Totaly free txt sex chat ancient footprints of acahualinca radiocarbon dating
But, man, when that happened, ugly, super, super ugly. He graphed his Google search traffic and showed, from his Google Analytics, a nice snapshot of when they made the move, what happened to their search traffic, how long it took to recover. I think maybe they already have moved it back over.
But this was great in that this piece went to the front of Hacker News.
What we've seen is that, in both of these cases, the ranking signals seem to be passed very similarly, if not perfectly similarly, very similarly. But the rel=canonical can give you an option whereby you say, "Hey, I want to maintain the branding or some unique aspect of something that happens around othersite.com, and so I wish that I could have visitors be able to still go to that page, but have search engines know, hey this is actually just a copied version of this one, and if you're going to rank one of these two, I'd prefer you to rank this one." That's a great use for the cross-domain rel=canonical.
But this is much more a user experience and a branding experience issue than it is a technical SEO one, because both of these work pretty darn well.
Basic story is with the 301, other site.com/a can redirect to your site.com/a, and both visitors and engines, anyone requesting the old page, get the new page.
The only difference with the rel=canonical is that when a visitor requests the old page, they're still going to get it. Search engines, however, are going to get the new version of the page, or they're essentially going to consider these to be one and the same.
So what I'm going to do is I'm just going to add a site-wide link or many links from these pages all back over to my main site." What you're hoping is that this will amplify your ranking signals and amplify your opportunity. In fact, what's happening is you're creating a barrier for the full link equity for brand, user and usage data signals, and any potential social signals.One of the questions that I'm going to start with is around subdomains and subfolders, because this just comes up again and again and again.I think one of the reasons it's emerged in the last few years is, unfortunately, some statements by Googlers themselves -- a statement a few years ago from Matt Cutts, and one, I think last year or two years ago, from John Mueller basically saying, "Hey, Google has gotten much better at identifying and associating content that's on a subdomain with the main domain, and you don't need to worry about placing content on two separate subdomains anymore." I am sure that Google has actually made strides in this area, but this question still has the same answer that it did years ago. You're asking, "Should I put my content on a subdomain, or should I put it in a subfolder?That's how you're going to maximize your potential SEO benefit.This is one of those technical SEO things that just hasn't changed for many years now.