Site review requested

[Danville]

Slowly adding content to my site and am trying to build it with a proper foundation. I would love some feedback on whether I am doing anything glaringly "wrong" (apart from not enough content yet).
https://www.ultragambler.com/

Thanks in advance
JT

[affy]

Only Betsson products? First and most important thing is to spread your risk!

[casinoportal]

There is nothing really standing out, so far so good imo. The template/design is nice and clean, the reviews are detailed and a good length, maybe insert another image into them around half way.

[Danville]

Only Betsson products? First and most important thing is to spread your risk!

100%. Thanks. Am in the process of adding more.

[ddm]

add css3 hover animations , make the pages feel a bit more 'alive'

[Cash Bonus]

Your site can do with some casino reviews and I would also consider adding more text to balance out your images instead of mainly just images dominating your pages. Also, your drop down menu could do with a touch up as it appears bare. Your site’s okay but still needs a lot of improvement imo

[metropot]

Page is mobile friendly
Design is really nice, and good work done !
Good luck

[zalozite]

Hi, maybe need more content and more bookmaker reviews. Site looks good, but not much to read.

[drifter8]

Site is good.

Now you have a lot of time to invest in content, design and reading all the neccessary posts in this amazing forum )

GL

[GamblingFreedom]

I like the design but you should add more content to it.

[wonderpunter]

Content is king.. without it you can join the thousands of other non ranking cookie cutter sites..

[detor]

Hi Danville, the site is looking good, I like the layout, pretty modern. You will need more content to populate the pages, maybe some short game reviews in the "games" section there too...plus diversify the brands you're promoting, add some more programs. But good job overall

[Michael Martinez]

If you use "noindex" on your articles archive pages you'll make it harder for search engines to crawl your site and inhibit the flow of PageRank-like value.

A lot of people use "noindex" on these pages because of WordPress plugins that have a default setting. They mistake the default for a requirement, but that's not the case. The plugins must default to something and it's safer for a plugin to default to "noindex".

Just as it's impossible for a plugin developer to anticipate every need with default settings, it's impossible to devise a formula for all types of site structures. But in general you want to provide crawlers with multiple internal links to the content on your site. Archive index pages serve this purpose well and they also make good candidates for search results sitelinks. But some people create other crawling pathways to their older, deeper content.

Automatically noindexing archive pages without providing alternative linking paths starves your older, deeper content of PageRank-like value and you'll see those pages perform less well over time unless they've earned a lot of links from other sites.

Good rules of thumb to follow for archive index pages on blogs:

Archive index page design

• Only publish article excerpts (although some RSS feed subscribers prefer full page excerpts)
• Only assign 1 category to each Post
• Only use tags for popular words or phrases (but not don't use the same tags for every post)
• Use categories for topics
• Don't use tag and category archives interchangeably

Use "index,follow" for ...

• If there is only 1 author for the blog, then use "noindex,follow" for Author archive pages
• If there is only 1 category for the blog, then use "noindex,follow" for the archive pages ... UNLESS the category is serving as the "blog" section of the site

Use 301 redirects for ...

• Discontinued archives (down to the last pagination) (redirect to HTML sitemap or main archive)
• Month and day date archives (redirect to year archives)
• Default archives if you don't intend to use multiple authors and categories (redirect to the main blog index)

Don't use "noindex" on any paginated secondary pages for an archive that you're allowing to be indexed. You're just bleeding PageRank-like value back into the search engine's index (this is a process called "evaporation").

Don't use "nofollow" attributes on links pointing to any content you want indexed. Some people try to sculpt PageRank flow by doing this but all it does is bleed PageRank-like value back into the search engines' indexes (again, it's "evaporation").

Redirecting archive index pages to comparable index pages or an HTML sitemap is a better solution than using "noindex,follow" because the search engines may convert "noindex,follow" to "noindex,nofollow" algorithmically if they don't see the "noindex" change.

Keep the crawlers flowing through your site. Try not to block them, although you don't want them to go behind paywalls or into administrative pages and shopping carts.