Search Results

Search found 8370 results on 335 pages for 'seo friendly urls'.

Page 60/335 | < Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >

  • When the canonical page itself changes url

    - by lulalala
    This is a continuation of the question: How to handle canonical url changes like Stack Overflow. Say I have the canon url: questions/11/car <---canonically-linked-from--- questions/11/ What will happen if I want to change the canon url to questions/11/car-with-sgx Obviously, questions/11/ will point to the new canon url. But how should the old questions/11/car change to the new one? There are two ways: 301 redirect that to new canon url the old canon url canonically link to the new canon url According to this post: [By using canonical link instead of redirect,] OldPage.html’s rankings will drop over time due to fewer internal links, but the canonical tag won’t make it disappear entirely. It could theoretically remain in their index until one of the following occurs: it is redirected permanently via 301 it returns a 404 for an extended period of time (they will keep checking for a while before dropping a URL) a meta robots “noindex” tag is added If this is true, I really need to use redirect from old canon url to the new canon url, which means I need to keep a log of previous old canon urls of this content, so I know when I can redirect. This is a bit of a hassle to do.

    Read the article

  • Sitemaps - do I need to submit each sitemap in sitemap_index.xml to Google Webmaster tools?

    - by iSumitG
    I am having a Wordpress blog on my CentOS server. There is no sitemap.xml in the root directory but there is sitemap_index.xml file in the root directory which contains the following code: <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://mywebsite.com/wp-content/plugins/wordpress-seo/css/xml-sitemap-xsl.php"?> <sitemapindex xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"> <sitemap> <loc> http://mywebsite.com/post-sitemap.xml </loc> <lastmod> 2012-12-18T19:47:47+00:00 </lastmod> </sitemap> <sitemap> <loc> http://mywebsite.com/page-sitemap.xml </loc> <lastmod> 2012-12-18T17:32:49+00:00 </lastmod> </sitemap> </sitemapindex> My question: Which sitemap should I submit to Google Webmasters Tools? Options are: Only sitemap_index.xml Only post-sitemap.xml and page-sitemap.xml All 3 (sitemap_index.xml, post-sitemap.xml and page-sitemap.xml) Any other, please let me know.

    Read the article

  • Weird entry for robots.txt on a Naked Domain in Google Webmaster Tools

    - by Metalshark
    We own a .co.uk address and use an Internet hosting company that has made mistakes around DNS in the past. Our main site is hosted on www. and their reluctance to allow editing of AAAA records on-line means our naked domain does not resolve. Currently when we attempt to reach the naked version there is no entry for the browser to go to and it displays an unreachable page (nslookup just says Name: name of domain with no further entries such as an IP or Canonical Name). We recently added the relevant TXT records to verify us to view both the www. version and the naked version of the domain in Google Webmaster Tools (in anticipation of the requests to our Internet host coming to fruition). Imagine our shock when double checking the Site configuration Crawler access and finding a (admittedly failing) robots.txt with a dynamically generated HTML page (full of crude pop-up JavaScript) with references to 3 of our most prominent competitors. What could cause this to happen? As we are in the UK I am assuming some DNS server is serving Google bad information. We are going to contact the Internet hosting company to fix our A and AAAA records once and for all, then check that they work in the US (using something like OpenDNS). Should we be doing more though, for instance informing Google (through Webmaster Tools) that we are now aware there is something currently wrong with our naked domain? UPDATE: We have fixed our A records (not AAAA) and that has resolved the issue. But if there are further actions we should take for effectively having a parking page hosted on our active visitor-heavy, SEO-rich domain that advertised our competitors to US visitors, what would they be?

    Read the article

  • Multiple stores for the same niche

    - by pandronic
    I started developing a new niche of products in my country about 3 years ago. That's when I opened my first store. Everything went fine, until a year ago, when someone I thought was a friend secretly stole my idea and made his own competing store. I was pretty upset when I caught him and decided to make it as difficult as possible for him, so I made another 4 stores, trying to get him as low as possible in the search results. The new sites have similar products (although not 100% identical), slightly different titles, images and prices. They look different and are built on different e-commerce platforms. They are all hosted on the same server, have roughly the same backlinks, use the same Google account for Analytics, have the same support phone numbers etc etc. I wasn't thinking that I'm doing something fishy, so I didn't try to hide anything. Trouble is that those sites, after doing fine for a few months, dropped like bricks in search results, almost to the point that they can't be found at all. At the moment, the only site that ranks relatively well is the original one and a couple of secondary pages with no importance from one of the other sites. How did this happen? Does Google have something against this practice? Did they take action by themselves when they realized that I was trying to monopolize this niche, or did my competitor report me for some kind of webspam? And more importantly, what do I do now? Do I shutdown all but my original site and 301 redirect users to it from the others? Can I report my competitor for engaging in the same practice? (He fought back and now he has 3-4 sites, some of which still rank kind of OKish, also he has no idea about web development, SEO or marketing, he just crudely copies what I do and is slowly but surely starting to do better than me).

    Read the article

  • How do you find all the links to disavow for a Google reconsideration request? [duplicate]

    - by QF_Developer
    This question already has an answer here: How to identify spammy domains giving backlinks to my site (to submit in disavow links in WMT) 2 answers A few months ago I received the following notification on Google Webmaster for a website I look after. Unnatural links to your site—impacts links Google has detected a pattern of unnatural artificial, deceptive, or manipulative links pointing to pages on this site. Some links may be outside of the webmaster’s control, so for this incident we are taking targeted action on the unnatural links instead of on the site’s ranking as a whole. Learn more. The question here is, should we actively attempt to disavow these links given that the action is seemingly targeted to just a bunch of keywords? I've downloaded the inbound links sample from Google Webmaster and so far I've been through the disavow and reconsideration requests process 6 times, each taking 2-3 weeks only to be supplied just 2 more links that Google don't approve of. At this rate it will take me the rest of my natural life to cleanup all these spammy links! It seems disavowing is futile as they haven't implemented broad actions against the website as a whole and (from what I can gather) have already nullified the value of those offending links. Under the quoted statement above however is a reconsideration request button that seems to imply I should be actively doing something here? UPDATE 14th October -- I have since created a small .NET application that you can feed the CSV sample links file into from Google Webmaster. What this tool does is crawl all the links and looks for specific linking patterns as per some configurable match strings. I realised that many of the links that Google are taking issue with were created by a rogue SEO firm we hired several years ago. All the links are appended with 1 of 5 different descriptions. The application I built uses some regexes to isolate any link sources with these matching appendages and automatically builds the disavow txt file. In the end it had to come down to an algorithm as manually disavowing links on this scale would take weeks! I will post the app here once I've cleaned it up.

    Read the article

  • Average SPA weight [on hold]

    - by Emmanuel Istace
    First, sorry my noobs questions, but I'm mainly Windows Developer and not Web Developer :) I'm developing a single page application with a lot of css & javascript. For now the page is 1.3Mo composed by 5 section. Here are the rounded stats : Document : 10kb Style : 60kb Images : 450 kb (already compressed, include a big gallery thumbnails) Javascript : 700kb - 600kb of "framework" (jquery, jquery-ui, boostrap, modernizer, waypoint, ...) and 100kb of custom js. Fonts : 125kb And the site is not finished yet. (Will include gmap api, and some others...) My questions are : Do you have any statistics about the average weight of an SPA ? As this is the whole website, do you think it's acceptable ? Is lazy load (for images) a solution ? What will be impact for SEO ? Is the "200kb rule" of google still relevant ? Do you know great tools to detect which javascript code is not used during the the exection of a page and then the availability to optimize these 700kb of framework js stuffs ? Can a caching strategy be an answer ? Thank you in advance for you help ! Best regards

    Read the article

  • How to get search engines to properly index an ajax driven search page

    - by Redtopia
    I have an ajax-driven search page that will allow users to search through a large collection of records. Each search result points to index.php?id=xyz (where xyz is the id of the record). The initial view does not have any records listed, and there is no interface that allows you to browse through all records. You can only conduct a search. How do I build the page so that spiders can crawl each record? Or is there another way (outside of this specific search page) that will allow me to point spiders to a list of all records. FYI, the collection is rather large, so dumping links to every record in a single request is not a workable solution. Outputting the records must be done in multiple requests. Each record can be viewed via a single page (eg "record.php?id=xyz"). I would like all the records indexed without anything indexed from the sitemap that shows where the records exist, for example: <a href="/result.php?id=record1">Record 1</a> <a href="/result.php?id=record2">Record 2</a> <a href="/result.php?id=record3">Record 3</a> <a href="/seo.php?page=2">next</a> Assuming this is the correct approach, I have these questions: How would the search engines find the crawl page? Is it possible to prevent the search engines from indexing the words "Record 1", etc. and "next"? Can I output only the links? Or maybe something like:  

    Read the article

  • WordPress page title repeated in SOME pages

    - by cmykrgbb
    I have created a Wordpress site and titles were working just fine. Then, some time and plugins installed later, I noticed that in SOME pages I get the title repeated 2 times. Example of wrong page title: Contact - NAME | NAME Example of normal title: Our Services | NAME Now, if I go to General Settings and change title it will change both, no improvement. SEO by Yoast has the option to reset page titles, but that just removes all titles leaving the current URL as page title, so no good either. Here is the code I originally had: <title><?php wp_title(''); ?><?php if(wp_title('', false)) { echo ' | '; } ?><?php bloginfo('name'); ?></title> Here is the code I am using now: <title><?php wp_title('|'); ?></title> To sum up, I think somewhere in the database there's a wp_title repeated: once using '-' as separator, another one (the current one) using '|'. Any help will be most appreciated, thanks!

    Read the article

  • Merging multiple top-level domains into a single domain

    - by user23089
    My client had multiple top-level-domains. Each one represented an insurance program within a specific vertical. For all the sites at these alternate domains, there was a 30/70 mix of duplicate vs. original content. Some of the alternate domains ranked very well for their target keyphrase groups, where others were absent in results pages. We advised the client to merge multiple domains into their existing main domain, for usability and SEO reasons. We recently ran the merger. Here was our process: On the main domain, transfer the content such that it matches 1-for-1 content on the various alternate domains Setup Google Webmaster Tools on the main domain Push the new content on the main domain live and submit a corresponding sitemap to Google Establish 301 redirects on the alternate domains, such that each alternate domain URL points to its respective page on the main domain We did this 12 days ago, and pages (previously on the alternate domains) that had ranked well on Google have now plummeted or are entirely non-existent. Did we do the right thing by merging multiple top-level domains into a single domain? Is this initial dip in rankings normal? How soon should we expect to see it return to its normal rankings?

    Read the article

  • Is this form of cloaking likely to be penalised?

    - by Flo
    I'm looking to create a website which is considerably javascript heavy, built with backbone.js and most content being passed as JSON and loaded via backbone. I just needed some advice or opinions on likely hood of my website being penalised using the method of serving plain HTML (text, images, everything) to search engine bots and an js front-end version to normal users. This is my basic plan for my site: I plan on having the first request to any page being html which will only give about 1/4 of the page and there after load the last 3/4 with backbone js. Therefore non javascript users get a 'bit' of the experience. Once that new user has visited and detected to have js will have a cookie saved on their machine and requests from there after will be AJAX only. Example If (AJAX || HasJSCookie) { // Pass JSON } Search Engine server content: That entire experience of loading via AJAX will be stripped if a google bot for example is detected, the same content will be servered but all html. I thought about just allowing search engines to index the first 1/4 of content but as I'm considered about inner links and picking up every bit of content I thought it would be better to give search engines the entire content. I plan to do this by just detected a list of user agents and knowing if it's a bot or not. If (Bot) { //server plain html } In addition I plan to make clean URLs for the entire website despite full AJAX, therefore providing AJAX content to www.example.com/#/page and normal html to www.example.com/page is kind of our of the question. Would rather avoid the practice of using # when there are technology such as HTML 5 push state is around. So my question is really just asking the opinion of the masses on if it's likely that my website will be penalised? And do you suggest an alternative which avoids 'noscript' method

    Read the article

  • Can .htaccess slow down a site?

    - by Cody Sharp
    I'm working with a client on an e-commerce website. I implemented clean URLs using .htaccess. I also used .htaccess to solve canonical issues such as redirecting www to non-www and removing index.php from the URL. The website recently began to slow down dramatically, sometimes not even loading. The site is hosted on GoDaddy, and when the client called GoDaddy they told him it was the .htaccess file slowing down the website. I find this highly unlikely because of my past experiences, but I'm not 100% sure. My thinking is that the client's website is most likely on a shared server with a busy neighborhood, thus slowing down the site. It's not always slow, but rather sporadic throughout the day, loading fast at some points and slow at other points in time. Can the .htaccess file slow down a website to a crawl? If so, are there better ways to solve these problems with different rewrite rules and such? Here is what the actual .htaccess file looks like: Options +FollowSymlinks RewriteEngine On RewriteBase / RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.example.net [NC] RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://example.net/$1 [L,R=301] RewriteRule ^products/([0-9a-zA-Z\_\-]*)\.htm([l]?)$ index.php p=product&product_code=$1 [L] RewriteRule ^catalog/([0-9a-zA-Z\_\-]*)\.htm([l]?)$ index.php p=catalog&catalog_code=$1 [L] RewriteRule ^pages/([0-9a-zA-Z\_\-]*)\.htm([l]?)$ index.php?p=page&page_id=$1 [L] RewriteRule ^index\.htm([l]?)$ index.php?p=home [L] RewriteRule ^site_map\.htm([l]?)$ index.php?p=site_map [L] RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING} ^p=home$ RewriteRule (.*) ? [R=permanent] I'm a .htaccess and regex novice, so any pointed out mistakes would also help. Thank you.

    Read the article

  • Reset / Remove - Google Keywords

    - by Herr Kaleun
    Summary: My site is ranking for filthy keywords and i would like to remove them from google ranking/keywords. Background: My server was hacked using the timthumb exploit/security vulnerability, apparently i was the last person on earth to read the news about the exploit, several months after it appeared. Anyway, the "hacker" was so friendly to modify the index.php file in such a fashion, that it generated random sexual oriented keywords if the website is fetched as google-bot. So if you would fetch it as google bot/it gets indexed, you would get randomly generated keywords like: sex videos teenager teen sex adult sex preteen A LINK TO A RANDOM CONTENT OF MY WEBPAGE anime sex videos a rough list something similar to that, about 180-200 per page. I've discovered it far too late, so that google had me indexed for the words "sex" and certain adult oriented keywords, about roughly 2000. I've removed all the content, toke the site down, replaced the index.php with a static HTML and added a "ERROR 410" title to the website so that the content is no longer here and removed permanently. I've also applied for a manual review of my website, about 1.5 months ago but still, the keywords are there, and very strange, some of the keyword rankings actually "improve" over time. Here are some screenshots from webmasters tools: Question: How can i remove this filthy keywords and re-rank my website as a "normal" website on the fastest way? I want to "REMOVE" the keywords if possible. Please help me or point me into a direction. Thank you

    Read the article

  • Webmaster Tools, www and no-www, duplicate content and subdomains

    - by Jay
    I have not come to any conclusive answers on the following after many hours of research on many websites to the specific issue that I am trying to figure out. My company has two websites a main one at www.example.com and one at subdomain.example.com which is a subdomain of the first and is our self hosted blog. The way Google sees these with the www or no-www (called naked for now on) is that each of these actually are different when the www or naked version is used/not used in the front of the domain. I completely understand this. It is also advised that both should be set up in the Google Webmaster Tools, which I have done. Correct me if I am wrong on that in regard to having both set up. Now the way it appears is that we can set a preferred domain up in Webmaster Tools only at the root domain level. The subdomain can not have this and actually says the following "Restricted to root level domains only". So it appears that the domain should follow what the root domain says which on our preferred one says to display the www.example.com. and not the naked version. That is one issue I have in that one displays one way and the other displays another. Is it that we have the wrong redirects in place for the subdomain? Another question is does this have any affect on SEO in regards to duplicate content on the web in how we have set this up?

    Read the article

  • Duplicate content appearing for multi lingual sites

    - by Rocky Singh
    I have a site which has a default url say "http://www.blahblah.com/" (which is default in english language). In my site there is support for multi languages. I am having few links at my home page say "English" "French" "Spanish" etc. and on clicking these links user is redirected to these links: http://www.blahblah.com/en-us/ (English) http://www.blahblah.com/fr-ca/ (French) http://www.blahblah.com/spanish-culture/ (Spanish) and based on culture in the url I am showing the content accordingly to end users in their desired language. Now, this was how my site is. The issue I am getting is with SEO. I noticed Google is considering (I checked via Google web masters) my site pages as duplicate like: 1. http://www.blahblah.com/documents/ and http://www.blahblah.com/en-us/documents/ 2. http://www.blahblah.com/news/ and http://www.blahblah.com/en-us/news and similarly all the pages are considered as a duplicate content in Google webmasters tools. I am worried of this, since I think my site is getting penalized in ranking because of this. Could you drop some idea how to overcome this situation?

    Read the article

  • Quick Question, robots.txt Disallow: /*/ does what exactly?

    - by Exit
    A SEO firm suggested changing the robots.txt to: User-agent: * Disallow: /*/ Allow: /ims/ I'm not sure what that would do, but my guess is that is would tell all robots to index nothing but the ims folder. I understand the wildcard, but I'm confused by the slashes and don't know how they would play out in conjunction with the wildcard. * Update * I didn't mention that there is a sitemap listed in the robots.txt file, but according to one tech blogger, he realized that sitemaps trump robots exclusions. So, even though this says in Google Webmaster Tools that everything with a trailing slash will not be indexed, the sitemap contains the important links. I did notice that the link count on Google went from 360 to 336, and the sitemap links under the URL scaled back to 3 from 6. I'm not sure the cause or what links were removed, though. Perhaps it cleaned out garbage. I'm still clueless why they would add in 'Allow: /ims/', that seems pointless. And a quick list of what would index according to the robots rules above (withouth the sitemap) using /*/: domain.com Indexed domain.com/page.html Indexed domain.com/folder/ Not Indexed domain.com/folder/page.html Not Indexed

    Read the article

  • Implications on automatically "open" third party domain aliasing to one of my subdomains

    - by Giovanni
    I have a domain, let's call it www.mydomain.com where I have a portal with an active community of users. In this portal users cooperate in a wiki way to build some "kind of software". These software applications can then be run by accessing "public.mydomain.com/softwarename" I then want to let my users run these applications from their own subdomains. I know I can do that by automatically modifying the.htaccess file. This is not a problem. I want to let these users create dns aliases to let them access one specific subdomain. So if a user "pippo" that owns "www.pippo.com" wants to run software HelloWorld from his own subdomains he has to: Register to my site Create his own subdomain on his own site, run.pippo.com From his DNS control panel, he creates a CNAME record "run.pippo.com" pointing to "public.mydomain.com" He types in a browser http://run.pippo.com/HelloWorld When the software(that is physically run on my server) is called, first it checks that the originating domain is a trusted one. I don't do any other kind of check that restricts software execution. From a SEO perspective, I care about Google indexing of www.mydomain.com but I don't care about indexing of public.mydomain.com What are the possible security implications of doing this for my site? Is there a better way to do this or software that already does this that I can use?

    Read the article

  • Fix 403 errors in Google Webmaster Tools

    - by Justin
    Hi Team, I have a domain that has "fallen off a cliff" for searches in Google. Searches that used to be in position 1-4 are now gone from page 1. The same search in Bing shows the typical position expected (top 5 results). In reviewing Google Webmaster Tools, I am seeing two problems: 1. The Sitemap is reporting two errors: General HTTP error: HTTP 403 error (Forbidden) URLs not accessible However, the URL they provide as "no accessible" is accessible. I can click the link Google provides and it works fine. There are 6,000 crawl errors of type 403. Again, most of these pages that have 403 are accessible in my browser (tried various browsers as well). About half are from January, the other half from November. There are no IP-specific firewall rules on ports 80 and 443 that could block the goolgebot Using the user agent switcher add-on for FF I confirmed that the page loads when the user agent is the googlebot I an confirm that most of the pages reported as 403 are accessible. A search of just "site:thedomain.com" does confirm there are over 9,000 in the index. But most searches don't return the site. I believe the 403 issues are the cause of the fall in search rankings, but I can't seem to find any information online with ideas about how to address this. Any ideas? jpe

    Read the article

  • Page Spamming via locations

    - by codemonkey
    Hi guys I am new here so please be gentle :) I have created a web page for a small mail order business. The page asks the reader if they are in need of a supplier for products in their "area" and if they have ever been let down by a supplier in that "area" etc. It also lists all the local villages and hamlets around the [area] where they can also supply too. This page is dynamically created and the [area] changes and so do the small towns that are local to the town. The page also contains information on the products so the word count vs town names is not stupid. An example of one of the URL would be www.website.com/1014/Halesowen/ It basically covers the whole of the UK so around 800 main towns with 28,000 local villages. The URL changes, so does the title and h1 tags, also each page is Geo coded for that town. My question really is this a good or bad idea? Is it a black hat technique ? I have been told if I have to ask the question then it probably is but the site does supply to all these areas just as any mail order company does and would like to get listed higher in each town for the products. I have seen this done on a few sites but only with a few targeted towns and not the whole of the UK so I would be really interested in your guys thoughts on this. I would post the URL to the site but as I am new here I am a bit unsure of the rules regarding posting links. The whole site needs a lot of other onsite SEO work doing and I will be doing that over the next few weeks. I look forward to your views on this. p.s. If I am allowed to post the URL without getting into trouble so you can see it someone let me know? Thanks in advance

    Read the article

  • .htaccess url rewriting problem

    - by letsworktogether
    I'm kind of stuck at this part and was hoping that I'd get some assistance. I'm building a highscores page in PHP, that's going great, it works. however, I dislike the idea of "index.php?skill=name" and therefore wanted a bit of SEO in this. I have successfully replaced the url with a more friendly version: "highscores/skill/name" And this is where the problem starts, I have added pagination to the highscores and the page is read from the HTTP_GET page variable ($_GET['page']). I dislike the idea of "highscores/skill/name&page=2" and was hoping if you guys could assist me to make the url like the following: Page 1, so accessing the file without declaring the page number: DOMAIN.TLD/highscores/skill/name Page 1 so now the page variable is needed:DOMAIN.TLD/highscores/skill/name/2 As you can tell the "2" will define page 2 and load the correct data for page 2. However, I'm having much trouble in my .htaccess file to configure it this way. RewriteRule ^highscores\/skill\/(.*?)(\/(.*?)*)$ highscores/skills.php?skill=$1&page=$2 [L] # Skills page That is my latest attempt in order to get it to work, unfortunately it does not work, it makes the page look horrible (CSS doesn't work) and it doesn't go to the page specified on the URL. I hope you understand my issue, thank you!

    Read the article

  • Google affecting my SERP Rank?

    - by Asad Moeen
    The following are some of my website's details. Home-page: [thebluewaffles].[com] Keywords: Blue Waffles- Rest of the keywords are post/subject specific. Site Description: Health Articles Blog Site Age: 1.5 years A short history: When I started my website, the few things in my mind when posting content were at-least 500 words on each page and writing of all the articles with to the point information. I didn't go really fast with it which is why I only have about 15 articles in 1.5 years. The SEO strategy was more simple. I shared links through Social Marketing websites and some Article Sharing websites after which I could see my website's rankings in top 5 SERP results. I ranked good enough for about 8 months continuously but didn't keep updating content due to which there were some 3 rough months when no content was posted due to some personal work. The SERPS dropped to 2nd page in April and almost started disappearing in May. I asked a lot of people about it and most came up with the reason of "no updates to site" so I started updating my site again since the day, November has almost started and I see no signs of my website's ranking. Another important point is that when I post a new article, and do a title search in Google, I see it ranks good enough for the first 10 hours and then disappears. What could be wrong here?

    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

  • Why does Bing webmaster tools complain about multiple H1 tags?

    - by Mathew Foscarini
    I used the Bing webmaster tool's SEO analyzer on my website, and it reported There are multiple <H1> tags on the page. It recommends that there should only be one <h1> tag on the page. The page is a listing of blog posts for a category. So each blog entry is structured like this. <article> <head><h1><a>...</a></h1></head> <p>summary...</p> </article> <article> <head><h1><a>...</a></h1></head> <p>summary...</p> </article> <article> <head><h1><a>...</a></h1></head> <p>summary...</p> </article> <article> <head><h1><a>...</a></h1></head> <p>summary...</p> </article> How is this invalid? I thought this was the correct way to describe a post in HTML5.

    Read the article

  • Can I use a 302 redirect to serve up static content from a url with escaped_fragment?

    - by Starfs
    We would like to serve up seo-friendly ajax-driven content. We are following this documentation. Has anyone ever tried to write a 302 redirect into the htaccess file, that takes the '?_escaped_fragment=' string and send that to a static page? For example /snapshot/yourfilename/ How will Google react to this? I've gone through the documentation and it's not very clear. The below quote is from Google's documentation this is what I find. I'm not sure if they are saying that you can redirect the _escaped_fragment_ url to a different static page, or if this is to redirect the hashtag URL to static content? Thoughts? From Google's site: Question: Can I use redirects to point the crawler at my static content? Redirects are okay to use, as long as they eventually get you to a page that's equivalent to what the user would see on the #! version of the page. This may be more convenient for some webmasters than serving up the content directly. If you choose this approach, please keep the following in mind: Compared to serving the content directly, using redirects will result in extra traffic because the crawler has to follow redirects to get the content. This will result in a somewhat higher number of fetches/second in crawl activity. Note that if you use a permanent (301) redirect, the url shown in our search results will typically be the target of the redirect, whereas if a temporary (302) redirect is used, we'll typically show the #! url in search results. Depending on how your site is set up, showing #! may produce a better user experience, because the user will be taken straight into the AJAX experience from the Google search results page. Clicking on a static page will take them to the static content, and they may experience avoidable extra page load time if the site later wants to switch them to the AJAX experience.

    Read the article

  • Alternative to nofollow: custom 302 url shortener?

    - by Dogweather
    Here's the scenario: lots of blogging platforms make it tedious to insert nofollow into links within the post content. I.e., you need to edit the html, format it correctly, etc. I have a client who posts lots of content with links that should be nofollow'ed, and I thought of a novel way to handle this, since the blogging platform they're using makes it hard: I install a URL shortener web app on the client's domain. The shortener works as normal, except it redirects via 302 instead of 301. The pagerank will therefore stay at the shortener's domain, and not flow on to the target site. Part 2: In order to get the pagerank to collect meaningfully, say on the site's home page, the shortened URLs would be generated like this: /link?12345 instead of /link/12345. And then, the path /link would 301 to the home page. This way, the id is a param, not a path element. And thus, all the incoming shortened links are going to one path, which transfers pagerank to the home page. So that's my idea. I wanted to see if anybody could find problems with it. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Google suddenly only indexes https and not http

    - by spender
    So all of a sudden, searches for our site "radiotuna" give out the result as an HTTPS link. https://www.google.com/?q=radiotuna#hl=en&safe=off&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=radiotuna&oq=radiotuna&gs_l=hp.12...0.0.0.3499.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0..0.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.LnOvBvgDOBk&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=177c7ff705652ec3&biw=1366&bih=602 We only use https for the download of two specific files (these urls are resources used for autoupdate functionality of an app we distribute). All other parts of the site should be served over http. We wouldn't like to see any other traffic over https, nor any of our site links to appear in search engines as https. I'd like to address this issue. It seems that the following solutions are available: hand out an https specific robots.txt as such: User-agent: * Disallow: / and/or at app-level, 301 permanent redirect all requests (except the two above) to HTTP if they come in as HTTPS. My concern with the robots method is that, say (for some reason) google decided not to index http pages, disallowing https pages might mean that google has nothing left to index with disastrous consequences for our ranking. This means I'm inclined to go with a 301 redirect. Any thoughts?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67  | Next Page >