Search Results

Search found 9935 results on 398 pages for 'pages'.

Page 55/398 | < Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >

  • I want to consolidate two sites into a third. Will my search engine rankings be penalized if I rewrite and redirect pages one by one?

    - by Patrick Kenny
    I have two Drupal sites with different content-- let's call them Apple and Orange. I recently developed a much more sophisticated third Drupal site-- let's call it Tree. For a large number of reasons, the content on Apple and Orange is useful for the users of Tree, so I want to move the content to Tree. However, much of the content is out of date. (This whole process took about five years.) To update the content, I will rewrite it one article at a time myself. Now here's my question: if I move the articles one by one (as I rewrite them) and then redirect the old articles (using a 301 redirect) on Apple/Orange to the new site on Tree, will this have a huge negative effect on my search engine rankings? Is there a good way to redirect among sites when they merge like this, or would I be better off keeping the old articles on Apple/Orange and simply linking them to the new, rewritten articles on Tree?

    Read the article

  • HTTP 303 redirection and robots.txt

    - by Ian Dickinson
    On a site I'm working on, we're using the HTTP 303 redirect pattern (see this article for background) to distinguish between information and non-information resources. So: some URL's under /id get redirected to dynamically-created pages under /doc. These dynamic pages are built from a database, and contain links to other /doc/ resources, so in general we don't want them to be crawled. Our robots.txt contains: Disallow: /doc However, we do want the non-redirected pages under /id to get indexed by Google et al: Allow: /id So the question I have, which I can't find an answer to so far, is: if an allowed /id page 303-redirects to a /doc page, will it still be blocked by robots.txt? If yes, we're OK, but otherwise I'm going to disallow all /id resources in the robots file, as having the crawler hammer the db would be worse than losing search indexing for the /id pages.

    Read the article

  • Constructive criticism for my bounce rate being so high [closed]

    - by Daniel
    The bounce rate on my website's product pages is 80%, which is terrible. Could you offer any opinions on whether you consider the user experience to be bad, and how I could possibly improve it? Other pages, such as the home and category pages, have acceptable bounce rates, but the vast majority of my traffic lands on the product pages. I already tried removing some Google ads for a couple of days, but this didn't seem to help at all. I'm working on doing A/B testing at the moment. (It's tricky, as the site is based on a CMS - I custom coded the [Joomla] component, so hopefully I can get this testing working.)

    Read the article

  • GWT: Generate more complete crawl error report

    - by Mike
    I'm a developer in charge of managing Webmasters and related issues (including correcting crawl errors) for dozens (hundreds, maybe?) of active sites and as part of my duties I create a report of every discrepancy, including all pages generating a 404 and all pages that link to those pages. Currently within Webmaster Tools I'm able to download a csv file of all pages with a 404 response, but I'm then having to manually click on every single one of those links and copy the "linked from" field to paste into my spreadsheet. This is extremely tedious and seems unnecessary; I would expect the ability to download all that data at once. I'm ultimately looking for the end result of one csv file that has every url with a 404, but also has every url that links to each one of them. Am I overlooking this functionality somewhere or does anyone have a good solution? Edit 1 (2/11/2013): Example of what the csv output looks like now: URL,Response Code,News Error,Detected,Category http://www.abcdef.com/123.php,404,,11/12/13,Not found http://www.abcdef.com/456.php,404,,11/12/13,Not found Which is great, but let's say 123.php has 5 pages that link to it. Now I have to duplicate that row in my spreadsheet 4 more times, then go into Webmasters, get all the url's that link to the page, and add that data to my spreadsheet. The output I would prefer: URL,Response Code,Linked From,News Error,Detected,Category http://www.abcdef.com/123.php,404,http://www.ghijkl.com/naughtypage1.php,,11/12/13,Not found http://www.abcdef.com/123.php,404,http://www.ghijkl.com/naughtypage2.php,,11/12/13,Not found http://www.abcdef.com/123.php,404,http://www.ghijkl.com/naughtypage3.php,,11/12/13,Not found http://www.abcdef.com/456.php,404,http://www.ghijkl.com/naughtypage1.php,,11/12/13,Not found http://www.abcdef.com/456.php,404,http://www.ghijkl.com/naughtypage2.php,,11/12/13,Not found http://www.abcdef.com/456.php,404,http://www.ghijkl.com/naughtypage3.php,,11/12/13,Not found Note the (hypothetical) addition of a "Linked From" column, as well as the fact there are only 2 unique URL's now (like before) but all of the "Linked To" pages are shown in one report. Edit 2 (2/12/2013): To clarify, my question is less about detecting and correcting 404's, but more about generating a report of what Google has listed as errors. Oftentimes, these errors aren't even valid anymore but I still need documentation to show that Google detected a problem and that problem is now fixed. Many of the "linked from" url's I find are actually outdated, cached resources. For example, I'll frequently see that the linked-from url is the sitemap, which is actually an old sitemap cached by Google that points to an old page. Neither the sitemap or old page exist, but they still appear in my crawl error reports because they are cached resources.

    Read the article

  • Best way to provide folder level 301 redirect

    - by Vinay
    I have a website hosted in yahoo small business, I don't have access to .htaccess file. I have around 220 pages in a folder 'mysubfolder' (http://mysite.com/myfolder/mysubfolder). And the age of website is around 3 years. I am planning to move all 220 pages in 'mysubfolder' to 'myfolder' (one level up). All the pages are under 'mysubfolder' are indexed. what is the best way to do this.So that it should not affects the SEO.

    Read the article

  • http to https upgrade -- SEO troubles

    - by SLIM
    I upgraded my site so that all pages have gone from using http to https. I didn't consider that Google treats https pages differently than http. I re-created my sitemap to so that all links now reflect the new https and let it be for a few days. (Whoops!) Google is now re-indexing all https pages. I have about 19k pages on the site, and Google has already indexed about 8k of the new https. The problem is that Google sees all of these as brand new pages when many of them have a long http history. Of course most of you will recognize the problem, I didn't set up a 301 from the old http to the new https. Is it too late to do this? Should I switch my sitemap back to http and then 301 to the new https? Or should I leave the sitemap as is, and setup 301 redirects anyway.. I'm not even sure if Google is trying to reach the http site anymore. Currently the site is doing 303 redirects (from http to https), although I haven't figured out why yet. Thanks for any suggestions you can offer.

    Read the article

  • folder level 301 redirect without .htaccess

    - by Vinay
    I have a website hosted in yahoo small business, I don't have access to .htaccess file. I have around 220 pages in a folder 'mysubfolder' (http://mysite.com/myfolder/mysubfolder). And the age of website is around 3 years. I am planning to move all 220 pages in 'mysubfolder' to 'myfolder' (one level up). All the pages in 'mysubfolder' are indexed. what is the best way to do this.So that it should not affects the SEO.

    Read the article

  • 301 redirects in main navigation menu of WordPress website - is this okay for SEO?

    - by Lewis Bassett
    I want to allow a client to have a flexible way to configure the navigation menu for his WordPress website. To that end, I have created a parent page called "Navigation", which has child pages for each page to be displayed in the navigation menu. Those pages then get 301 redirected to the actual page that should be served. This means the client can create pages freely, and then set up redirects for them as and when needed. This is a really easy way for him to manage his main menu and it works well. From an SEO point of view, is this okay? Will the pages be indexed fine?

    Read the article

  • Tackling thin content on an images gallery

    - by Ted Wilmont
    We run an images gallery as part of our site, however we have over 8,000 images and every image has a separate HTML page of its own to display the image caption, related image and comments from users of the site. This seems to be a problem especially with the Google Panda update because these pages are technically "thin content". What would be the best way to tackle this? We'd love some feedback and advice regarding this scenario. We have a few options we thought of already but can't decide: We could noindex the separate image pages and loose any image search listings we have for the image in favour of removing these thin pages from the index. We could 301 all of the individual image pages back to the image category listing and anchor each image (e.g. #img2122) and include all of the comments and description on the category listing page itself. If we was to simply list all of the images and content on the category pages themself; what's the best method? We could add all of the content in the anchor tags and use jQuery to display them in a box when a user clicks on the image or we could use Ajax to retrieve the information. However, what's the best Ajax method for SEO? Any ideas, suggestions, tips or advice is greatly appreciated and thank you in advance for any given.

    Read the article

  • Access Offline or Overloaded Webpages in Firefox

    - by Asian Angel
    What do you do when you really want to access a webpage only to find that it is either offline or overloaded from too much traffic? You can get access to the most recent cached version using the Resurrect Pages extension for Firefox. The Problem If you have ever encountered a website that has become overloaded and unavailable due to sudden popularity (i.e. Slashdot, Digg, etc.) then this is the result. No satisfaction to be had here… Resurrect Pages in Action Once you have installed the extension you can add the Toolbar Button if desired…it will give you the easiest access to Resurrect Pages. Or you can wait for a problem to occur when trying to access a particular website and have it appear as shown here. As you can see there is a very nice selection of cache services to choose from, therefore increasing your odds of accessing a copy of that webpage. If you would prefer to have the access attempt open in a new tab or window then you should definitely use the Toolbar Button. Clicking on the Toolbar Button will give you access to the popup window shown here…otherwise the access attempt will happen in the current tab. Here is the result for the website that we wanted to view using the Google Listing. Followed by the Google (text only) Listing. The results with the different services will depend on how recently the webpage was published/set up. View Older Versions of Currently Accessible Websites Just for fun we decided to try the extension out on the How-To Geek website to view an older version of the homepage. Using the Toolbar Button and clicking on The Internet Archive brought up the following page…we decided to try the Nov. 28, 2006 listing. As you can see things have really changed between 2006 and now…Resurrect Pages can be very useful for anyone who is interested in how websites across the web have grown and changed over the years. Conclusion If you encounter a webpage that is offline or overloaded by sudden popularity then the Resurrect Pages extension can help you get access to the information that you need using a cached version. Links Download the Resurrect Pages extension (Mozilla Add-ons) Similar Articles Productive Geek Tips Remove Colors and Background Images in WebpagesGet Last Accessed File Time In Ubuntu LinuxCustomize the Reading Format for Webpages in FirefoxGet Access to 100+ URL Shortening Services in FirefoxAccess Cached Versions of Webpages When a Website is Down TouchFreeze Alternative in AutoHotkey The Icy Undertow Desktop Windows Home Server – Backup to LAN The Clear & Clean Desktop Use This Bookmarklet to Easily Get Albums Use AutoHotkey to Assign a Hotkey to a Specific Window Latest Software Reviews Tinyhacker Random Tips VMware Workstation 7 Acronis Online Backup DVDFab 6 Revo Uninstaller Pro Enable or Disable the Task Manager Using TaskMgrED Explorer++ is a Worthy Windows Explorer Alternative Error Goblin Explains Windows Error Codes Twelve must-have Google Chrome plugins Cool Looking Skins for Windows Media Player 12 Move the Mouse Pointer With Your Face Movement Using eViacam

    Read the article

  • SEO: disallowing Google from indexing forms in iframes or not?

    - by Marco Demaio
    I usually place forms in iframes (i.e. order form, request assistance form, contact forms, ect.). Just the forms, I never place other contents or pages in iframes. From a SEO point of view, would you exclude forms from being indexed/crawled by Google or not? I mean my forms hardly ever contains keyword/keyphrases, moreover I obviously place empty title/meta description tags in pages shown in iframe to display forms, cause those titles are never displaied in browser title bar. So I'm wondering what's the point of letting Google index them? Moreover I think these form pages might suck out PR from all other pages that are more valuable for SEO. If your answer is "yes I would exclude them form indexing" would you simply use robots.txt to exclude them? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Google Analytics HTTP vs HTTPS

    - by Pelangi
    I want to use Google Analytics on a website that uses both HTTP and HTTPS that works as explained below: Secure pages accessed through https://mydomain.com/secure/* are always on HTTPS. Any access to these pages through HTTP will be redirected to HTTPS. Any other pages will be accessible through both HTTP and HTTPS I have a Google Analytics profile with URL using HTTPS. Will I cover all traffic? Do I need to create another profile using HTTP and how should I apply the other profile?

    Read the article

  • 301 redirect to different directory on Yahoo Small Business Hosting without .htaccess

    - by Vinay
    I have a website hosted with Yahoo Small Business Hosting, and I don't have access to use a .htaccess file. I have around 220 pages in a folder mysubfolder (http://example.com/myfolder/mysubfolder) and the age of website is around 3 years. I am planning to move all 220 pages in mysubfolder to myfolder (one level up). All the pages in mysubfolder are indexed. What is the best way to do this, so that it wouldn't affect my SEO.

    Read the article

  • Should I have link rel=next & prev on URLs which have query variables?

    - by user21100
    For example, I have link rel prev & next set up on these pages of products: site.com?page=2 site.com?page=3 (this is my preferred structure by the way and I'm trying to get all the ugly URLs which are littered with query variables deindexed as they are causing duplicate content). So the above URLs are fine but once a filter to narrow product results is selected, like "price", the URL shows like this: site.com?price[1000-1499]=on site.com?page=2&price[1000-1499]=on As of right now, I am having the link rel prev & next dynamically added to the header of these pages but since I am working on getting these query variable URLs pages deindexed, I am wondering if I should get rid of it on these pages? Any thoughts?

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to mod_rewrite BASED on the existence of a file/directory and uniqueID?

    - by JM4
    My site currently forces all non www. pages to use www. Ultimately, I am able to handle all unique subdomains and parse correctly but I am trying to achieve the following: (ideally with mod_rewrite): when a consumer visits www.site.com/john4, the server processes that request as: www.site.com?Agent=john4 Our requirements are: The URL should continue to show www.site.com/john4 even though it was redirected to www.site.com?index.php?Agent=john4 If a file (of any extension OR a directory) exists with the name, the entire process stops an it tries to pull that file instead: for example: www.site.com/file would pull up (www.site.com/file.php if file.php existed on the server. www.site.com/pages would go to www.site.com/pages/index.php if the pages directory exists). Thank you ahead of time. I am completely at a crapshot right now.

    Read the article

  • Disable mobile page redirection for SharePoint 2013

    - by Sahil Malik
    SharePoint, WCF and Azure Trainings: more information SharePoint 2013 (foundation too), detects requests from mobile devices and automatically changes the uRL of the requested non mobile page to its mobile substitute. This logic is now built into SPRequestModule. The mobile view is pretty damned amazing. Even though the set of pages for mobile access is completely different, SharePoint has an entirely separate set of controls for the mobile pages. These are in the Microsoft.SharePoint.MobileControls namespace which inherit from Microsoft ASP.NET controls in the System.Web.UI.MobileControls namespace. These Mobile pages can even use mobile Web Part adapters to mimic the behavior of webparts on mobile webpart pages. Read full article ....

    Read the article

  • Web master tools is throwing out 404 errors on link not on page

    - by plantify
    Webmaster tools is showing thousands of 404 errors, where pages on the site are referring to another incorrect url. For example, URL not found www.plantify.co.uk/shop/=, linked from http://www.plantify.co.uk/shop/gift-voucher and http://www.plantify.co.uk/shop/special-plant-offers. I obviously have checked the source and cannot find any references to this link on any page. The only consistent issue is that it only seems to report this error on pages with two section i.e. www.plantify.co.uk/shop does not report any error whilst all pages with www.plantify.co.uk/shop/xxx (where xxx can be several different pages such as gift-voucher) all report this. I cannot seem to duplicate this error. I have run a link checker (we use Screaming Frog) and it does not report this error. I have fetched these pages as a bot, and these do not report this error. I am at a total loss. I cannot even duplicate the issue, but it is most definitely an issue, as Webmaster Tools is reporting new errors every day. Is this perhaps google bot doing its own thing?

    Read the article

  • SEO - Coaching Newbies

    All search engines use algorithms and each search engines have different ones. An algorithm is the formula that the search engine uses to evaluate your web pages. The robots will crawl all pages on your site but not all pages will be indexed.

    Read the article

  • Is multiple domain names and links from same IP causing poor search engine rankings?

    - by John
    I have an ecommerce website which is not doing so well in Google. I am trying to improve this of course, and am looking at some possibilities for why it isn't doing well. The website has four domain names, all of which have been indexed by Google. A few months ago I applied 301 redirects to any requests for two of the domain names so now it is down to two domain names (one is a .net, the other is a .com.au, the others were .net.au and .com). I prefer to use my main domain name (the .com.au), but one of the names has been around for a long time and has more inbound links. According to a PageRank tool, both are PR2. It is a Classic ASP site and up until recently had a lot of querystring parameters. In the last week or so I added URL rewriting so there is now no parameters for most pages. I don't do 301 redirects from the old URLs but instead I add the META canonical tag indicating the preferred new URL. At the same time I redesigned the site and improved title tags, META descriptions, and H tags but it hasn't been long enough yet for Google to index many of these yet. I also looked at what pages Google has indexed and strangely it has some strange pages in the index, there are a lot of pages which are actual keyword searches (more a bunch of random letters than an actual word). What I mean is that it is as if they had typed in something to search for in my search box - there are no links to pages like this and the only way of getting this is to type something in to the search box). So I added a META robots tag with noindex,nofollow anytime that I render pages like this. Years ago I set up a fake price comparison site which lists all my products and links back to my site. It has a different keyword rich domain name but is on the same server and same IP address. It's a completely different layout but does have the same product categories and product descriptions (although I have stripped formatting out of them so they are not identical except in text). I also have a few blog sites which again are on the same server/IP and all have advertising for the website. My questions are: What should I do with the multiple domains, just use one, or continue with two or more? Should I add 301 redirects, not just the META canonical tag? Any idea about Google indexing my search results page, and did I do the right thing with the META robots tag? Is the fake price comparison site likely to be causing problems? Are all the links to the site from other domain names but the same IP address likely to be causing problems? Thanks for any help. Sorry for so many questions in one.

    Read the article

  • Canonical tags for separate mobile URLs

    - by DnBase
    I have a Drupal website serving mobile pages from different urls (starting from /mobile). According to Google recommendations I should use the canonical tag to map desktop and mobile pages. Right now I did this in case I serve the same node (e.g: node/123 and mobile/node/123) but should I do this for other pages as well that are equivalent but share a different content? For example do I need to map the desktop and mobile homepages even if they don't have the same content at all?

    Read the article

  • What are some best practices for minimizing code?

    - by CrystalBlue
    While maintaining the sites our development team has created, we have come across include files and plugins that have proven to be very useful to more then one part of our applications. Most of these modules have come with two different files, a normal source file and a min file. Seeing that the performance and speed of a page can be increased by minimizing the size of the file, we're looking into doing that to our pages as well. The problem that we run into is a lot of our normal pages (written in ASP classic) is a mix of HTML, ASP, Javascript, CSS, and include files. We have some pages that have their JS both in include files and in the page, depending on if the function is only really used in that page or if it's used in many other pages. For example, we have a common.js and an ajax.js file, both are used in a lot of pages, but not all of them. As well as having some functions in a page that doesn't really make sense to put into one master page. What I have seen a few other people do online is use one master JS file and place all of their javascript into that, minify it, gzip it, and only use that on their production server. Again, this would be great, but I don't know if that fully works for our purposes. What I'm looking for is some direction to go with on this. I'm in favor of taking all of our JS and putting it in one include file, and just having it included in every page that is hit. However, not every page we have needs every bit of JS. So would it be worth the compilation and minifying of the files into one master file and include it everywhere, or would it be better to minify all other files and still include them on a need-to-use basis?

    Read the article

  • Website Remodel Redirects

    - by inKit
    We've recently built a site for a new client who has not inserted all the content that they had from their old site into their new one. Also a lot of content is dynamic with ID's not matching from the old site to the new one. We have added dynamic redirects for most of the patterns we could find in pages that were 404ing, but there are still a lot of pages that had content, or just jumbled urls that we cannot match up with content pages on the new site. Is it better to redirect these leftover pages to the homepage? Or leave them 404ing?

    Read the article

  • how does private sales ecommerce site work on their SEO?

    - by 142857
    In a private sales ecommerce site, users need to sign up/in before they can access the pages of website. So, even if a user tries to directly navigate to a product page, he is redirected to sign in. I am wondering then how does these sites manage their SEO, as it would imply google too can't crawl these pages, or do they completely ignore the SEO benefit of allowing google to crawl the product and catalogue pages?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62  | Next Page >