Search Results

Search found 5738 results on 230 pages for 'seo friendly'.

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

Page 12/230 | < Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >

  • SEO Content - A Major Part of Your SEO Strategy

    Search Engine Optimization is a dynamic process and it involves a lot of factors that can be broadly be divided into on page and off page factors. Among the on page factors the content that is presented on the web page plays a very significant role in the determination of the rank of that page. With the right kind of SEO content you can increase the relevance of the page for the search engine thus making it rank higher for that particular keyword.

    Read the article

  • modx friendly urls nginx FPM php5.3 - friendly url's not working

    - by okdan
    Hi, Im using php5.3 on nginx 0.8.53 with FPM on Modx revolution. Im trying to get "friendly url's" to work, but all I get is 404's. In modx config, friendly url's is set to yes, friendly aliases is set to no (so it drops the suffix) My config file: server { listen 80; server_name .mydomain.net; # index index.php; root /home/mylogin/htdocs; location / { index index.php index.html; if (!-e $request_filename) { rewrite ^/(.*)$ /index.php?q=$1 last; } } # serve static files directly location ~* ^.+\.(jpg|jpeg|gif|css|png|js|ico)$ { root /home/mylogin/htdocs; access_log off; expires 30d; break; } } Fast CGI modx file: fastcgi_connect_timeout 60; fastcgi_send_timeout 300; fastcgi_buffers 4 32k; fastcgi_busy_buffers_size 32k; fastcgi_temp_file_write_size 32k; fastcgi_pass 127.0.0.1:9000; fastcgi_index index.php; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_FILENAME $document_root$fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_ignore_client_abort on; fastcgi_intercept_errors on; fastcgi_read_timeout 300; fastcgi_param QUERY_STRING $query_string; fastcgi_param REQUEST_METHOD $request_method; fastcgi_param CONTENT_TYPE $content_type; fastcgi_param CONTENT_LENGTH $content_length; fastcgi_param SCRIPT_NAME $fastcgi_script_name; fastcgi_param REQUEST_URI $request_uri; fastcgi_param DOCUMENT_URI $document_uri; fastcgi_param DOCUMENT_ROOT $document_root; fastcgi_param SERVER_PROTOCOL $server_protocol; fastcgi_param GATEWAY_INTERFACE CGI/1.1; fastcgi_param SERVER_SOFTWARE nginx/$nginx_version; fastcgi_param REMOTE_ADDR $remote_addr; fastcgi_param REMOTE_PORT $remote_port; fastcgi_param SERVER_ADDR $server_addr; fastcgi_param SERVER_PORT $server_port; fastcgi_param SERVER_NAME $server_name; fastcgi_param REDIRECT_STATUS 200;

    Read the article

  • Search-engine friendly DNS redirection

    - by GetFree
    Is it possible to redirect one domain to another using DNS protocol (and not HTTP prococol), and that redirection being friendly to search engines?? i.e. such that search engines know that the two domains are the same website and not different ones.

    Read the article

  • SEO - Delimiter character for page title

    - by cept0
    I have noticed a few oddities recently with the titles of web pages in SERPs. However, it seems there are several main conventions: Contact Page - Joe Schmoe's Awesome Site // &#045; Hyphen Contact Page — Joe Schmoe's Awesome Site // &mdash; Em dash Contact Page | Joe Schmoe's Awesome Site // &#x007C; Vertical bar Contact Page « Joe Schmoe's Awesome Site // &laquo; Left double angle quotes Is there any reason to use one over the other?

    Read the article

  • New META TAGS with positive effects for seo ranking in 2011 and beyond

    - by Sam
    Hi all, im trying to make an up to date chart of meta tags, for all of us, with their purposes, their use and their good (or bad) effects on search engines/being found. Also any body knows new/promising meta tags? I will add yours into my list so this chart is a result of live discussion and up to date. Also, it would be creative to invent your own useful meta, because we are the ones making the web, or aren't we? LEGEND P PURPOSE? What does this meta tag do in 2011, if anything N NECESSARY? Does every site really needs it or not? G GOOD wether it will have a good effect for your site to be found I INVENTED meta tag, who knows it will be accepted in a year! META "METANAME" = PURPOSE? - NECESSARY? - GOOD EFFECT? #### important meta "title" = P consice summary + teaser - N very - G extremely meta "description" = P description + teaser - N yes - G very meta "robots" = P if needed, to skip default dmoz/yahoodir listing - N no - G? #### new & promising! Thanks for input (John, ) meta "original-source" P url of whoever broke the news gets credits - N? - G? meta "syndication-source" P url for syndication of published news - N? - G? meta "canonical" P? - N? - G? #### seems obsolete meta "keywords" = P some keywords - N+G not for google but yahoo likes them meta "language" = P overrule guesswork by defining language - N no - G? meta "page-topic" = P topic/theme - N? - G? meta "abstract" = P short summary - N? - G? meta "copyright" = ? #### invented by me meta "audience" = P filteres audience: "+seniors, +parents, -children, -youth" meta "mood" = P specifies textual style: "discussion, informative, commercial, sexual, fictional, scientific, romantic, therapeutic, technical"

    Read the article

  • are keywords in URLs good SEO or needlessly redundant?

    - by Blazemonger
    A coworker and I are locked in a debate over the value of SEO keywords in the URL of a page. She wants to change all the filenames of the HTML pages of a fencing company so they look like residential-home-chicago.html, contact-chicago-contractor.html, and so on. She is convinced that because Google highlights keywords in URLS in search results, that means that putting keywords here is more valuable. My position is that these do not improve SEO, since Google doesn't seem to give keywords in the URL any more weight than keywords in the body of the page, and might even give them less weight. In the meantime, they make it harder for me to find the pages I want when its time to edit them, and the site as a whole looks cheap and spammy. Google's own SEO guide suggests to me that yes, keywords in URLs are useful, but not superior, and that they are more useful for human readability than search engine rankings. I'm looking for authoritative sources that support either position, not blog articles from SEO optimization companies trying to promote themselves.

    Read the article

  • Is having a 'home' navigation item on the home page negative to your sites SEO?

    - by Brady
    My work colleague has recently had conversations with some SEO consultants and after those conversations she has come to the conclusion that having a link to the home page on the home page will have a negative effect on the websites SEO. And because of this we are now building websites that don't have a home link show until you are on any page other than the home page. If the above argument is true then surely then if we are on the about page of a website we shouldn't show a navigation item for the page we are on, and that would the case for any other page of the website... So my question is: Does having a home navigation item on the home page have a negative effect on the websites SEO? And if not: Why has my colleague come to the above conclusion? Could she be misunderstanding something more important about home links on the home page regarding SEO?

    Read the article

  • SEO - why did my google search rank drop?

    - by Brian McCarthy
    My nutrition shop websites for tampa and brandon were coming up on page one of google search results and now they have dissappeared. The 2 websites serve different markets although they are close geographically and have the same products, keywords, and layouts. Brandon, FL is considered a suburb of Tampa, FL and could be grouped into the Tampa Bay area. There's also a mirror site nutrition shop setup for orlando. Is the google search ranking drop because: 1) from a flash banner recently added on the front page 2) is the site just being re-indexed on all search engines b/c of new content? 3) is it seen as duplicate content as there are separate websites for the cities of Tampa and Brandon but with the same content? What can be done to fix this? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Canonicalization of single, small pages like reviews or product categories [SEO]

    - by Valorized
    In general I pretty much like the idea of canonicalization. And in most cases, Google explains possible procedures in a clear way. For example: If I have duplicates because of parameters (eg: &sort=desc) it's clear to use the canonical for the site, provided the within the head-tag. However I'm wondering how to handle "small - no to say thin content - sites". What's my definition of a small site? An Example: On one of my main sites, we use a directory based url-structure. Let's see: example.com/ (root) example.com/category-abc/ example.com/category-abc/produkt-xy/ Moreover we provide on page, that includes all products example.com/all-categories/ (lists all products the same way as in the categories) In case of reviews, we use a similar structure: example.com/reviews/product-xy/ shows all review for one certain product example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/ shows one certain review example.com/reviews/ shows all reviews for all products (latest first) Let's make it even more complicated: On every product site, there are the latest 2 reviews at the end of the page. So you see, a lot of potential duplicates. Q1: Should I create canonicals for a: example.com/category-abc/ to example.com/all-categories/ b: example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/ to example.com/reviews/product-xy/ or to example.com/review/ or none of them? Q2: Can I link the collection of categories (all-categories/) and collection of all reviews (reviews/ and reviews/product-xy/) to the single category respectively to the single review. Example: example.com/reviews/ includes - let's say - 100 reviews. Can I somehow use a markup that tells search engines: "Hey, wait, you are now looking at a collection of 100 reviews - do not index this collection, you should rather prefer indexing every single review as a single page!". In HTML it might be something like that (which - of course - does not work, it's only to show you what I mean): <div class="review" rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/reviews/product-xz/abc-your-product-is-great/">HERE GOES THE REVIEW</div> Reason: I don't think it is a great user experience if the user searches for "your product is great" and lands on example.com/reviews/ instead of example.com/reviews/product-xy/abc-your-product-is-great/. On the first site, he will have to search and might stop because of frustration. The second result, however, might lead to a conversion. The same applies for categories. If the user is searching for category-Z, he might land on the all-categories page and he has to scroll down to the (last) category, to find what he searched for (Z). So what's best practice? What should I do? Thank you for your help!

    Read the article

  • SEO - Index images (lazyload)

    - by Guilherme Nascimento
    Note:My question is not about Javascript. I'm developing a plugin for jQuery/Mootols/Prototype, that work with DOM. This plugin will be to improve page performance (better user experience). The plugin will be distributed to other developers so that they can use in their projects. How does the lazyload: The images are only loaded when you scroll down the page (will look like this: http://www.appelsiini.net/projects/lazyload/enabled_timeout.html LazyLoad). But he does not need HTML5, I refer to this attribute: data-src="image.jpg" Two good examples of website use LazyLoad are: youtube.com (suggested videos) and facebook.com (photo gallery). I believe that the best alternative would be to use: <A href="image.jpg">Content for ALT=""</a> and convert using javascript, for this: <IMG alt="Content for ALT=\"\"" src="image.jpg"> Then you question me: Why do you want to do that anyway? I'll tell you: Because HTML5 is not supported by any browser (especially mobile) And the attribute data-src="image.jpg" not work at all Indexers. I need a piece of HTML code to be fully accessible to search engines. Otherwise the plugin will not be something good for other developers. I thought about doing so to help in indexing: <noscript><img src="teste.jpg"></noscript> But noscript has negative effect on the index (I refer to the contents of noscript) I want a plugin that will not obstruct the image indexing in search engines. This plugin will be used by other developers (and me too). This is my question: How to make a HTML images accessible to search engines, which can minimize the requests?

    Read the article

  • A bounce-rate attack to manipulate SEO ?

    - by Denis Volovik
    This is a question to experienced people that might help us shed some light on the issue. We noticed a very strange behavior on our site, in Google Analytics. Some dude from Finland, namely, from Kouvola city is hitting one of our pages - only one page on our site, 'bout a hundred times per day, all with an average bounce rate of 90%+... This is causing our overall bounce rate to go up by 1 to 3% per day... which is very disturbing.. since we're trying to do our best in order to keep it as low as possible. And obviously having it jumped from ~24% to 27%, just because of that crazy dude is not making us happy at all... We tried implementing a geo-targeted script in order to catch this particular visitor and deliver him a juicy message, and it seemed like it helped in the beginning, it has stopped for a day or two, but now he's back... The geo-targeted script was also logging all IP addresses for page requests originating from Finland in order to find out more details and (in order to block them on the server level, later).. but thing is, it was all mainly cable or DSL connections with various, but not constantly repeating IPs... we are all wondering what is he up to really ? I think that this page should be kept updated with ideas on how to combat this and perhaps someone could also shed light on what it might be ? What is the reason for doing this "bounce-rate attack", as I call it? There was a similar question asked on stackoverflow earlier, with no meaningful answer - here - How to stop bounce rate manipulation.

    Read the article

  • Ars Technica .ars URL suffix -- Vanity or SEO Benefit?

    - by yc01
    The Technology website Ars Technica has adjusted their URL rewrite rules to end with a .ars. Traditionally, sites have taken advantage of this URL rewriting capability to completely eliminate file suffixes like .html, .php, .aspx etc, under the theory that this made for better SEO (since the content of the URL was more relevant to the content) Ars Technicas, though, look like this: http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/03/flow-from-the-poles-drive-sunspot-levels.ars So, is Ars Technica adding the .ars file suffix purely a vanity play? Or is it an SEO trick to improve the site's SEO by cleverly inserting their site name into every URL slug? And, if this is indeed an effective SEO trick, should other sites follow suit?

    Read the article

  • Is your IP address neighborhood important for SEO?

    - by Evgeny
    Can other websites on your shared host affect the rank of your website in the Google index? (same IP address as yours, potentially malicious/low-trust content) Can other websites on your IP class affect the rank of your website in the Google index? (different actual IP, malicious/low-trust content) Clarification: Domain class, is what you get when you run a whois query on an IP address. Example: NetRange: 69.163.128.0 - 69.163.255.255 CIDR: 69.163.128.0/17 PS: Prefer answers with experience or links to trustworthy material, over speculations, assumptions and gut feelings.

    Read the article

  • Drupal to Wordpress migration scope for SEO

    - by Shane
    I'm not sure if this is the appropriate forum, please let me know if it's not (or if there is a better one) and I'll withdraw the question. I'm migrating a drupal site to wordpress and I was wondering what the concerns are with respect to preserving google rank, etc. while assuming the page content is somewhat similar. I've set up 301 redirects, and created a new site map, but the surrounding html / menus, etc are different. Is this considered a concern and are there a best practice for this kind of migration?

    Read the article

  • Problem with homepage's SEO when using subfolders in a multi language website

    - by Antonio
    After watching a hundreds of threads about multilanguage website I haven't found an answer to my specific problem, so I think its not a common issue and I must have done something terribly wrong ;-) We have a brand.com website in DE main language and the following subfolders: /de/ = canonical of / + redirect to / /it/ /en/ When I crawl google.com for EN keywords or google.it for IT keywords then I get as results the homepage in German language (both title and description) as the top result with no trace of the /it/ or the /en/ homepage. Is this because /it/ and /en/ both needs a separate link building strategy? I've already configured Google webmaster tool into the following way: brand.com, no language preference brand.com/de/, de language brand.com/it/, it language brand.com/en/, en language Perhaps having "/" as DE main page is it wrong and I should use a different approach? i.e. like having "/" to be a 301 to /de/ instead ? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • How to effectively use an overseas SEO team?

    - by Dan Gayle
    My company is currently in contract with a 20+ person team in the Philippines, previously used for comment linking and guest blogging spun content articles. This is a practice that we're stopping, but we don't want to sever our team because they work hard, they're really cheap, and they produce excellent accounting and reporting of their actions. What are ways that we can best put them to use as a link generating or content generating resource? Their English is fair, but not of high enough quality to use them for any direct content creation. Thanks

    Read the article

  • What's better for SEO for many international markets?

    - by Roy Rico
    Right now, we're working to migrate our company sites for international markets to this scheme www.company.com/[2 letter country codes] www.company.com/uk #for United Kingdom www.company.com/au #for Australia www.company.com/jp #for Japan www.comapny.com/ #for united states, and non identifiable. However, in google webmaster tools, we can geo target each directory, but not the root. If we geo-tag the root with US, all the other markets will inherit. Is it better to move the US market to /us/ or leave it where it is?

    Read the article

  • SEO URL structure for tag search on site

    - by Theo G
    I am looking to add tags to each product on my site e.g. brown, x products under £x, second hand x, refurbished x etc. Once you click these tags it will then search for other tags that are similar. I was thinking of using a url structure of www.site.com/tags/this%is%the%tag%name and then simply have a page that shows the results of all the products with that tag. I heard a while back that google generally ignores or downgrades anything with ‘search’ in the url and was wondering if anyone had any experience with this? Also, would you say /tags/ is a pretty valid destination or is it best to break it down and add more levels e.g. /product-type/product%variation Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • SEO + international sites? country.domain.com or domain.country?

    - by Pure.Krome
    Hi folks, is it better to have seperate country specific domains (which costs more money) or subdomains which define the country, for better SEO? eg. stackoverflow.com stackoverflow.com.au stackoverflow.co.uk vs stackoverflow.com au.stackoverflow.com uk.stackoverflow.com Assumption: int the search engine web master tools, each subdomain are associated to a country. eg. au.stackoverflow.com is associated to the country Australia. cheers! Update I understand that both methods do work, especially when i utilize the assumption, listed above. The question is about: Which method is better? Is there such a small SEO difference between them? Is the first method way way way better than the second with getting better SEO results? Update #2 A number of folks have suggested that the following is a good/better approach: stackoverflow.com/ stackoverflow.com/au stackoverflow.com/uk By adding a country specific iso code to the end of the url/the first folder of the domain can be recognised as the country. But a number of SEO mates have suggested that this is a valuable waste of folder level space. Er.. how can i explain. Ok, it's been suggested by some SEO experts that if the number of levels or folders in the domain exceeds 5 then the page drops dramatically in importance. Basically, you don't want to make it deep. As such, adding the country as the first level can be considered a waste, especially when it can be handled by the domain OR subdomain - hence the question :) So, any more thoughts on this? (Maybe SO is the wrong place to ask this question?)

    Read the article

  • breadcrumb dilemma -SEO impact

    - by HaCos
    i am updating the breadcrumb module of an commerce website, implementing microdata (schema.org). My dilemma is about showing last page: a.product name on breadcrumb or not? b.Should that be active link to current page or not? eg: http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.urbanspoon.com%2Fr%2F23%2F1600592%2Frestaurant%2FPoint-Breeze%2FAlma-Pan-Latin-Kitchen-Pittsburgh urbanspoon example doesnt link last page, but is this right?

    Read the article

facebook twitter digg google delicious technorati stumbleupon myspace wordpress linkedin gmail igoogle windows live tumblr viadeo yahoo buzz yahoo mail yahoo bookmarks favorites email print

< Previous Page | 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19  | Next Page >