Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi James,

I suggest you canonical the duplicate pages rather than 301 redirect them. Using canonical tags instead of 301 redirects will allow you to preserve any incoming link equity from external links to those pages. With a 301 redirect, you'll lose that equity.

David may have run your site through Open Site Explorer (OSE) and seen that there's very few incoming links to the duplicate pages and therefore felt it unnecessary to canonicalize them. I see only 8 from the example you gave us above, but don’t want to assume that’s all there is, especially when you're saying you see duplicates on the site, If you have webmaster tools set up, you can get a more exhaustive list of incoming links there.

The other thing I noticed is that the incoming links to the sample pages are coming from a cryopak subdomain on another site. Here are the ones I can see using OSE.

|

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/en/resources/cryopak-news/anthony-alleva-presenting-temp-maintenance-biopharmaceutical/

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/product_line/default.aspx?DepartmentId=25

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/en/resources/cryopak-news/anthony-alleva-presenting-temp-maintenance-biopharmaceutical/

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/product_line/default.aspx?DepartmentId=4

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/en/resources/cryopak-news/anthony-alleva-presenting-temp-maintenance-biopharmaceutical/

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/product_line/default.aspx?DepartmentId=66

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/en/resources/cryopak-news/anthony-alleva-presenting-temp-maintenance-biopharmaceutical/

http://cryopak.spydertrapdev.com/product_line/default.aspx?DepartmentId=67

|

I get an error when I try to look at spydertrapdev.com so can't tell if that's a development environment that's been set up for your site or what. These may not be links you want to maintain. You’ll have to decide.

Good luck.

Donna

Here's another excellent source of link building ideas Ivan - http://pointblankseo.com/.

I agree with DJ123. Also recommend John Cooper's link building site - Point Blank SEO. You'll find most, if not all, of the answers to your questions there.

I hear ya! I find one of the biggest issues ecommerce sites have with rankings has to do with their data. That and a lack of canonicalization to help Google figure out which are the money pages.

Hey Gerry,

How much time elapsed between implementation of new directories and did you put redirects in place to ensure you didn't lose any link equity in the process? If I were you, I'd give it several months before I passed judgment. Also, you might not feel a benefit if traffic and links are low, but will later down the line as both of those things pick up.

D

I'd recommend using pagination over canonicals.

Refer to this post to learn how to implement them.

http://www.ayima.com/seo-knowledge/conquering-pagination-guide.html

Again, if the content is all on one page, partitioned into separate tabs, then there's no need for canonicals or anything else for that matter. You can configure your tabs so the overview is the default tab, the one that displays on entry to the page.

If the page becomes too lengthy or takes to long to load, then another option is to split it onto separate URLs and use page (rel=next and rel=prev) tags to relate them.

In my opinion, the content would ideally be located on the same page.

You have to balance that with the length of the content and the ability of the page to load quickly. Assuming you can get it all on one page, then you don't need canonical tags.

I think I'm not understanding something. Why do you want to partition the content onto three pages? Why not just lay out the content so it displays in a tabular format? That way you don't have to worry about canonicalizing or paginating the content at all.

if you are concerned about page load tomes, then if would consider pagination instead. This post is an excellent resource for how (and when) to do that.

http://www.ayima.com/seo-knowledge/conquering-pagination-guide.html

Phil Rozek of Local Visibility Systems has an excellent blog post from April of last year that explains exactly where you can go to list your business without having to disclose an address. Highly recommended.

They complement one another. I use both.

Moz Local facilitates quick, consistent and easy creation of all the most important local listings - listings with the data aggregators (Acxiom, Localeze, Infogroup, and Factual) and the ones that require claiming and phone, postcard or legal verification (e.g. Google and Acxiom).

Whitespark states "Any important listings that require claiming with phone or postcard verification should really be handled directly by the business, or at least by the SEO agency who can coordinate the phone verification calls with the business."

Once the essentials are out of the way, Whitespark helps you find hundreds of other sources of local citations and gives you the tips and tools to be successful in acquiring them.

Hope that helps.

As to your point about " it looks as though Google is still indexing pages... ", pull up a cached version of the old, still indexed, but redirected page. See if it is a cached version of the NEW page.

I know that was a confusing question. Let me try saying it a different way.

Type the site:strongolddomain.ext command and view the cached version of one of the pages shown as still being indexed. See if the message from Google laid over the top of the cached page says "This is Google's cache of http://www.weaknewdomain.ext" or if it says "This is Google's cache of http://www.strongolddomain.ext ", If it's weaknew then you know you don't have a problem. I've seen that happen before.

Hope that makes sense...

Did you also notify google of the domain change via webmaster tools?

Ask yourself, who is my target audience? What are their burning information wants or needs? Then give them what they want or need in the form of pages and posts.

Establish yourself and grow your connections on the social media platforms where your intended audience likes to hang out. Share your stuff as well as other's. People will remember and seek you out when a need arises.

A single page cannot be optimized for 130 keywords or keyword phrases.

Best practice is to aim for 1, at most 2, keyword phrases per page.

Think about it, if you want to rank in the top 10 on Google for a keyword phrase, best practice suggests you should include that phrase in the page URL, title tag, description, headers, body text, inbound links and so on. It just doesn't make sense to even try to include that many keywords or keyword phrases in all those places.

KempRuge suggests you change tactics and try to spread the wealth (so to speak) across a larger number of  different pages and/or posts. It's good advice.

Agree totally with Matt-Antonino.

This Moz post, by Dan Shure, was the one I found most helpful when trying to figure out how to index (or not index) pages and posts. http://moz.com/blog/setup-wordpress-for-seo-success

The post speaks specifically to Wordpress, but concepts are transferable to any implementation.

You don't need to "remove "nofollow" from first custom URL on profile". Erwan is suggesting you make helpful contributions to the Moz community and by doing so, rack up your Moz points. When you earn 200 or more points, Moz will remove the nofollow attribute from the link to the first custom URL in your profile. A nofollow link from Moz is a very valuable incoming link to have. Moz's root domain authority is 92 out of 100.

Erwan's suggestion that you ingest the link building guide from Backlinko is a also a good one. Here are a few other sources of good link building information - http://www.pinterest.com/beseenontop/linkbuilding/.

Can you expand on your question a bit more? I don't understand.

boyakp,

We're still waiting for you to share your client's website....

I have experience with a very large ecommerce site with hundreds of thousands of pages and a completely flat architecture. It's not good. Think of the distribution of your link equity like you would an organ donation. Would you rather give two kidneys to two people or 200,000? Which choice is going to make a difference to the recipients?

I sometimes see that happen too and wonder if the competitors have one golden link, one super authoritative followed link incoming to their site that just blows your client out of the water. I know your question says "no links", but take a look. It's all I can think of.

Possibly, if the change was recent. But I'd expect the impact to be temporary, until Google catches up to what has changed.

It would help if you standardized on the way you linked to your site from various profiles. I did a sampling and I noticed Yelp, Twitter and G+ link to http://brownboxbranding.com whereas Facebook and YouTube link to the www version of your site. That doesn't explain your problem though.

Have you (Jeff) checked your site to make sure Google Analytics is still installed on all pages? Is the same code installed on all pages? You should be able to tell if there's been a change by looking at your traffic reports as well. If there's a sudden drop on some pages, there's been a change.

Agree.

Dr. Pete, I don't think you sound defensive at all. It's good to share all perspectives. And EGOL, as usual, is very open with his thinking.

Clearly it's a balancing act and there is no miracle cure. I suggest that we could ask the original poster to indicate if they're satisfied with the answer(s) provided and state that the question will be marked closed when we hear back from them OR in X days, which ever comes first.

Of course there's many ways to skin a cat and you've probably considered that, or a similar suggestion and quite a few others. If nothing else, this discussion clearly demonstrates Moz TAGFEE in action!

Yes Jennita, it does help. Thank you for the explanation.

Hi Jennita.

This statement - "In our mind it simply means that the original poster got the answer they needed." - makes me wonder if you might have missed a key point Dana was trying to make, that being shouldn't the original poster be the one who decides if they "got the answer they needed" or not? Perhaps you got that totally and I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I think her point is an excellent one and that's why I'm circling back on it again... just to be sure.

You both (EGOL and DANA TAN) raise good points of consideration. I'm glad this topic came up b/c I have myself been frustrated when my question gets marked "answered" when I feel it has not. I like her proposal.

EGOL, I suspect your first two observations are accurate - that people "mark a question as "answered" when they get a response that they "like" instead of the response that they "need" and that "the best answer sometimes gets thumbed down because it requires work."  A suggestion would be that they simply get tagged "closed" with no judgment as to whether the answer was good or bad, answered the intent of the query or not. That might also help when people do a subsequent search for a topic and find conflicting answers. That's happened to me, and to EGOL's point (rules and best practices change over time), I understand why. But seeing the question marked as "answered" just adds to the confusion, especially if you're new.

I  think your suggestion about making "active" the default view is a good one.

I also want to say that I love it when Moz chimes in and marks an answer as a good one or endorses it. Really encourages participation and provides helpful information to all readers.

Great question. Great discussion.

Matt Cutts very specifically said "if you’re using guest blogging as a way to gain links in 2014, you should probably stop" (http://www.mattcutts.com/blog/guest-blogging/). He didn't say "stop guest blogging altogether". Two different things.

Lizzie Borden murdered her parents with an axe. That doesn't mean axes should be outlawed for chopping wood. (Sorry, but it gets my point across.) As others above and elsewhere have pointed out, there are and remain very good reasons to guest blog. If you continue to provide value to your intended audience without trying to draw too much attention to yourself, you'll be fine. I know that's subjective, but EGOL gave concrete examples of what NOT to do.

Don't start out trying to be all things SEO to all people. Find your niche. What subset of SEO are you passionate about? What are you particularly good at? Where is there a need?

If you have a reputable and respected SEO firm in your neighborhood, look to get hired. Ask for a mentor. Learn from him or her and thru osmosis.

Yes. It seems in this instance there's not a big difference, if any difference at all, between search volumes for "Jacksonville water heaters" and "water heaters Jacksonville". And as vzPro points out, with Hummingbird, Google will find you anyway.

I agree with VzPro, it's at least an indication.

I also do things like search for "keyword+location" and then just "keyword", but using the targeting and location options on the left to select Jacksonville FL only (vs the entire US).

So in your example, plugging "water heaters Jacksonville" turned up 0 searches a month. Plugging in "water heaters" and then targeting Jacksonville FL only turned up 40 searches a month.

Hi Dave,

I think the sequencing of words in the URL is less important than the sequencing of words in the title tag. That said, if I were you I'd look up "keyword+location" and "location+keyword" in Google Planner and make my choice based on what I learn there. Which version gets the most searches? Which is harder to rank for? And which looks like it might have the better commercial value?

The length of the URL is going to be the same either way, so err on the side of the sequencing that best fits your overall ranking objectives.

Are you sure you want to do this? You say 80% of the site consists of gallery and blog pages. You also say there are a lot of internal links to those pages. Are you perhaps under estimating the value of long- tail traffic

To answer your specific question, yes link juice will still pass thru to the pages that are no indexed. They just won't ever show up in search results. Using robots noindex gets you the same result. 301 redirects will pass all your link juice back to the home page, but makes for a lousy user experience. Same for deleting pages.

Given you "can't say" how the old numbers were derived, you might try plugging your key phrases into Google trends to see if there's been an obvious diminishing of search volume over the past few years. That might help you figure out whether there's been less searches or whether your "old" numbers are from exact match searches or something else.

The RS SEO Joomls extension looks very promising. I've only just begun to poke around with it, but would recommend starting there unless others have different suggestions.

Sean, What is the URL for your site?

Hi Diana.

First, I agree with EGOL that you absolutely have to be able to show value.

Second, given where you're at on the learning curve and your own admission about being challenged by technical SEO, I  think it might be premature for you to be thinking about branching out on your own.

If I were you, I'd be looking for a position in a highly regarded existing SEO company. Figure out what you're good at NOW, and offer up those services. Be open and honest about your desire to learn and to eventually branch off on your own. Also set a realistic time frame during which you'll dedicate yourself to your new company and give them your all. Hunker down, do a good job, and learn as much as you can about technical SEO AS WELL AS how to run a small business. At the end of your allotted time frame, re-evaluate. You may be surprised at what you discover.

Hi Sarah.

Fast response! Thanks.

When I use the check listing functionality, I see Yahoo listed on the bottom right.

D

Wondering why the new Moz Local tool bothers to include Yahoo then? Why don't we just drop it entirely if "they are not a major player in local search"? Are there other players listed in the Moz Local tool that we can ignore as well?

Hi khi5,

I think excluding those MLS listings from your site using the robots.txt file would be over kill.

As I'm sure you well know, Google does what it wants. I think tagging the pages you don't want indexed with "noindex follow" AND adding them to the robots.txt file doesn't make the likelihood that Google will respect your wishes any higher. You might want to consider canonicalizing them though, so links to and bookmarks and shares of said pages get credited to your site.

As to how long it takes for Google to deindex said pages, it can take a very long time. In my experience, "a very long time" can run 6-8 months. You do have the option however, of using Google Webmaster Tools > Google Index > Remove URLs to ask to have them deindexed faster. Again, no guarantees that Google will do as you ask, but I've found them to be pretty responsive when I use the tool.

I'd love to hear if anyone else feels differently.

Hi Arthur,

Keri answered your specific question, and I'd like to suggest an alternative.

Try using Whitespark. While, so far as I know, you can't preselect the sites you want to acquire citations from, they do "prepare a list of new citation opportunities using our huge database of business listing sites... starting with the highest quality sources ...".

Citations are built manually. They check your existing citations before starting so no duplicates are created.

Whitespark also gives you the option to specify that you only want "hyper relevant citations that are specific to your industry or city." They charge a one-time fee based on the number and type (non-specific or hyper relevant) of citations you order. Their fees are, in my opinion, fair.

Does that help?

I'm a big fan of SEO audits. From a customer perspective:

• they tell you what's broken;
• they tell you what's working well;
• you can prioritize the work that needs to be done;
• you can more easily identify the skill sets needed to complete the work; and
• identify inter-dependencies so you acquire what's needed, when it's needed.

Audits also give you a baseline that you can use to draw "a line in the sand" and know where you're starting from. You can then more easily demonstrate measured improvements over time.

Given your goal is link acquisition versus gaining exposure and solidifying your presence in your local market, I agree with Miriam that "your efforts would likely be better spent earning links that are relevant to your industry rather than your geography." Directories don't pass along a lot of link juice and Google doesn't value them highly.

I'm also not a fan of the paid directory submission services.

• They're expensive.
• They're time boxed, meaning your listing disappears when you stop paying.
• They're limited in their distribution - not every service hits every directory.
• They don't deal with duplicates.
• You still have to do some of the work anyway - the better directories require manual verification to ensure the requester is an authorized representative of the business.

Whitespark is the exception. They're reasonably priced, get you permanent, quality listings, and because they're manually built listings, they address data inconsistencies and duplicates along the way.

As to the BBB, that's a judgment call and the thread Miriam points out will help you decide which way to go.

Thank you EGOL and Chris Menke. Very helpful. Much appreciated.

Moz just prompted me to decide whether my question has been answered or not. I don't think I've been clear in my question.

My question is about Google Webmaster Tools. Why is www.liveathomeseniors.com not eligible to rank for more than just 3 queries? I realize there is much that can be done to improve the site from a SEO perspective, and I can see that the site has been indexed - including a lot of duplicate pages. Yet it only shows up as being eligible to rank for three queries:

• "live at home seniors" with an average ranking of 1
• "seniors living at home" with an average ranking of 40; and
• "indemnity plans" with an average ranking of 450.

I also realize GWT only shows us a sampling of queries, but feel I should be seeing more queries showing up after the site has been in existence for more than year. Any ideas or suggestions as to why this might be happening?

For product pages, I would canonical the page with the most descriptive URL.

For category pages, I agree with you, I would noindex them.

I think I just answered my own question!!

I agree entirely that "Search result pages are too varied to be included in the index".

That said, my understanding is that if you canonical a page, it doesn't get indexed. So we wouldn't have to worry about the appearance / user-friendliness of the URL. But (again, in my opinion) we should still worry about link equity being passed, and that won't happen if you noindex.

This gets complicated fast. I like your solution b/c it's a lot cleaner and easier to implement. Still not convinced it's the "best" way to go though.

Simon, Wesley, Michael...

These customer facing search result pages are the ones often bookmarked and shared by site visitors. How worried does one need to be about losing link equity? I realize every site is going to be different and social shares don't have link equity - at least for now - but this could add up over time. The rel canonical will enable capture of link equity whereas the robots noindex will not.

Am I over thinking this?

Hi Jeremy.

Yours is a common problem. The best way to deal with it is, as Wesley mentions, by putting canonical tags on all the duplicate pages - the one you want indexed and to show up in search results AND all the others that you can arrive at via catalog search or any other means of navigation.

Michael's suggestion will prevent the duplicate pages from getting indexed by Google. Unfortunately you lose any link equity going that route, so I'd suggest starting with canonical tags first.

Not to be a smart ass or anything, but it sounds like you answered your own question JP.

There is no right or wrong answer to "are meta descriptions really necessary". Often times it is best to let Google self-generate the meta description so it matches the intent of the user query. Especially when, as it sounds like in your case, you're talking about an ecommerce site with maybe (?) a lot of product pages and long-tail keyword queries your pages could be eligible to rank for. In my mind, the real question is whether you'd be better off spending your time creating great content, or trying to craft unique meta description tags for product pages that are already "generating a better CTR than if I were to plug something in there myself."

It's a judgment call.

Thanks for sticking with this EGOL.

"A query will be listed in Google Webmaster Tools when you have a page that competes in the top ten on the web for that query."

Then I'm not understanding what "average position" means because on other sites, I'm seeing numbers in that column that range from 1 to 750. Is it the average placement for:

• every page on your your site that's eligible to rank for that term, considering of course, personalization and location;
• every page on any site that's eligible to rank for that term; or
• something else altogether?

I searched GWMT looking for an answer and it's not clear (to me anyway) there either.