Search Results

Search found 5969 results on 239 pages for 'seo man'.

Page 83/239 | < Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >

  • http-equiv=content-language alternative - the way of specifying document language

    - by tugberk
    Lots of web sites uses following meta tag to specify the default language of the document: <meta http-equiv="content-language" content="es-ES"> When I go to w3c site: http://www.w3.org/TR/2011/WD-html-markup-20110113/meta.http-equiv.content-language.html#meta.http-equiv.content-language I get this: Using the meta element to specify the document-wide default language is obsolete. Consider specifying the language on the root element instead. What is the way of specifying document language now?

    Read the article

  • Best way to prevent Google from indexing a directory [duplicate]

    - by Gkhan14
    This question already has an answer here: Stopping Google index some web pages I have 5 answers I've researched many methods on how to prevent Google/other search engines from crawling a specific directory. The two most popular ones I've seen are: Adding it into the robots.txt file: Disallow: /directory/ Adding a meta tag: <meta name="robots" content="noindex, nofollow"> Which method would work the best? I want this directory to remain "invisible" from search engines so it does not affect any of my site's ranking. In other words, I want this directory to be neutral/invisible and "just there." I don't want it to affect any ranking. Which method would be the best to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • images within noscript

    - by Guilherme Nascimento
    Note: My question is not about javascript Note: My question is how to make the HTML accessible to search engines. Note: My question is not about hiding texts, is on block loading of images in order to use LazyLoad. I tested various techniques of blocking the loading of images to use effect LazyLoad (I'm developing in javascript), was the only efficient <NOSCRIPT>: The HTML structure that would, with LazyLoad loading of images is achieved via the viewport (visible area of the website in browser). <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, <span class="lazyload"> <noscript><img src="foto-m0101.jpg" alt="image description"></noscript> </span> consectetur adipiscing elit. </p> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, <span class="lazyload"> <noscript><img src="foto-m0201.jpg" alt="image description"></noscript> </span> consectetur adipiscing elit. </p> <p>Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, <span class="lazyload"> <noscript><img src="foto-m0301.jpg" alt="image description"></noscript> </span> consectetur adipiscing elit. </p> This is a bad practice for search engines? If it is a bad practice, you could put an example of good practice? If there is any other issue with noscript talking pictures, forgive me. Note: I did not find any doubts about noscript with images.

    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

  • The sharp decline Statistics of website

    - by Erfan Safarpoor
    My website has had 10 months ago, the statistics are very high. Very high ... But after 10 days of server failure, Marm was 20 times less. I got lost for a long time without making a mistake, do ... I am the source of links that they've hired a writer to pen the final results are seen. But a strange thing: Approximately every two months and was hit again 20 more times and then low again after 10 days! my website url : www.sooran.com (food.sooran.com)

    Read the article

  • Filtering your offices IPs from Google Analytics when each has a dynamic IP?

    - by leeand00
    I found the documentation for filtering IPs from Google Analytics, but the address of the several locations of our company all have dynamic IP addresses that change every 30 days from what I'm told. I know from working with Dynamic DNS that the provider usually gives you a script that you configure your router to run when it's IP address changes or when it is restarted, which passes the new IP address to the DDNS server. I'm wondering if there might be a way to write or use a preexisting script to do the same thing with the Google Analytics API.

    Read the article

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

    - 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?

    Read the article

  • A mechanism to include site title in every page, but not in <title> element

    - by Saeed Neamati
    Each site can have a name. For example, site x. Each page also can have a name (or a title) that should appear in <title> tag in the header. However, many websites out there use the combination site name - page name to provide the value for <title> tag. I find it a little far from being semantic. On the other hand, if you only include page title in <title> tag, search engines won't find your site by its name. For example, if your site's name is Thought Results and you don't include it in page titles, then if you search for Thought Results, you won't find your site in SERPs. Thus I'm searching for a mechanism to both include site title (not page title) in every page, and also only include page title in <title> tag to get more semantic results. Is there any way to achieve this?

    Read the article

  • Is content in option tags indexed?

    - by Silfverstrom
    Is data inside an <option> tag indexed? For example, would the following option tag allow "Volvo", "Saab", "Opel" and "Audi" to be indexed by a crawler? <select> <option value="volvo">Volvo</option> <option value="saab">Saab</option> <option value="opel">Opel</option> <option value="audi">Audi</option> </select> Will search engines put any weight on data in an option form element?

    Read the article

  • Do image backlinks count as backlinks?

    - by sam
    If i have lots of images appearing tumblr blogs, the sort of tumblogs with very little text just reams and reams of images for people to browse through (example - http://whereisthecool.com/). If my image is embeded in their site like this : <a href="http://mysite.com" target="blank"> <img src="cutecatblog.com/cat.jpg" alt="cute cat"/> </a> so the image was a link back to my site. Although there is no anchor text to speak of does google take into account the alt text of the image ? Would this still count in googles eyes as a backlink ?

    Read the article

  • Recovery from URL structure change?

    - by Dejan Pelzel
    in July this year, we have changed the URL structure of the website from: Post: domain.com/blog/post/986/dance/heart-beats-dance-video-by-chinatsu/ Category: domain.com/blog/index/cosplay/ to Post: domain.com/dance/heart-beats-dance-video-by-chinatsu-986/ Category: domain.com/cosplay/ Everything was (supposedly) properly redirected with 301 redirects and it first seemed that the traffic returned after a couple of days, but it has now been close to 2 months and things keep going worse although Google is slowly indexing the changes. What is worrying me even more is that the Pages crawled per day from Webmaster Tools started drastically dropping a few days ago and has just reached a new low in months (from over 2000 to 700). Should I be worried or will things sort out eventually?

    Read the article

  • What is the best approach to copy public dynamic pages?

    - by Renan
    Situation: the government is supposed to publish official information online such as acts and laws. Problem: they're using 90s expertise to do it. You can tell that by the constant use of deprecated html tags such as <table and the lack of any compression at all, which makes some documents go way over 700,000 bytes even though they're pure text. Side problem: some companies are actually editing and selling this content that should be public and free. What I need to know is the best approach to offer said official content in my own site for free. I've thought of setting up a mirror to copy the official pages from time to time, since some of them are updated frequently, which would automatically be compressed as all my pages are via htaccess.

    Read the article

  • adding noindex on pagination

    - by Damodar Bashyal
    I find few conflicts on people's reactions about adding noindex on paginations. What does pro webmasters has to say about this? I am planning to add noindex meta for all paginations with a hope to increase website value, so I would like some pro's feedback on this. e.g. here: http://w3tut.org/blog 3 posts' first few paragraphs are displayed and meta is taken from first post from that page, which will cause duplicate meta issue. Also, 3 posts in a page could be unrelated to each other as well. Is it a good idea to add noindex for these pages, so full article posts get more value?

    Read the article

  • Ranking hit after WP site migration

    - by Ben
    I migrated my site from its old domain over a month ago. I followed WMT completely, including 301 redirects from every existing URL to the new domain, and then submitting a change of address. Traffic continued as normal, but then a few days after submitting the change of address traffic plummeted to about 20-30% of what it was previously. Most of my traffic come from organic search, and I can see that for the keywords I had targeted before and performed well with and am now ranking much much lower for. In some cases for low competition keywords I've only lost a few places, for higher competition terms I have really suffered. This has started to pick up a bit (one of my keywords I have risen from 195 to 100 in the last week), but it seems to be a very slow process. How seamless is this process normally? I was under the impression that this would not affect my rankings too severely, but it has now been a month since the move and recovery seems to be very slow, if at all. Is it likely that I've missed something? The only change is that I have moved what was the home page to be more of a sub-page, and now in its place is a magazine-style home page. I understand that links to the old site will now be pointing to the latter which means that rankings for some keywords attributed to the old home page will take a hit, but even on other pages that seem to fit in exactly the same page structure as the previous site I have seen a drop in rankings. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Dropped impression 25 days after restructure

    - by Hamid
    Our website is a non English property related website (moshaver.com) which is similar to rightmove.co.uk. On September 2012 our website was adversely affected by Panda causing our Google incoming clicks to drop from around 3000 clicks to less than a thousand. We were hoping that Google will eventually realize that we are not a spam website and things will get better. However, in August 2013 we were almost sure that we needed to do something, so we started to restructure our web content. We used the canonical tag to remove our search results and point to our listing pages, using the noindex tag to remove it from our listing pages which does not have any properties at the moment. We also changed title tags to more friendly ones, in addition to other changes. Our changes were effective on 10th August. As shown in the graph taken from Google Analytics Search Engine Optimization section, these changes has resulted in an increase in the number of times Google displayed our results in its search results. Our impressions almost doubled starting 15th August. However, as the graph shows, our CTR dropped from this date from around 15% to 8%. This might have been because of our changed title tags (so people were less likely to click on them), or it might be normal for increased impressions. This situation has continued up until 10th September, when our impressions decreased dramatically to less than a thousand. This is almost 30% of our original impressions (before website restructure) and 15% of the new impressions. At the same time our impressions has increased dramatically to around 50%. I have two theories for this increase. The first one is that these statistics are less accurate for lower impressions. The second one is that Google is now only displaying our results for queries directly related to our website (our name, our url), and not for general terms, such as "apartments in a specific city". The second theory also explains the dramatic decrease in impression as well. After digging the analytic data a little more, I constructed the following table. It displays the breakdown of our impressions, clicks and ctr in different Google products (web and image) and in total. What I understand from this table is that, most of our increased impressions after restructure were on the image search section. I don't think users of search would be looking for content in our website. Furthermore, it shows that the drop in our web search ctr, is as dramatic of the overall ctr (-30% in compare to -60%) . I thought posting it here might help you understand the situation better. Is it possible that Google has tested our new structure for 25 days, and then decided to decrease our impressions because of the the new low CTR? Or should we look for another factor? If this is the case, how long does it usually take for Google to give us another chance? It has been one month since our impressions has dropped.

    Read the article

  • How to create a good sitemap for dynamic website

    - by Saif Bechan
    I have a website with dynamic content and different kind of pages. I have some pages that rarely change, and I have pages like blogs that change often. The blog pages also have links for sorting, for example sorting on date, asc, desc. On some of the pages I also have links to different tabbed content, and links that are just anchor links. Now when I use a xml sitemap generator then all the links are thrown into the site, and so I don't think all the links are really relevant. The blogposts up until now are also taken into the sitemap. Is this really necessary? I think the links to the blogposts can be indexed just fine. Is the best way to make a sitemap just to manually assign the main menu links to the sitemap, or is indexing everything really recommended?

    Read the article

  • How to set default hreflangs for some languages?

    - by user1721135
    I want to make a site with different versions for 2 countries, which have the same language. Then I need to do the same for another language. Basically I want to have 6 versions of the site: UK English US English Default English ?? Austrian German Germany German Default German The question is, how do I define the "default" language versions, for any country with this language which isnt defined already? I know there is x-default, but I think you can only use that once and it is for all languages and all countries.

    Read the article

  • How to remove HTML code from search result page content

    - by Jack Torris
    I have music website. There are 46 album pages and each page has different player and files. I just entered the one of album's URLs in a search engine. I found that Google is displaying player code in search result content. For example, enter this URL in Google and check the results. Each result displays a .mp3 file in content section. I see this: This page contains a demo of and documentation for the new jPlayer Playlist add-on, ... mp3:"http://www.jplayer.org/audio/mp3/Miaow-01-Tempered-song.mp3", ... I don't want Google to show the player code and mp3 files in search result. How can I hide audio files and player code from search engine? What would be the best solution for it?

    Read the article

  • Do search engines directly penalize bad grammar?

    - by Nicolas Raoul
    Let's say I have a web page with user-contributed content, which is good content but with bad grammar, slang terms, inappropriate tone. I know that bad grammar is a also a problem because it drives away visitors and scares people from linking to it, but let's put that aside. Let's also put aside the fact that incorrectly spelt terms might be ignored by a crawler, potentially leading to less text-comparizon hits. QUESTION: Do search engines like Google directly recognize and penalize bad grammar? For instance because they might consider bad-grammar as a sign of low-quality content.

    Read the article

  • Is it safe to block redirected (but still linked) URLs with robots.txt?

    - by Edgar Quintero
    I have a website that has all URLs optimized and 301 redirected from nasty URLs to clean ones. However, everywhere throughout the site the unclean URLs are linked in menus, content, products, etc. Google currently has all clean URLs indexed, along with a few unclean URLs too. So the site still has linked everywhere the old URLs (ideally this wouldn't be the case but this is how it is ATM). I would like to block the unclean URLs with robots.txt. The question: if I block these unclean URLs with the robots.txt, when the entire website is linked with them (but they all redirect to the clean version), will this affect the indexing status at all?

    Read the article

  • How do search engines segment against locale?

    - by Hope I Helped
    Assume I run a website with multiple language modes. If I had a Spanish section, it should be included in Spanish-segmented search engines such as Google Spain, Google Peru, Google El Salvador, etc. and excluded in the others. Likewise, even though the website would have content in Chinese, multilingual countries such as Singapore should feature content in their main language (English in this case). What is the best approach to ensure the appropriate language is associated with the various geographically segmented search engines?

    Read the article

  • why some websites changes their short and user friendly URL to long URL?

    - by diEcho
    Hello All, i wonder why some website changes their short and user friendly url to long url like cricinfo.com ---- espncricinfo.com indiafm.com --- bollywoodhungama.com and many others i have seen i just want to know that what is the exact need of doing that?? is there economical reason or what??i think user dont like to write long website name still i also type indiafm.com and browser automatically redirect the URL. (sorry if tags are wrong) Thanks,

    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

  • Why old (301) links stay on Google when breaking site down to multiple domains

    - by Sampo Sarrala
    Some background: We did have single site and single domain (let's call it mainsite.com) with product information, however things have changed since and product database has grown fast. So we decided to move some major products/manufacturers under their own domains (let's call one of them subsite.com) while still using our main database/codebase. What we've done: Added subsite.com domain for product 1 by Great Products Co. Some new nice looking front pages, info pages, etc. Detail pages that will use information from original db. Redirected product/group links from mainsite.com using 301 redirect. Verified that redirects works as expected. Waited some time for Google reindexing (over 30 days, I've heard it should be more than enough). Results: If I search our moved products from Google then it will found them and list them but with old links to our main page like mainsite.com/group/product1 but it should show link to new site subsite.com/product1. Links from Goole redirects as they should, as said redirects are verified [301]. Main question: Any reasons why Google would not follow 301 redirects and update links so that they will point to our new mfg/product site subsite.com?

    Read the article

  • Google not indexing new forum

    - by Tom Gullen
    We installed a new forum a few months ago now. The URL is: https://www.scirra.com/forum I've 301'd the old topics/threads, as well as included all the new URLs in the sitemap. Yet they still are not appearing. Webmaster tools is showing: 139,512 URLs submitted 50,544 URLs indexed And has been stuck there for quite some time. A massive drop in indexed pages since we updated the forum as well: Any help much appreciated

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90  | Next Page >