![JamesFx JamesFx](/community/q/assets/uploads/profile/43193-profileavatar-1619582282962.png)
Questions created by JamesFx
-
"Too many links" - PageRank question
This question seems to come up a lot. 70 flat page site. For ease of navigation, I want to link every page to one-another. Pure CSS Dropdown menu with categories - each expanding to each of the subpage. Made, implemented, remade smartphone friendly. Hurray. I thought this was an SEO principle - ensuring good site navigation and good internal linking. Not forcing your users to hit "back". Not forcing your users to jump through hoops. But unless I've misread http://www.seomoz.org/blog/how-many-links-is-too-many then this is something that's indirectly penalised by Google because a site with 70 links from its homepage only lets each sub-page inherit 1/80th of its PageRank. Good site navigation vs your subpages are invisible on Google.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JamesFx0 -
Dealing with thin content/95% duplicate content - canonical vs 301 vs noindex
My client's got 14 physical locations around the country but has a webpage for each "service area" they operate in. They have a Croydon location. But a separate page for London, Croydon, Essex, Luton, Stevenage and many other places (areas near Croydon) that the Croydon location serves. Each of these pages is a near duplicate of the Croydon page with the word Croydon swapped for the area. I'm told this was a SEO tactic circa 2001. Obviously this is an issue. So the question - should I 301 redirect each of the links to the Croydon page? Or (what I believe to be the best answer) set a rel=canonical tag on the duplicate pages). Creating "real and meaningful content" on each page isn't quite an option, sorry!
On-Page Optimization | | JamesFx0 -
Spammy link for each keyword
Some people believe that having a link for each keyword and a page of content for each keyword (300+ words) can help ranking for those keywords. However, the old approach of having "restaurant New York", "restaurant Buffalo", "restaurant Newark" approach has become seen as a terrible SEO practice. I don't know whether this was because it's spammy or because people usually combined it with thin content that was 95% duplicate. Which brings us to; http://hungryhouse.co.uk/ Why does such a major company have the following on the site (see the footer); Aberdeen Takeaway Birmingham Takeaway Brighton Takeaway Bristol Takeaway Cambridge Takeaway Canterbury Takeaway Cardiff Takeaway Coventry Takeaway Edinburgh Takeaway Glasgow Takeaway Leeds Takeaway Leicester Takeaway Liverpool Takeaway London Takeaway Manchester Takeaway Newcastle Takeaway Nottingham Takeaway Sheffield Takeaway Southampton Takeaway York Takeaway Indian Takeaway Chinese Takeaway Thai Takeaway Italian Takeaway Cantonese Takeaway Pizza Delivery Sushi Takeaway Kebab Takeaway Fish and Chips Sandwiches Do they know something I don't? [unnecessary links removed by staff]
On-Page Optimization | | JamesFx0 -
Services Page vs Page For Each Service Offered
Read an interesting article about how websites with just a "services" page suffer and they should try to create a meaningful page for each service they offer... Read so many blogs right now that I can't remember where I saw it
Content Development | | JamesFx0 -
Link anchor text in list menus
Obviously Google likes descriptive anchor text. At least the first version on the page. But suppose you had a list of scrap yard depots on a hover site menu, would you go for the person friendly nested list, so Scrap Yard Depots Newcastle Chester Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Or the presumably more Google friendly; Scrap Yard Depots Newcastle Scrap Yard Chester Scrap Yard Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch Scrap Yard
On-Page Optimization | | JamesFx0