Reputation
5,242
Next privilege 10,000 Rep.
Access moderator tools
Badges
1 8 21
Impact
~118k people reached

Jun
2
comment Are images with non-standard extensions (such as “.ashx”, instead of “.png” or “.jpg”) bad for SEO?
Yeah, non-standard image extensions are fine.
May
29
comment Google Webmaster Tools keeps reporting not finding pages from the old website
FWIW this is not a problem from Google's POV, it's just that the algorithms are curious to see if they missed anything.
May
22
comment Google SEO - Migrating website from a sub-directory of another website to its own domain name
Any site move will result in some fluctuations for some time, as the signals propagate, but you shouldn't lose rankings for a year (for most sites it's somewhere between days and a month or so, depending on the size).
May
14
answered Google non-SSL search not passing the “q” parameter with keyword
May
14
answered Google Webmaster Tools site removal
May
14
comment Why do hackers inject hidden links?
Often these links go to other hacked content: content that hackers place on legitimate websites, which shows commercial content like advertisements for adult or pharmaceutical sites, sometimes phishing, and sometimes automatically redirecting users. Here's a rough run-down: blog.unmaskparasites.com/2012/05/18/…
May
14
awarded  Caucus
May
14
awarded  Constituent
May
7
comment Google AdWords have flagged my site as containing malware
FWIW it looks like this is resolved in the meantime.
May
7
comment Griefing to steal pagerank off my website?
Hi, I work with the Google Webmaster Tools team. This was an issue on our side that only affected the Structured Data Testing tool & the appropriate dashboard in Webmaster Tools. It didn't affect web-search, and this likely wasn't really something that was found on your site. Sorry for the confusion!
Apr
30
comment Which meta “robots” tag gets preference?
The robots meta tags is documented in detail in developers.google.com/webmasters/control-crawl-index/docs/… -- the simple way to remember it is that the "positive" ones (all, index, follow) have no effect at all.
Apr
25
comment What is the maximum size of an HTML file that Google will crawl through?
Another way to test it is to go to Project Gutenberg, and search explicitly for something on the bottom of a text, eg google.com/… -- also, if your page is going to be bigger than a novel, that seems like it might end up being a bit confusing to users who end up there when searching for something on the bottom of the page...
Apr
24
comment Solving “Googlebot encountered extremely large numbers of links on your site.”
That's correct, robots.txt & noindex will not prevent this message, but they may each be reasonable means to use in some cases - for example, if the URL is just fetched asynchronously for click-tracking with JavaScript. (using noindex + robots.txt won't work, since we don't see the noindex in those cases.)
Apr
23
answered Solving “Googlebot encountered extremely large numbers of links on your site.”
Apr
23
comment Google Webmaster Tools Index Status 0 for one year
Yeah, this is the Index Status report for the www-version, but the Sitemap file is submitting non-www URLs (which can be valid in some cases). Pick a canonical and be consistent :-)
Apr
23
comment How do I transition to SSL without affecting PageRank?
Yeah, I think this is a pretty sound approach. FWIW there was a similar discussion on Google+ a while back where we looked into some of the specifics: plus.google.com/106413090159067280619/posts/ZZVAS65mmw4 . Separating rel=canonical & redirects time-wise probably isn't necessary, but it can make it easier to catch problems earlier. One thing you didn't mention is HSTS, which might be worth considering at some point too.
Apr
2
comment Robots.txt vs Sitemap — Who wins in a Conflict
When Google can properly process a robots.txt file, a URL mentioned in a Sitemap file will never trump a valid disallow directive in the robots.txt file. A URL that is disallowed from crawling should not be crawled by Googlebot.
Mar
26
comment Does a plain vanilla site benefit from a “canonical” directive?
FWIW Duplicate content by itself isn't a problem (assuming the site is still normally crawlable) - search engines will just pick one URL and use that. If you have preferred URL that should be used, then using rel=canonical is a great way to let them know.
Mar
19
comment Robots.txt on one line
Why would you want to do that? Maybe there's a different way to achieve the same thing...
Mar
19
comment Google indexing titles of login only pages
Usually these kinds of pages don't show up in the normal search results (but you might find them in site:-queries), so in most cases, I'd just leave them robotted out. Using the noindex (as mentioned above, you need to allow crawling then) is also fine.