Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I am using Microsoft's IIS SEO analyzer, and it keeps showing me a warning that I have a canonical link error because I'm storing the same file in different folders on the server. Doing this makes my file structure much more organized that linking different folders together. Should I just ignore this or is this a big deal for SEO?
Where files are located on your server has nothing to do with SEO. There is no way for search engines to know where files are actually located and a page's URL dos not necessarily indicate its location on the server. What does matter is whether two URLs pull up the same page. That would be duplicate content and a problem for your SEO efforts.
Related
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
I was told to delete ".html" from web application links in order to be better seen by Google bot. So example.com/path/to/resource.html should be example.com/path/to/resource. I didn't find any document saying that format of the resource, placed in urls, has any influence as such. No matter if it's php, htm, html or any other aspx.
So, how is it? Does omitting the .html, or any other format, make any difference to Google bot?
No not at all. You don't get more or lose ranking because of that. It is not worth the effort.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I made a mistake when I helped a friend to set up her website. I forgot to upload robots.txt before I sent some text code onto the server to test the server. When she google her url in google, she can see the source code as a first result.
I now uploaded a robots.txt onto the server, but the old source code is still there although I have changed the code totally.
Can I fix this problem now?
Thanks
The next time Google (or any other search engine) crawls your website, it'll see the robots.txt file and reindex (or remove) the site accordingly. If you absolutely must remove the site now, go to http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=164734.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Can someone help me with this problem.
currently google reports that this two link is duplicate.
http://www.ozkidsactivities.com/n/jules-pony-rides-&-mobile-animal-farm/ozkids-36?activityId=1218
http://www.ozkidsactivities.com/n/jules-pony-rides-and-mobile-animal-farm/ozkids-36?activityId=1218
but we already include the canonical tag:
<link rel="canonical" href="/n/jules-pony-rides-and-mobile-animal-farm/ozkids-36?activityId=1218" />
is there a problem with the relative path?
Thanks in advance!
red,
Canonical URL tags can reference the relative path (see Google's guidelines here - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.co.uk/2009/02/specify-your-canonical.html), however, I'd suggest that it's better and safer to use the absolute URL (i.e., including the protocol and fully-formed hostname) - given that many websites tend to be accessible by numerous hostnames (alternative domains, test/development environments with exposed URLs, etc.) it's best to reference the correct absolute URL in order to avoid any adverse incorrect canonisation if/when search engines discover these URLs.
It looks like you've already fixed your solution, though, as well as solving the problem another way by redirecting the ampersand to the 'and'. Good work!
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
What do you think about copying our content (text content especially) from our main site (eg: mysite.com) to mobile site (eg: m.mysite.com OR mysite.com/m). What is the SEO side effects of doing this? Does SEO experts recommends this or not?
If you have external articles or reference, hope you guys can share here also. :)
Thank you.
This is Google's official stance on mobile SEO
Google has a separate spider for mobile content. If you copy mainsite to m.yoursite.com, it works best and your domain authority will just get transfered. No dupe content penalty.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I wondered how big websites are handling thousands of visitors daily and how they handle with really big traffic.
I made research and discover that many of them are using Amazon Simple Storage Service, so they must have all pages ganerated as static html as it possible to storage only static files on the S3. Then also update of the website is not difficult (only replacing static files). Is it possible or I am wrong? Any other similar solutions?
Yahoo as a fantastic article about how to speed up websites and optimizing traffic.