Undocumented anchor-text API result
-
Regarding the anchor-text api, there is no definition for *imr on the wiki:
http://apiwiki.seomoz.org/w/page/13991127/Anchor Text APIie.
returns "[{"apuimr":5.422834471373288e-12},{"apuimr":4.785130890652429e-13},{"apuimr":2.922901387480201e-09}]"
What is *imr?
-
Hey Max,
*imr is the "raw" internal MozRank value. The "pretty" value that most people use for their applications is *imp, which has been fit to a nice 0-10 scale.
*imr isn't an official data point in the API, just meaning we reserve the right to change as necessary, which is why we don't have it documented. However, we still return the value if you know the endpoint
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have more questions!
Thanks,
Carin
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
-
External Keyword Anchor Links - Always Bad?
1) I've been told that other sites linking to my site with keyword-rich text are bad. 2) But Google Console / Analytics shows that we rank extremely high for random, pointless phrases loosely tied to the topic of our site. Like "dht blocker". (its a hair loss site) 3) This week I began analyzing our backlinks. Guess what I found? Literally hundreds of bot-created spammy trackback and pingback text links around the phrase "dht blocker" It seems to me that keyword rich anchor text on external sites is NOT a bad thing. In fact its an outstanding way to rank better for your desired keywords. Obviously the "bad" is the spam element. Probably the high quantity. On unrelated websites. But guess what? It worked. _We are ranking extremely well for these pointless phrases, thanks to these spam bots. _ Obviously we will be disavowing all these sites. But I want to start building quality links via legitimate, honest means. So here is my question: If I begin a legitimate honest link building campaign with other websites, and request that they put the HREF around our most coveted keyword phrase - is this inherently BAD? Or is it actually possibly GOOD? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HLTalk1 -
I have rebuilt a website on a new domain and followed SEO protocol to maintain authority, but the results and rankings are declining.
We took over an account for a company called knightdoorservices.com who specialize in doors and windows in Edmonton, Alberta. We built them a new website on a new domain: knightdoorsandwindows.com. We did 301 redirects on all of the old URLs so that they now point to the new URLs so most of the authority should transfer over. Additionally, each page has a properly optimized title, h1 tag, a series of pertinent alt tags, and many instances of the focus keyword for that particular page. Additionally, the website loads quickly and has many high authority inbound links pointing to the domain. We have done this for many other companies and have seen their rankings maintain their position or increase. Is there something that I am missing for this company in particular? Thanks so much!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Web3Marketing870 -
Novice Question - Can Browsers realistically distinguish words within concatenated strings e.g. text55fun or should one use text-55-fun? What about foreign languages especially more obscure ones like Finnish which Google Translate often miss-translates?
I am attempting to understand what is realistically possible within Google, Yahoo and Bing as they search websites for KeyWords. Technically my understanding is that they should be able to distinguish common words within concatenated strings, although there can be confusion between word boundaries when ambiguity is involved. So in the simple example of text55fun, do search engines actually distinguish text, 55 and fun separately? There are practical processing, databased and algorithm limitations that might turn a technically possible solution into a unrealistic one at a commercial scale. What about more ambiguous strings like stringsstrummingstrongly would that be parsed as string s strummings trongly or strings strummings trongly or strings strumming strongly? Does one need to use dashes or underscores to make it unambiguous to the search engine? My guess is that the engine would recognize the dash or space and better understand the word boundaries yet ignore the dash or underscore from an overall concatenated string perspective. Thanks in advance to whoever can provide any insight to an old coder who is new to this field.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ny600 -
Local results vs Normal results
Hi everyone, I am currently working on the website of a friend, who's owning a French spa treatment company. I have been working on it for the past 6 months, mostly on optimizing the page titles and the link building. So far the results are great in terms on normal results : if you type most of the keywords and the city name, the website would be very well positioned, if not top positioned. My only problem is that in the local results (Google Maps), nothing has improved at all. In most of the same keyword where the website is ranking 1st on normal results, the website doesn't appear at all on the same keywords in local results. This is confusing as you would think Google think the website is relevant to the subject according to the normal results but it doesn't show any good ones in a local matter. The website is clearly located in the city (thanks to the pages titles and there's a Google Map in a specific page dedicated to its location). The company has a Google Places page and it has positive customers reviews on different trusted websites for more than a year now (the website is 2 years old). I focused my work concerning the link building on the local websites (directories and specialized websites) for the past 2 months. The results kept improving on normal results but still no improvement at all in the local ones. As far as I know, there is no mistakes such as multiple addresses for the same business etc. Everything seems to be done by the rules. I am not sure at all what more I can do. The competitors do not seem to be working their SEO pretty much and in terms of linking (according to the -pretty good- Seomoz tools), they have up to 10 times less (good) links than us. Maybe you guys have some advice on how I can manage this situation ? I'm kind of lost here 😞 Thanks a lot for your help, appreciate it. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Pureshore
Raphael0 -
Sitelinks in 7-pack / blended / local results
I have a client who has been ranking well in the 7-pack for local searches, for 1.5+ years. I recently noticed a competitor's Google Places link has little sitelinks attached, but my client's link doesn't have them. This makes me sad. To provide a concise question: what can I do to help my client get sitelinks along with his Google Places listing in the 7-pack / blended / local results? Some example data: My client's business is called Ambiance Dental and his website is www.mycalgarydentist.com. An example search to see what I'm talking about is "calgary family dentist". The competitor that's showing sitelinks is www.aestheticdentalstudio.ca which has a title of "Dentist in Calgary | Cosmetic Treatment in Calgary". The sitelinks you'll see are "Dr. Gordon Chee", "Links", "Dr. Alexa Geminiano". Notice that my client doesn't have the same sitelinks. Some further data: If you do a a search for "calgary aesthetic dentist" you'll see the competitor's 1-box local result (is that what it's called?) with his Google Places data and sitelinks. If you search for "calgary ambiance dentist" you'll get a similar layout SERP for my client, again with no sitelinks. My client's sitelinks: If you search for "ambiance dental calgary" you'll see that Google does offer sitelinks for his site, just not in Google Places it seems. My client's website: My client's website has the navigation coded as a list (UL) without any javascript or complicated code messing things up. The competitor's navigation is built similarly, though he has about 40 more pages in his main navigation. My client's page names are concise, which I've read helps with sitelinks, the website is coded very cleanly, the URLs of his site are clear and concise without a complicated folder structure, so it seems like we're doing everything right. I appreciate any input other mozzers can provide, and discussion on the topic. I'm sure there are others who would benefit from local sitelinks as well!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kenoshi0 -
Multiple sites linking back with pornographic anchor text
I discovered a while ago that we had quite a number of links pointing back to one of our customer's websites. The anchor text of these links contain porn that is extremely bad. These links are originating from forums that seems to link between themselves and then throw my customers web address in there at the same time. Any thoughts on this? I'm seriously worried that this may negatively affect the site.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GeorgeMaven0 -
How Many Results Does Google Show From The Same Domain?
Hi, From a few years ago I know 'double listings' were considered prime real estate. These days I can see triple listing, google places, PDFs all from the same domain. Im confused as the what the standard is now. I have been asked for some reverse SEOing to push down some bad press (keyword is the brand name) and am curious to know whether I still can get some high results by making a sub domain, optmising some more internal pages etc. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DigitalLeaf0
