G+ and Authorship & Publisher
-
Hi
Ive got one client for whom i have connected their G+ personal page to their site via the email process of setting up authorship.
I also set up their company page on G+ and want to link it to the site too but its saying site is already verified/linked.
I know i havn't added any rel=pub code to the site so dont know how this can be unless of course its using the already established author details (since admin for the co page) to make the company page connection.
Is it the case that you now don't need to add the rel=pub code to establish publisher/verify link with your website ? Similarly to no longer needing to add rel=auth to site to establish authorship (since that can now be established via email) ?
Any clarity here appreciated ?
Cheers
Dan
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Only fraction of the AMP pages are indexed
Back in June, we had seen a sharp drop in traffic on our website. We initially assumed that it was due to the Core Update that was rolled out in early June. We had switched from http to https in May, but thought that should have helped rather than cause a problem. Until early June the traffic was trending upwards. While investigating the issue, I noticed that only a fraction (25%) of the AMP pages have been indexed. The pages don't seem to be getting indexed even though they are valid. Accordingly to Google Analytics too, the percentage of AMP traffic has dropped from 67-70% to 40-45%. I wonder if it is due to the indexing issue. In terms of implementation it seems fine. We are pointing canonical to the AMP page from the desktop version and to the desktop version from the AMP page. Any tips on how to fix the AMP indexing issue. Should I be concerned that only a fraction of the AMP pages are indexed. I really hope you can help in resolving this issue.
Technical SEO | | Gautam1 -
What to do with old website still online & duplicate content
I launched a new wordpress site at www.cheaptubes.com in Sept. I haven't taken the old one down yet, it is still at http://65.61.43.25/ The reason I left it up is I wanted to make sure everything was properly redirected 1st. Some pages and images are still ranking but most point to the new site. When I search for carbon nanotubes pricelist and look in images I see some of our images on the old site are still ranking there https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://65.61.43.25/images/single-walled-nanotubes.1.gif&imgrefurl=http://65.61.43.25/ohfunctionalizedcnts.htm&h=359&w=451&tbnid=HKlL84A_9X0jGM:&docid=N2wdCg7rSQBsjM&ei=-A2qVqThL4WxeKCyjdAM&tbm=isch&ved=0ahUKEwikvcWdxczKAhWFGB4KHSBZA8oQMwhJKCIwIg I guess I can put WP on the old server and do some 301s from there but I'm not sure if that is best or if I should just kill it off entirely? My rankings took a hit on Nov 15th and business has been bad ever since so I'm trying to figure this out quickly. Moz.com and onpage.org both say my site has duplicate content on several pages. I've looked at the content and it isn't duplicate. How can I figure this out? Google likely see's it the same way. These aren't duplicate pages, they are different products. I even searched my product pages to make sure I didn't have 2 of each in there and I don't. With Moz its mostly product tags it sees as duplicate but the products are completely different
Technical SEO | | cheaptubes0 -
Blog Comments & nofollow to follow backlink ratio
Hello I have a website with 2000 nofollow links backlinks and about 20 follow links. It is currently ranking 11<sup>th</sup> on Google. The websites that are outranking it have lower ranking stats and in some cases only 2 follow links. Most of the nofollow links are blog comments, could this be what is dragging down my stats. The only factor my website is worst on is the number of server requests per load, which is 194 as it is a theme. Blog comments can be very difficult to remove; I created these several years ago before I knew too much about SEO. Most of them are on other websites in same niche. Would I be best to ask website owners to delete my comments or restart on a new domain. Thanks Rob
Technical SEO | | tomfifteen0 -
Best & easiest way to 301 redirect on IIS
Hi all, What is the best and easiest way to 301 redirect URLs on IIS server? I got access to the FTP and WordPress back office, but no access to the server admin. Is there an easy way to create 301 redirect without having to always annoy the tech in charge of the server? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | 2MSens0 -
Temporary Redirects - Trackback & Feed
Under my MOZ account I'm getting a bunch of temporary redirect warnings. Most of them are blog post with a /feed or a /trackback . I know the trackback URL's are coming from blogs where people have commented because it brings up a Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed section. I'm not sure how to make this /trackback work. The only line of code in my editor that says trackback is h3#postinfo,
Technical SEO | | jampaper
h3#comments,
h3#respond,
h3#trackbacks,
#respond h3 {
margin: 0;
}0 -
Canonical & rel=prev / next changes to website a good idea or not?
Hi all, I decided yesterday to make a load of changes to my website, and today i woke thinking, should i have done that! So below is an example of what i have done (i will try to explain clearly anyway), can you let me know if you think what i have done would harm or help my website in search results etc... ok, so lets take just one category - Cameras And it has the sub categories - box dome bullet it also has other sub categories (which are actually features, but the only way i can show them on my site is by having them as a sub-category with its own static page, and adding the products to these as secondary categories) vandal proof high resolution night vision previously i have it set up so that every single category / sub category / feature had its own static page, with a canonical tag to itself (i.e cameras.html canonical was to cameras.html, vandalproof.html canonical was to vandalproof.html). Any of the categories / sub cats / features that had more than one page were simply not in search results due to the canonical pointing to "Page 1"... What i have now done: Last night i decided to change all this, now for all categories / sub cats / features i have add rel=prev / next where applicable, and removed the canonical from second / third / fourth pages etc, but left the canonical on "page 1". I also removed any keywords from page 2,3,4 etc and changed descriptions to just page "X" + category name. So for example, page one looks like: and page two looks like: I also went a little further (maybe too far) and decided that the features pages would canonicalize back to cameras so for those i now have: Page 1: Page 2: Any advice is welcome on the above, in regards to which way may be better and why, and obviously if anything jumps out as a mistake... Please advise James
Technical SEO | | isntworkdull0 -
Websites being hacked & duplicated, what should we do?
Hi, please help! Our website was hacked and being totally duplicated. They even injected codes to intercept our orders. Although the codes issue had been solved, still there're two mirror sites out there. When search for some of our key words, they even have good ranks. What exactly can we do to let Google ban those two sites. Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | Squall3150 -
Microsite & Ducplicate Content Concern
I have a client that wants to put up a micro-site. It's not really even a niche micro-site, it's his whole site less a category and a few other pages. He is a plastic surgeon that offers cosmetic surgery services for the Face, Breast, and Body at his private practice in City A. He has partnered with another surgeon in City B who's surgical services are limited to only the Face. City B is nearby, but not so close that they consider themselves competitors for Facial surgery. The doctors agreement is that my client will perform only Breast and Body surgery at the City B location. He can market himself in City B (which he currently is not doing on his main site) but only for Breast and Body procedures and is not to compete for Facial surgery. Therefore, he needs this second site to not include content about Facial surgery. My concern is duplicate content. His request plan: the micro-site will be on different domain and C-block, the content, location keywords and meta data will be completely re-written and target City B. However, he wants to use the same theme of his main site - same source code, html/css, same top level navigation, same sub-navigation less the Face section, same images/graphics, same forms, etc. Is it okay to have the same exact site build on a different domain with rewritten copy (less a few pages) to target the same base keywords with only a different location? The site is intended for a different user group in City B, but I'm concerned the search engines won't like this and trigger the filters. I've read a bunch of duplicate content articles including this post panda by Dr. Pete. Great post, but doesn't really answer this particular issue of duplicating code for a related site. Can anyone make a case for or against this? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | cmosnod0