Skip to content

Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.

Moz Q&A is closed.

After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.

Category: Technical SEO

Discuss site health, structure, and other technical SEO strategies.

  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | dfinn
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | mrlee
    1
  • This question is deleted!

    | madsuh
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0

  • This is more of a technical question than pure SEO per se, but I am guessing that some folks here may have covered this and so I would appreciate any questions. I am moving from a WordPress.com-based blog (hosted on WordPress) to a WordPress installation on my own server (as suggested by folks in another thread here). As part of this I want to move from the format blog.<mydomain>.com to www.mydomain.com\blog. I have installed WordPress on my server and have imported posts from the hosted site to my own server. How should I manage the transition from first format to the second? I have a bunch of links on Facebook, etc that refer to URLs of the blog..com format so it's important that I redirect.</mydomain> I am running DotNetNuke/WordPress on my own IIS/ASP.Net servers. Thanks. Mark

    | MarkWill
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    1
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | sfseo
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | Leighm
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0

  • I have a couple of affiliate gaming sites and have been cloaking the links, the reason I do this is to stop have so many external links on my sites. In the robot.txt I tell the bots not to index my cloaked links. Is this bad, or doesnt it really matter? Thanks for your help.

    | jwdesign
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | JSOC
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | SEI
    0

  • Hello, Most of you heard from the launch of the new format for microdata: Schema.org and my question is about the different types of Schema they provide. Our websites provide an overview of courses, visitors can search/filter training courses and most important: read peer reviews. Until now we formatted (the source) of those courses with the schema type "Product" because it allows us to provide search engines with metadata about reviews via the "Aggregrated Rating". Recently we updated the information about courses, to also provide start dates and locations to users, just like the schema type for: "Events". Because we would like to provide search engines also with both types of data I would like to know your opinion. Schema.org looks like not to support the Aggregated Rating for Events and vice versa for Startdates/Locations for the Product type. And combining the two Schema types also does not looks like an option because we can't put them on the same level like it should be. So what would you recommend to use for kind of schema type(s), are we able to use the 'Product' type next to the 'Event' type and so to combine them? Thanks a lot!

    | Martijn_Scheijbeler
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | notnem
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0

  • Hi, A client of mine is selling his business to a brand new company. The brand new company will be using a brand new domain (no way to avoid that unfortunately) and the current domain (which has tons of authority, links, shares, tweets, etc.) will not be used. Added to that, the new company will be taking over all the current content with just a few minor changes. (I know, I wish we could use the old domain but we can't.) Obviously, I am redirecting all pages on the current domain to the new domain via 301 redirects on a page by page basis. So, current.com/product-page-x.html redirects to new.com/product-page-x.html. My client and the new company both are asking me how much link juice (and other factors) are passed along to the new domain from the old domain. All I can find is "not the full value" or variants thereof.My experience with 301 redirects in the past has been within a single domain and I've seen some of those pages have decent authority and decent rankings as a result of the 301 (no other optimization work was done or links were added). Are there any studies out there that I'm missing that show how much authority/juice gets passed and/or lost via a 301 redirect? Anybody with a similar issue see any trends in page/domain authority and/or rankings? Thanks for any insights and opinions you have.

    | Matthew_Edgar
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    | NicB1
    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0
  • This question is deleted!

    0

Got a burning SEO question?

Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.


Start my free trial


Looks like your connection to Moz was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.