Search Results

Search found 20852 results on 835 pages for 'local seo'.

Page 89/835 | < Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >

  • Authorship tag or Customer reviews to enhance click-through rate

    - by Prashant Singh
    I was first using authorship tag on all the pages of my website. That gave me a pretty decent improvement in the click through rate. However, I have recently added ratings on my website, i.e. all my pages are being rated by the readers and the same has been made available to Google via rich snippets. The result being the image of the author from the google search results has been removed. It shows ratings given by the customers and just writes the name of the author. What will be its impact on the click-through rate ? Is it OK to have the ratings or should I switch back to only authorship tag as I was using in the past ? Please comment if I am unclear in asking my problem. Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Ajax site not being crawled - have escaped fragment, what's wrong? [closed]

    - by Harry
    My site is anonkun.com. You can see that it's "ajax" and doesn't load much HTML. Here are some example pages: http://anonkun.com http://anonkun.com/?_escaped_fragment_= http://anonkun.com/stories/Dev-kun---FAQ/6ef881f8-cf48-4f87-a688-c585f23809c5 http://anonkun.com/stories/Dev-kun---FAQ/6ef881f8-cf48-4f87-a688-c585f23809c5?_escaped_fragment_= As you can see the original page has the meta fragment tag and the escaped fragment versions loads static html. Why am I not getting crawled? http://cl.ly/image/2n30212q0K2W Webmaster tools show that pages are being seen as duplicate and fetch as google show me the ajax version of the source not the static escaped fragment version. What's wrong and how do I make this work? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Canonical url for a home page and trailing slashes

    - by serg
    My home page could be potentially linked as: http://example.com http://example.com/ http://example.com/?ref=1 http://example.com/index.html http://example.com/index.html?ref=2 (the same page is served for all those urls) I am thinking about defining a canonical url to make sure google doesn't consider those urls to be different pages: <link rel="canonical" href="/" /> (relative) <link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com/" /> (trailing slash) <link rel="canonical" href="http://example.com" /> (no trailing slash) Which one should be used? I would just slap / but messing with canonical seems like a scary business so I wanted double check first. Is it a good idea at all for defining a canonical url for a home page?

    Read the article

  • How do I get google to see keywords on a one page web application site?

    - by David
    I'm going to have to link to the web site to explain this, http://www.diagram.ly, it's a free service, so I hope this doesn't break advertising rules. Basically, it's a one page web application, I don't want to create a web site for it. Some background text loads and if JavaScript is enabled, the web application itself then loads. The problem is that Google only seems to be picking up the title of the page and the text on the footer, so the site only appear on Google search for very limited text (based on the title and meta description mostly). I was hoping that search engines would pick up on the background text and index that. The text is factual, not keyword stuffed. Yahoo seems to pick up the text, just not Google. Does anyone have any experience of how Google would view such a site and where I could put the text for a better result? Edit I should mention that Google Webmaster Tools lists the site keywords as "Component, diagramly, feed, mxgraph, share and twitter". Basically the footer and little else.

    Read the article

  • 301 redirect blogspot to an existing domain?

    - by JK01
    Is it possible to redirect a blogspot site to an existing URL? Note that I don't want to buy a new domain and tell blogspot to use that, eg as per this question: How to have a blogspot blog in my domain?. Instead I am trying to 301 redirect to an existing website in order to combine the website and the blog in one place. So it needs to be: 301 example.blogspot.com/post to example.com/blog/post

    Read the article

  • Curious about a cached old domain

    - by jogesh_p
    I am a bit curious about my new domain. I had a domain before, let's say http://example.com/. Before expiration of that domain, I bought a new one with the name http://another-domain.com/. I uploaded all of my content on the second domain, but now when I search in Google about some query related to my http://another-domain.com/ site then I also find my old domain in the results. Will this give a duplicate content error for my new domain or any other kind of penalty from Google?

    Read the article

  • Duplicating someone's content legitimately & writing HTML to support that

    - by Codecraft
    I want to add content from other blogs to my own (with the authors permission) to help build additional relevant content and support articles I've found useful that others have written. I'm looking into how to do this responsibly - ie, by giving the original content author a boost and not competing against them for search traffic which should go to their site. In order to keep my duplicate content out of search, and to hint to the search engines where the original content is to be found i've implemented: <head> <meta name='robots' content='noindex, follow'> <link rel='canonical' href='http://www.originalblog.com/original-post.html' /> </head> Additionally, to boost the original article and to let readers know where it came from i'll be adding something like this: <div> Article originally written by <a href='http://www.authorswebsite.com'>Authors Name</a> and reproduced with permission.<br/> <a href='http://www.originalblog.com/original-post.html' target='new'> Read the original article here. </a> </div> All that remains is a way to 'officially' credit the original author in the HTML for the search spiders to see. Can anyone tell me a way to do this possibly using rel="author" (as far as I can see thats only good for my own original content), or perhaps it doesn't matter given that the reproduced pages will be kept out of search engines? Also, have I overlooked anything in the approach?

    Read the article

  • How to return the relevant country domain in rich snippets pulled in from from Google Places?

    - by Baumr
    Background A site has multiple ccTLDs: example.com for people in the US, example.co.uk for UK users, example.de for Germans, etc. Googling for certain city keywords will return rich snippets with a list of Google Places: Problem When searching on Google Germany, the domain for US users (example.com) appears instead of the corresponding ccTLD (example.de) aimed at German users. This is not good user experience, as users would most likely like to book on a site localized for them (e.g. language and currency). Question What solutions are there? Is it possible to return different ccTLDs in rich snippets for Google searches in Germany/UK? If so, how? Ideas Stabs in the dark: Would implementing the hreflang annotation resolve this? (GWMT geotargeting is already set.) What about entering multiple corresponding URLs in the structured data markup? (As far as I know, Google Places accepts only a single website URL.)

    Read the article

  • Contents farms, scrapers sites, aggregators real world examples? [closed]

    - by Marco Demaio
    Contents farm, scrappers, aggregators real world examples? Could you plz clarify me: efreedom.com is a scraper site, not a content farm? Because it simply copies and pastes contents from stackoverflow. ehow.com and squidoo.com are contents farm? They don't copy and paste contents they just generate fresh new user generated content, but too much and too quickly. expert-exchange.com is NOT a content farm or a scraper site, right?! It's simply that many people (an me too) hates it (they also wrote to Matt Cutts) because it shows up hight in Google providing a useless question with no answer. There are also many sites that act as 'contents aggregators in the form of specialized directories' (let's call them CASD), I don't know how to else define them. Do they have a specific definition? Anyway are these type of CASD contents farms or scrapers sites or what else? Basically these CASD search for all sites of the same type i.e. “restaurants websites”, they copy and paste the contents found in “Restaurant A” and create in their aggregator site a new page called “Restaurant A”, then they do the same for all websites of the same type, thus creating a sort of directory of restaurants. Later on these CASD also sends an email to the owner of “Restaurant A” (usually the email is on the website) with a user and password to let him modify/update its own page on the CASD site. Later on these CASD might ask for money to the owner of “Restaurant A” because they bring him traffic, otherwise they remove its page on the aggregator. Someone could call these simply directories, but I think a directory is different because is something you need to add your site into by filling a form and not something that steals contents from your existing site without a specific acceptance from the site's owner. I also really wonder how Google will sort out all these mess sites packed of contents that show up more and more and everywhere in search results.

    Read the article

  • Does sitewide html refactoring affect Google traffic?

    - by Name
    Good morning, I have recently made a big structural change on my site and the very next day the number of Google impressions went from 75.000 to 3.000, with a proportional drop of traffic from searches. No URLs were changed, neither were the page titles or descriptions. Everything is exactly the same, but different looking, except that it does barely appear on Google anymore. Anybody has a clue to why?

    Read the article

  • Can someone help with indexing issues

    - by user631249
    Hi all I am on the first page of google for keywords concerned with MOVING, however i cant seem to break the carpet cleaning rankings. I have made changes and additions which havent been indexed yet. Should i wait for the run or please please can someone give me pointers on the carpet cleaning indexing. Also i have 53pages submitted and only 38 indexed, where could the problem be. Is there software to check indexing hiccups . Thanks.

    Read the article

  • HTML Lang ISO Code

    - by jsmoove88
    I have a multi-language site for English and Chinese (Hong Kong). My previous setting for Chinese Hong Kong (zh-hk) had: <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" dir="ltr" lang="zh-hk" xml:lang="zh-hk"> Shortly, I began to notice browser with other Chinese language sub-codes like zh-tw and zh-cn were seeing my English site in search engines instead of Chinese Hong Kong (zh-hk), which makes sense. I want to change my html lang to: <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" dir="ltr" lang="zh" xml:lang="zh"> Would this cover all Chinese language settings? Also, would Google prefer to show pages that match language subcodes of the browser/country (zh-hk for Hong Kong, zh-cn for Taiwan) than a general language code (zh)?

    Read the article

  • backlink anchor text / keyword stratergy post penguin

    - by sam
    Ive heard allot recently about over optimisation regarding backlink anchor text ofsite. What ive heard from seomoz was sites most effected by the penguin update had over 60% of their backlinks anchor text the same, so google saw this is unnatural and penalized them. Which kind of makes sense as its not normal to have such high density on one word / phrase. If i where building links for a gastro pub in london. (this is purely hypothetical). The sort of keywords i would go after are "gastro pub in london" and "london gastro pub" If i where to mix up the anchor text by having: gastro pub gastro pub in london london gastro pub would this be seen as ok ? or would these all be seen as broad match keywords and counted as one phrase, making me fall foul of the penguin update ?

    Read the article

  • Traffic fall after a server problem

    - by Sébastien
    I have a website from which I analyse the traffic with Google analytics. Day after day the traffic (mainly from Google SE) incresed until I get a problem with my server. For one day the server has been offline and after that I have no longer had as much users as I had before. Now it's like the site is no more referenced on Google index (but when I type "site:mysite.com", I still have all the results). Do you know if this is a normal behaviour and if the traffic will come back as before (the server has had problems two days ago) ?

    Read the article

  • 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

  • YAHOO and BING support for Index, Image and Mobile sitemaps

    - by kishore
    I know Google webmaster supports submitting Image, mobile, video and other types of sitemaps. YAHOO also mentions about mobile site map here. But does it support Image and video sitemaps. I could not find if BING supports any of these types other than XML sitemaps. Can someone please point me to any documentation on submitting Index, Image and Mobile sitemaps. Also does YAHOO and Bing support index sitemap files?

    Read the article

  • How to utilise a newly acquired keyword domain to contribute to an already existing healthy website?

    - by vDog
    My client's website has just reached spot 1 for the most valuable keyword. We acquired the domain that was at #1 spot. It's a keyword domain (targetkeyword.tld). Just wondering what would be the best way to make use of it. A permanent redirect or a single page that hyperlinks to the brand website? Should I be concerned about anything negative associated to this keyword domain (poor backlinks and the fact that this website was down for about one month)?

    Read the article

  • Preventing indexing duplicate content by search engines

    - by umesh awasthi
    I am in process of migrating my old domain (www.oldurl.com) to new domain (www.newurl.com). Almost all the content,URL structure as well database is same except for few URL's and only difference will be in the domain name. I have made entries in the Apache's .htaccess file to set 301 redirect and currently have blocked all search engines from crawling my new domain by setting in robot.txt file. I am not sure how i will handle the duplicate content issue as when i will make the new domain go live. Should i block search engines to index/crawl my old domain? i am new to this field and not sure if this is actually any duplicate content issue or not.

    Read the article

  • How does bing-bot( is that the right spider-name? ) and googlebot interpret 301 redirect?

    - by jbcurtin
    I've been looking for documentation on how the Microsoft and Google bots interpret 301 redirects. It seems that google-bot stores documents on a url based index system. But I haven't been able to figure out how bing works. Should I assume that they are still working towards coping everyone else and assume they use an algorithm close to google? Is it best to just forward a page to a new location via Javascript? I think this might be a blackhat trick, but how would I tell the bots that it's not? Is 301 redirect my best option and I just have to bit the bullet because said pages are no longer in existence? What other options do I have that I might not be aware of?

    Read the article

  • Author Bio on all pages - Is it duplicate content?

    - by Rana Prathap
    In a website with user generated content, I provide a author bio under every article on the site. The author bio will be the same under every article the same author wrote. For some authors, the author bio is no longer then a couple of sentences, but for some descriptive writers, it is a good 100 words. These 100 words get repeated in almost 15 pages, some of them without substantial original content(such as haikus). Will this lead to duplicate content?

    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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

  • 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

< Previous Page | 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96  | Next Page >