A simple query
-
"Most business map their IP address/Hostname"
What does above statement imply ?
-
Thanks for your reply.
-
It really wasn't easy to find out what you mean by posting a sentence completely out of context
But you were obviously referring to this thread. This simply means that whenever you find an IP address in you hostnames report in Google Analytics, you should be able to look it up in order to see the host it comes from, rather than just the IP address, as most businesses map their IP to their hostname. E.g. 123.123.123.1 could be mapped to business.example.com and therefore you could find out that 5% percent of your visitors that show up in your hostnames report are from business.example.com.
(I made up all figures and names of course ;-))
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
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
-
How handle pages with "read more" text query strings?
My site has hundreds of keyword content landing pages that contain one or two sections of "read more" text that work by calling the page and changing a ChangeReadMore variable. This causes the page to currently get indexed 5 times (see examples below plus two more with anchor tag set to #sectionReadMore2 This causes Google to include the first version of the page which is the canonical version and exclude the other 4 versions of the page. Google search console says my site has 4.93K valid pages and 13.8K excluded pages. My questions are: 1. Does having a lot of excluded pages which are all copies of included pages hurt my domain authority or otherwise hurt my SEO efforts? 2. Should I add a rel="nofollow" attribute to the read more link? If I do this will Google reduce the number of excluded pages? 3. Should I instead add logic so the canonical tag displays the exact URL each time the page re-displays in another readmore mode? I assume this would increase my "included pages" and decrease the number of "excluded pages". Would this somehow help my SEO efforts? EXAMPLE LINKS https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=More#sectionReadMore1 https://www.tpxonline.com/Marketplace/Used-AB-Dick-Presses-For-Sale.asp?ChangeReadMore=Less#sectionReadMore1
Technical SEO | | DougHartline0 -
Handling Pages with query codes
In Moz my client's site is getting loads of error messages for no follow tags on pages. This is down to the query codes on the E-commerce site so the URLs can look like this https://www.lovebombcushions.co.uk/?bskt=31d49bd1-c21a-4efa-a9d6-08322bf195af Clearly I just want the URL before the ? to be crawled but what can I do in the site to ensure that these errors for nofollow are removed? Is there something I should do in the site to fix this? In the back of my mind I'm thinking rel-conanical tag but I'm not sure. Can you help please?
Technical SEO | | Marketing_Optimist1 -
Query Strings causing Duplicate Content
I am working with a client that has multiple locations across the nation, and they recently merged all of the location sites into one site. To allow the lead capture forms to pre-populate the locations, they are using the query string /?location=cityname on every page. EXAMPLE - www.example.com/product www.example.com/product/?location=nashville www.example.com/product/?location=chicago There are thirty locations across the nation, so, every page x 30 is being flagged as duplicate content... at least in the crawl through MOZ. Does using that query string actually cause a duplicate content problem?
Technical SEO | | Rooted1 -
Pedantic H1 Query
Bonjour... If the target term is "Radiofrequency Ablation" does it make a jot of different against the standards of semantic markup the is written like this: Radiofrequency Ablation and not this Radiofrequency Ablation Any insights welcome 🙂
Technical SEO | | Nightwing0 -
Microformats & Schema.org query
Just finished watching the Microformats & Schema.org webinar (thanks for a good presentation Richard) and picked up some interesting tips. It did get me thinking about ways I could use them with a couple of ecommerce sites I am working on. At present there are no reviews on the page so cannot add that tag, however the product pages have a facebook like and a tweet option so maybe I could add a tag based around that? Another one I am considering is putting the sizes of the items in one 'available in sizes 12-32' for example as women often ponder if a store will have it in their size. I guess my question is, would these ways of using it be considered too spammy. I note the webinar state using microformats can be useful but there is a risk if they are too spammy etc. Any opinions would be most welcome, Carl
Technical SEO | | Grumpy_Carl0 -
SERP Meta Dependant Upon Search Query (strange Google bug?)
Hi, I have on-page optimised a client's website Now take a look at the Title Tag & Meta description of the front page. This is the correct updates I have made - Title: Practice Management and Financial Consultants to the Health Industry
Technical SEO | | LukeyJamo
Description: Award winning Health and Life have been providing accounting, tax and practice management services for Medical, Dental, Allied Health businesses. Now, take a look when the business name is Googled. Notice how the Title Tag switches back to the original, yet the Description Tag is Correct. Now, take a look when the owner's name is Googled. The Title Tag is now correct, but the description is incorrect. Ive set the preferred URL to be the www version Ive spent ages in the custom CMS trying to find what could be causing this The developer says it's a "Google Thing" Anyone have any ideas?0 -
Rel canonical with index follow on query string URLs
Hi guys, Quick question regarding the rel canonical tag. I have lots of links pointing at me with query strings and previously used some code to determine if query strings were in the URL and if they were then not to index that page. If there weren't query strings then the page would be indexed and followed. I assume I can now use the rel canonical tag on each of these pages so the value goes to the proper URL minus any query string. However do I need to have the rel canonical tag above the index, follow tag on the page? So URL is site.com/page.html?ref=ABC meta robots is "index, follow" Rel canonical is "site.com/page.html" Does the order of the meta robots and canonical tag matter? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | panini0 -
Query String Redirection
In PHP, I'm wanting to store a session variable based upon a link that's clicked. I'm wanting to avoid query strings on pages that have content. My current workaround is to have a link with query strings to a php file that does nothing but snags the variables via $_GET, stores them into $_SESSION, and then redirects. For example, consider this script, that I have set up to force to a mobile version. Accessed via something like a href="forcemobile.php?url=(the current filename)" session_start(); //Location of vertstudios file on your localhost. Include trailing slash $loc = "http://localhost/web/vertstudios/"; //If GET variable not defined, this page is being accessed directly. //In that case, force to 404 page. Same case for if mobile session variable //not defined. if(!(isset($_GET["url"]) && isset($_SESSION["mobile"]))){ header("Location: http://www.vertstudios.com/404.php"); exit(); } //Snag the URL $url = $_GET["url"]; //Set the mobile session to true, and redirect to specified URL $_SESSION["mobile"] = true;header("Location: " . $loc . $url); ?> Will this circumvent the issue caused by using query strings?
Technical SEO | | JoeQuery0