Very Slow Advanced Reports
-
Hello All -
I've been running some Advanced Reports again lately, and they seem much slower than I remember from last time I ran some. Currently I've got one (Inbound Links) report at 2,500 out of 10,000 links retrieved through LSAPI, and it's been at that point for about 6 hours. Did something get cloggered on the reports, or is it this just the expected performance?
-
Thank you for the update NIck. I've noticed that the same reports are still 'stuck' where they were 6 hours, should I cancel them and just start new ones you think?
-
Hey There,
Extremely sorry about the delay in reports.
We had a unforeseen spike in report exports over the past two days that and really taxed our CSV pipelines. We are experiencing delays of over 24 hours for link reports from Open Site Explorer. We hope to get a few new pipelines open today and our engineers have been working around the clock to get them set up. You reports should be done with a few minutes.
Again our apologies for the wait.
Best,
-
It may have something to do with the fact that there's an OSE update in progress at the moment. I am sure somebody at SEOMoz here would be able to clarify.
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
-
Unsolved Why is Moz reporting 308s as 302s?
Got a looooong list of redirect issues in my crawl for a new client, all reported as 302s but as far as I can see they are all 308s... which is perfectly fine, right, or have I missed a memo? They even confirm the 308 status in the moz detail.
Moz Pro | | Algorhythm_jT0 -
On Page Reports for Long-Tail Keywords?
First Q&A here, so take it easy on me. Hopefully this is not a dumb question. 99% of the on page reports I look at are for local keywords. I'm finding that some of the page reports get and F where they should be receiving A's. I noticed if I manage a long-tail keyword like "books in houston tx" that I get a grade based on the exact phrase as opposed to a combination of the keywords. So when I have text in the body saying "books in the Houston area" or "Houston Books" for example, instead of using my exact managed keyword, it will tell me that the keyword is not mentioned in the body anywhere. When it is, it's just not in the exact order... I'm trying to write my pages for users and I don't think the users want to hear "books in houston tx" several times. If I do a report on the same page for the keyword "books" I get an A. So this is where it gets a little in the grey area for me. I need a solid on page report for local long-tail search terms. Anyone have any advice? Is there a way I could be using this tool to better suit my needs?
Moz Pro | | AmericomMarketing0 -
Ranking report not accurate
I've justed signed up for SEOMOZ and testing out the ranking report software. For a client that I'm doing an audit for I've ran a ranking report against the keywords. Using Chrome Incognito I've checked the ranking and they are on the 1st page but the ranking report is showing they aren't in the top 43, any ideas why this might be? I've checked my setting and set up and that's all fine.
Moz Pro | | CharlBritton0 -
Why does Crawl Diagnostics report this as duplicate content?
Hi guys, we've been addressing a duplicate content problem on our site over the past few weeks. Lately, we've implemented rel canonical tags in various parts of our ecommerce store, over time, and observing the effects by both tracking changes in SEOMoz and Websmater tools. Although our duplicate content errors are definitely decreasing, I can't help but wonder why some URLs are still being flagged with duplicate content by our SEOmoz crawler. Here's an example, taken directly from our Crawl Diagnostics Report: URL with 4 Duplicate Content errors:
Moz Pro | | yacpro13
/safety-lights.html Duplicate content URLs:
/safety-lights.html ?cat=78&price=-100
/safety-lights.html?cat=78&dir=desc&order=position /safety-lights.html?cat=78 /safety-lights.html?manufacturer=514 What I don't understand, is all of the URLS with URL parameters have a rel canonical tag pointing to the 'real' URL
/safety-lights.html So why is SEOMoz crawler still flagging this as duplicate content?0 -
Why is it that certain keywords in my seomoz report card are for the wrong urls
Hi Guys, why is it that seomoz's On Page Optimization Reports for Google TH are attributing certain keywords with certain urls which are wrong? What mean is an example keyword - 'chiang mai villas for rent' has been scored an F against my home page url rather than using our 'Chiang Mai' url, why is this, is there a coding issue on my site? Is it that seomoz is finding something on my home page to suggest I want it to rank for this keyword?
Moz Pro | | ewanTHH0 -
OSE Advanced Reports best practices
I'm curious how people use the OpenSiteExplorer Advanced Reports tab. It seems very powerful. What do you use it for? In particular, I see that it has choices for 'same C block' and 'different C block'. Those seem useful to find C blocks that my competitors have links from that I do not, but I'm not totally clear on how to construct the query. Any help or best practices would be appreciated. Thanks!
Moz Pro | | scanlin0 -
Inbound Links Report Problem
While looking over my competitors inbound link report, they have a reported 5K inbound links. The first 20 listed inbound domains are things like UPS, and other sites that when I look at them, and the source file has no link to their domain at all??? So are they using some kind of Black Hat technique, or is SEOMoz not reporting properly? Help please.
Moz Pro | | WBConsulting0 -
How can I clean up my crawl report from duplicate records?
I am viewing my Crawl Diagnostics Report. My report is filled with data which really shouldn't be there. For example I have a page: http://www.terapvp.com/forums/Ghost/ This is a main forum page. It contains a list of many threads. The list can be sorted on many values. The page is canonicalized, and has been since it was created. My crawl report shows this page listed 15 times. http://www.terapvp.com/forums/Ghost/?direction=asc http://www.terapvp.com/forums/Ghost/?direction=desc http://www.terapvp.com/forums/Ghost/?order=post_date and so forth. Each of those pages uses the same canonicalization reference shared above. I have three questions: Why is this data appearing in my crawl report? These pages are properly canonicalized. If these pages are supposed to appear in the report for some reason, how can I remove them? My desire is to focus on any pages which may have an issue which needs to be addressed. This site has about 50 forum pages and when you add an extra 15 pages per forum, it becomes a lot harder to locate actionable data. To make matters worse, these forum indexes often have many pages. So if I have a "Corvette" forum there that is 10 pages long, then there will be 150 extra pages just for that particular forum in my crawl report. Is there anything I am missing? To the best of my knowledge everything is set up according to the best SEO practices. If there is any other opinions, I would like to hear them.
Moz Pro | | RyanKent0