplication issues are somewhere else. look for dynamic elements in the url for instance.
You definitely want to have a company account that is independent of users, as they might come and go. I don't think setting up personal authorships makes sense unless you publish a lot of authoritative content. IMO this is more relevant if you are news publishers or frequent bloggers. Otherwise I think a corporate account does the job.
Sure, if you have a developer that can set it up with a nice design, WP is also good from an seo standpoint!
Hi Peter
I think you should be fine. Redirecting old URLs that no longer exist is a best practice and helpful for users. Of course, those 301'd URLs should drop out of Google's index after a while. But this should be okay. You only want URLs to appear in SERPs that actually do have content.