Stream

 
You’re creating an e-commerce store, that also has one brick location and is planning to add more. It has a really strong brand name, let’s say it’s “black beans and rice”.

You have a trademark registered on the name, but blackbeansandrice.com is taken and not being used.

Would the better option be to go for blackbeansandrice.us or blkbns.com for initial launch?

If you can acquire the .com later would you switch to that?
1
James Norquay's profile photoPerry Bernard's profile photo
8 comments
 
Take your time to consider your brand and placement plus account for any future direction. Search up a whole bunch of domain name options that are available, so that you don't spend big money developing your identity only to find the matching domain name is taken. Also check the market carefully to ensure that your brand name and domain are not likely to be challenged or confused with someone else's product or offering.
Add a comment...

Will Kennard

Questions  - 
 
How often do you guys use the 'fetch as Google' tool? Say yo've just created a new, large piece of content for a site, do you think it's worth submitting it through the tool to get it indexed faster? 
1
Tony Dimmock's profile photoKen Rohrer's profile photo
8 comments
 
I find that URL's I submit to the index from Fetch are usually crawled within 24 hours. That means they show up in Google searches sooner and that's usually a good thing.
Add a comment...
 
QUESTION: How long to 301 redirect?

My thought is that you should 301 redirect for as long as the page has links pointing at it (and work to get the links manually updated).

But what if you want to stop paying for the previous domain? Thoughts appreciated.
2
Perry Bernard's profile photoJohn Romaine's profile photo
7 comments
 
I'm not sure +Perry Bernard . Verification with Google can be really dicky at times.
Add a comment...

Byron Trzeciak

Questions  - 
 
Does anybody here have any experience using call tracking software and can recommend a solution  or service that works for Australia that won't break the bank? I'd like to do some trials on integration with google analytics to show ROI for both SEO and adwords. Thanks in advance.
1
Tony “Tiggerito” McCreath's profile photoByron Trzeciak's profile photo
10 comments
 
+Tony McCreath Thanks for the follow up Tony. I spoke with Avanser last week and so far they're the only one to call me back. Others have requested a time to schedule in a product demonstration. Jet continues to get strong reviews so I'll follow up with them Tony and compare them to what Avanser has on offer. Appreciate the comments from both.
Add a comment...

John Romaine

Questions  - 
 
Dealing with late or non paying clients. This is proving to be frustrating. How do you guys handle this? I'm thinking about moving towards collecting credit card details for this, as waiting on clients to make payment each month just doesn't appear to be working, and having to send "late payment" type emails is making me uncomfortable.
1
Jenny Munn's profile photoJohn Romaine's profile photo
15 comments
 
Thanks +Jenny Munn  I will be looking at this next week. Still chasing money here which is ridiculous.
Add a comment...

John Romaine

Questions  - 
 
Anyone here tried 100% risk reversal and provided performance based SEO, where there are earnings per lead? That being, say 10% of lead acquired (closed) for the client? I understand this is an honesty based system - and it's impossible to control the sales process at the clients end - but I would certainly be interested in hearing anyone thoughts on this. I wanted to ask this question (and my other one) in an effort to try and come up with bigger earning potentials and pricing strategies that aren't your typical $x per month.
3
Bill Bean's profile photoNicholas Chimonas's profile photo
5 comments
 
There is only one safe way to offer services like this in my opinion, and that is to become a part owner of the company you're offering SEO to. 

The one time I've done this I asked for a 10% equity share of profits each quarter, contracted to provide SEO services as long as I am a part owner, and can opt out of providing SEO services by selling my ownership.
Add a comment...

Jake Mabey

Questions  - 
 
We had a site get hacked a while back. We got the hack cleaned up, but we've run into a weird issue. Our site interprets any URL with a ? as you would expect, an internal query. So any page like domain.com/?=random-string merely shows the home page.

However, when we had hacked pages on our site, they were all /?=hacked-url. So while we've done a disavow, technically all of these previously existing and hacked pages are effectively being redirect to the home page.

I've been trying to do a 410 from the htaccess file, but with no luck at all. I've tried two different forms:
Redirect 410 /?hv=100mg+zoloft+generic
and
RewriteCond %{QUERY_STRING}  ^$
RewriteRule ^\?hv=100mg\+zoloft\+generic$ /? [R=410,NE,NC,L]

Rewrite engine is on, so that's not the problem. Does anyone see anything glaring in the htaccess code? The browser simply shows the home page and still has the questionable path appended.
1
Tony “Tiggerito” McCreath's profile photoJohn Romaine's profile photo
5 comments
 
I'm confused...why would you do a disavow? What's the URL? I need to take a look.
Add a comment...

Byron Trzeciak

Questions  - 
 
Does anyone have a good solution for blocking the spam referral traffic that we're all receiving in Google analytics. I've tried a few solutions which have helped but in some cases I still receive the traffic even though I've attempted to block it in the .htaccess file. At the moment I'm trialling this solution can anyone provide their thoughts or an example of your .htaccess that is working.

## STOP REFERRER SPAM ##
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?4webmasters\.org [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?anticrawler\.org [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?addons\.mozilla\.org [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?bestwebsitesawards\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?best-seo-solution\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?best-seo-offer\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?blackhatworth\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?buttons-for-website\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?buttons-for-your-website\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?buy-cheap-online\.info [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?econom\.co [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?darodar\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?hulfingtonpost\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?Get-Free-Traffic-Now\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?googlsucks\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?free-share-buttons\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?humanorightswatch\.org [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?ilovevitaly\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?7makemoneyonline\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?o-o-6-o-o\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?priceg\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?social-buttons\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?semalt\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?smailik\.org [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?theguardlan\.com [NC,OR]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?simple-share-buttons\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?free-social-buttons\.com [NC]
RewriteCond %{HTTP_REFERER} ^([^.]+.)*?event-tracking\.com [NC]
RewriteRule .* – [F]
## STOP REFERRER SPAM ##
2
2
Jim Banks's profile photoRob Maas's profile photoTony Dimmock's profile photoFrank Gainsford's profile photo
9 comments
 
A hostname include filter seems to be more effective nowadays. Spammers also start up showing under direct visits and search when using the exclude refferal filters !
Add a comment...

Hardial Singh

Questions  - 
 
We are facing some hacking issues with the website nycollege(dot)edu. In Google Search Results it's coming for the homepage that 'This site may be hacked'. Earlier also we have cleaned the website and this message was removed. But now again same message is coming in Google Search Results.

We have also found some unknown links generated for the website after the homepage which we later redirected to the Homepage. when we check Cached version in Google it shows some other site. Is there any tool to check what exactly is issue with the website as Google webmaster tools is not providing any details of hacking. 
1
Will Kennard's profile photoTerry Van Horne's profile photo
4 comments
 
Never ever ever ever ever 301 any page that is the result of a hack.... In fact 410 them mainly because all the links pointing at them are also likely hacked sites! I dare say there are likely more pages you need to spider your site with screaming frog... the "hacked" notice in SERP is likely the result of you not finding all the pages...generally they create 000's
Add a comment...
 
I have a kind of stupid question to ask.
I never come  across this kind of problem ever before.
When I check http://dsignfurniture.com on GWT , 71 URLs indexed
When I check on Google as - "site:dsignfurniture.com" no search results not available comes up.
When I use SEO by SQUIRRLY, "Not Index" error shows up for every single URL page.
I check robot.text file, OK. I check on Screaming Frog, OK. GWT, OK
Can someone tell me why nothing comes up when I search as "site:dsignfurniture.com"?
Or any of you had similar problem? And how did you fix it?
1
Sabastian Yalpur's profile photoWilliam Harvey's profile photo
10 comments
 
No problem, it only takes a few minutes.
Add a comment...

Jaaved Khatree

Questions  - 
 
Canonical tag or 301 redirect?

URL 1:
domain.com/brisbane/hotel-apartments.html 

displays the same content as

URL 2:
domain.com/brisbane/hotel-apartments-brisbane.html

I'm inclined to place a canonical in URL 2 to point to URL 1 to avoid creating extra internal 301 redirects. It's easier to implement too.

Thoughts?
1
Tony “Tiggerito” McCreath's profile photoJaaved Khatree's profile photo
9 comments
 
ah yes, good point Tony. Just found this: https://www.seroundtable.com/noindex-canonical-google-18274.html - makes sense (and I'm smacking my head for not realising this before!)
Add a comment...
 
Hi, have recently from http to https  and it it seems to have screwed up all my social media share counts. Is there anyway to fix this?
So I do manual redirects on each of the site URLS as well as the global on in htaccess?

THanks in advance
2
Kate Toon (Kate Toon Copywriter)'s profile photoPeter Watson's profile photo
31 comments
 
ah ok cool. 
Add a comment...

Terry Simmonds

Questions  - 
 
How does Google treat Autofocus?

Has anyone done any tests on Autofocus as to whether it can have any negative/positive effects on Google?
1
Will Kennard's profile photoTerry Simmonds's profile photo
2 comments
 
+Will Kennard autofocus is supported in all the browsers I test with.
I can't really see it causing a problem, but would like to be sure.
Add a comment...

Jaaved Khatree

Questions  - 
 
When you need to make necessary database changes which then require changes to URL structures for some URLs, which then in turn requires 301 redirects, how many is too many?
1
Perry Bernard's profile photoWilliam Harvey's profile photo
5 comments
 
If you're using htaccess based redirects then apache may become slow depending on the number of redirects.. htaccess will need to be processed for every request if it's not cached.  So test it and check the response times. 
I've seem 1000+ htaccess redirects with no problem, but each server is different.
Apache also state and what many sites do is to place your redirects at httpd.conf level. It' speeds up the response times.
Add a comment...

Simon Fryer

Questions  - 
 
Technical SEO Question: Has anyone noticed duplicate pages which are managed by canonical link elements appearing in the SERPs over the past month? 

I work on a number of e-commerce sites, and noticed dynamic duplicates (such as filtered pages, ones which include path parameters, even http/https variants - generally any ugly pages that should be managed with canonicals) appearing in site:example.com searches. At first I thought it was limited to one site, but I've since noticed in on at least 6. 

It almost appears that either a) canonicals aren't working properly as of about a month ago, or b) pages managed by canonicals are showing in the serps but aren't actually impacting performance. 

There have a been a number of updates recently which we suspect might have impacted pages managed by canonicals. I'm keen to see if other people have noticed anything before we go all meta-directivey and start noindexing the lot. 

Have you seen anything similar? 

Thanks,

Simon
1
Rick Bucich's profile photoSimon Fryer's profile photo
3 comments
 
Thanks +William Harvey and +Rick Bucich for your input. Much appreciated. Whilst site: searches typically aren't reliable, I've always found it's a great way to run a quick spot check on unmanaged duplicates and have found quite a few thoroughly hidden problems in doing so. I've have never seen canonicalised URLs indexed to this extent though; hence my concern. Typically I've seen now-managed duplicates gradually removed from site: search results after a fix. 

Your point would make sense Rick, as a few of the sites are either relatively new, or have recently had robots.txt directives adjusted. 

Any other comments are welcome :)

Cheers
Add a comment...

John Romaine

Questions  - 
 
Anyone here ever had success with offering 100% paid in advance 6 or 12 monthly campaigns? That is, say $10,000 packages up front? If so, would you be willing to share/explain your sales strategy?
1
Perry Bernard's profile photoJohn Romaine's profile photo
5 comments
 
Yes I've done big sites full payment in advance too +Perry Bernard That seems relatively straight forward (in most cases). I'm thinking this may be possible with the right incentives (percantage discounts) and of course a solid agreement.
Add a comment...
 
Hi, I've got question regarding images shown in Google Web search results. Why for example the results for "ferrari" on google.de show no images and on google.pl do show images for the same keyword - see pictures attached.
1
Perry Bernard's profile photoPatryk Ciechanowski's profile photo
4 comments
 
Zmień sobie Katarzyno język i popatrz. Na wynikach z google.pl w zależności od języka potrafią być obrazki* lub ich może nie być. Może być knowledge graph*, lub nie być.
*-być ze wskazaniem na j. angielski gdzie częściej się niektóre funkcjonalności pojawiają.
--
Different country = different results. If you use google.pl in polish and english, search results can vary very widely.
 ·  Translate
Add a comment...

Byron Trzeciak

Questions  - 
 
One of my client sites is receiving a large amount of "direct" traffic from the united states which seems unrealistic in my opinion for a fairly new site operating within Australia. The only thing that I can find that gives any indication on where it's from is the network is set as "Google Inc". Is anybody seeing this?
1
Ivan Smolković's profile photoRob Maas's profile photo
3 comments
 
Yes the include hostname filter will help, the exclude referral wont :(
Sure hope Google/analytics  is also working on a solution
Add a comment...
 
Migration question: If you were migrating / rearchitecting a large collection of sites - we're talking 27k pages total - what would your core SEO considerations be over and above 301 redirecting retired and moved pages.
1
Kate Toon (Kate Toon Copywriter)'s profile photoNicholas Chimonas's profile photo
7 comments
 
Besides proper 301 mapping... Make sure you download the latest WMT top queries and top pages reports. Pay especially close attention to the pages that receive the most click through traffic and make sure they all migrate appropriately, monitor change up or down, and implement fixes as necessary.
Add a comment...

Will Kennard

Questions  - 
 
I have a client who have many location based landing pages - for example they have one page .com/example-page-london, another .com/example-page-glasgow etc etc. Problem is, all these pages have exactly the same content, save for the page title and any references to the location in the text.

My instinct is to noindex them, as they are technically dupe content. But, they don't seem to be harming rankings, as the client has many page 1 results and good conversions. But I don't want them to be penalised in the future. What would you guys do?
1
1
Will Kennard's profile photoJordan Manchev's profile photoKarishma Pradhan's profile photo
11 comments
 
If you are using these pages just to funnel the visitor to your actual service/product page, its doorway. Add some unique content that is connected with the location somehow and place the service/product there should keep you safe, but google is google after all ;)
Add a comment...