Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Dear MOZ'ers,
i hope you can help me with the following issue:

As a fashion e-commerce site we have a category structure by gender: , brand, product-category and colour. We sell over 250 brands in 50 categories. Off course, we don't sell products in every category for all brands but, in general, we sell 3 or 4 product categories for a brand. Next to this, we also have unique content for brand-product-gender (in fact this is the most common in our site-structure, since fashion is really a gender-based product.) We are planning to leave the site category as it is. we rank well for specific products like 'blue mens sneakers'

My question is about copy, or more specific: to keep content-refreshment manageble.

At the moment we have a small text at the top of the page and long form content on the bottom (very low below the fold, near the footer, only shown when the product-lister is)

Because of seasonality in fashion, category text are regularly updated. As you can imagine, this is quit some work and pretty expensive.

So now my question is: on which page level should you advice to have long form content, or distinctive content at all?
On the one hand I'm really sceptical about the value of the text at the bottom, on the other hand I am afraid that, should I decide to remove content from lower hierarchy pages, I might give the wrong signal to search engines: making my site from content rich content modest.

Hi community, i hope someone can help me with this,

We are migrating our e-commerce site next februari. I'm preparing the content migration. For a large part exact copies of our product listing and product detail pages will be migrated. 
However, we also have a lot of old blog content, which is, because of seasonality and trendiness, outdated and doesn't drive traffic anymore. It actually is just worthless content. (Not only as a traffic driver, this also counts for extremely low to none internal driven traffic (both internal search and internal navigation).

We have about 4.000+ blogs of which about 100 drive the most traffic (mostly incited by e-mail and social campaigns and internal navigation promoted on important category landing pages during some period.

Is it a bad signal to search engines to delete these old content pages? I.a.: going from a content-rich to a content-poor site?
Off course I will migrate the top 100 traffic earning content and provide proper redirects to them

We have a website for the Belgium market, serving content and products on be/nl (Dutch/Flemmish Belgium) and .be/fr (French Belgium).

However, as a Dutch-based company you can see our primary focus and objective is to serve content to Dutch Belgium rather than French Belgium.

I wonder if, and so, what are the downsides are of only investing in half of the site?
Does it hurt my general .be Google rankings if we put a lot of effort in .be/nl but far less in .be/fr ?

(we used to have a ccTLD .fr as well, but pulled the plug because it wasn't profitable.
our belgium website is profitable for Dutch speaking part of Belgium but now we would like to expand, and enhance rankings. We're investing heavily in (local) brand awareness and partnerships, and content marketing for the Dutch part.

Google's primary objective is to give users the best experience, off course they do so by crawling the entire web for the most relevant results based on their search queries.

Google's Search Console is a free service that provides you with links Google the came across / found in the before mentioned proces.

With this in mind, be aware that Google does not crawl the web to give you as a webmaster the most recent en relevant backlink reports.

many links in Google's Search Console can therefore be old, non-existing links (even in most recent link reports)
Another shortcoming of Search Console in my opinion, is that is show where links are/were FROM, but not where they link TO.

I personally think paid services such as MOZ, Majestic en Ahrefs do better jobs at this, because their primary objective is to give webmasters / SEM's the best experience, not searchers.