Why aren't certain links showing in SEOMOZ?
-
Hi, I have been trying to understand our page rank and domains that are linking to us. When I look at the list of linking domains, I see some bigger ones are missing and I don't know why. For example, we are in the Yahoo Directory with a link to trophycentral.com, but SEOMOZ is not showing the link. If SEOMOZ is not seeing it, my guess is Google is not either, which concerns me. There are several onther high page rank domains also not showing. Anyone have any idea why? Thanks!
BTW, our domain is trophycentral.com
-
Thanks - I just looked up our site (www.trophycentral.com) on Google and see many of the missing likes. My guess is that it is mostly a timing issue. SEOMOZE is helpful because I can see the ratings and overall estimate, so I guess over time I will look at a few sites.
-
This is exactly what i do and have found the same result. In fact, at this moment in time well over half my links don't show in SEOMOZ
-
Thanks! I checked Google and most of them are there! ... Neil.
-
SEOMoz's link data is the best available in my opinion but you may want to consider looking at other sources as well like Majestic SEO and Google Webmaster Tools to supplement the SEOMoz data. Sometimes these other sources find links that SEOMoz doesn't have in their index.
-
Thank you!
-
Thank you!
-
SEOMoz database of links isn't exhaustive and also is only updated once a month or so, so I wouldn't sweat it too much if the links aren't showing up in there.
You can check back links in Google Webmaster Tools, personally i would use WMT over SEOMoz for this kind of info as after all, its Google's data that determines your rankings.
-
SEOMOZ crawls and updates their link index on a schedule you can see here:
http://apiwiki.seomoz.org/w/page/25141119/Linkscape Schedule
If this is a fairly new link, it may not have gotten indexed yet.
Also, note that page rank may have little or nothing to do with MozRank. Toolbar pagerank is notoriously inaccurate, and could be up to 6 months old. Plus, Toolbar pagerank doesn't reflect all the factors Google uses in PR calculation. And (as if that weren't enough) toolbar PR is based on a sort of Richter Scale - so a jump from, say, 4 to 5 could reflect a HUGE change, or a tiny one.
We normally focus on MozRank, instead.
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 is this possible? A 200 response and 'nothing' to be seen? Need help!
On checking this website http://dogtraining.org.uk/ I get a 200 response. But an Oops! Google Chrome could not find dogtraining.org.uk . Same with Firefox (Server not found). Obviously there is a problem - I just don't know where to 'start' investigating to spot the error. Can someone help me? Thank you!
Technical SEO | | patrihernandez0 -
Merging sites, ensuring traffic doesn't die
Wondering if I could get a second opinion on this, please. I have just taken on a new client, they own about 6 different niched car experience websites (hire an Aston Martin for the day, type thing). All the six sites they have seem to perform reasonably well for the brand of car they deal with, the average DA of the sites is about 24. The client wishes to move all of these different manufacturers into one site and have sections of the site, they can then also target more generic experience day type keywords. The obvious way of dealing with this move would be to 301 the old sites to the relevant places on the new site and wait for that to rank. However, looking at the backlinks profile of the niched sites, they seem to have very few backlinks and i feel the reason they are ranking so well for all the individual manufacturers is because they all feature the name in the domain. Not exact match, but the name is there. If I am thinking right, with the 301 we want to tell Google page x is now page y, index this one instead. Because the new site has a more generic name I don't think it will enjoy any of the domain keyword benefits which are helping the sub sites, and as a result I expect the rankings and traffic to drop (at least in the short term). Am I reading this correct. Would people use a 301 in this case? The easiest thing to do would be to leave the 6 sub sites up and running on their own domain and launch the new site to run alongside them, however the client doesn't want this. Thanks, Carl
Technical SEO | | GrumpyCarl0 -
'No Follow' and 'Do Follow' links when using WordPress plugins
Hi all I hope someone can help me out with the following question in regards to 'no follow' and 'do follow' links in combination with WordPress plugins. Some plugins that deal with links i.e. link masking or SEO plugins do give you the option to 'not follow' links. Can someone speak from experience that this does actually work?? It's really quite stupid, but only occurred to me that when using the FireFox add on 'NoDoFollow' as well as looking at the SEOmoz link profile of course, 95% of my links are actually marked as FOLLOW, while the opposite should be the case. For example I mark about 90% of outgoing links as no follow within a link masking plugin. Well, why would WordPress plugins give you the option to mark links as no follow in the first place when they do in fact appear as follow for search engines and SEOmoz? Is this a WordPress thing or whatnot? Maybe they are in fact no follow, and the information supplied by SEO tools comes from the basic HTML structure analysis. I don't know... This really got me worried. Hope someone can shed a light. All the best and many thanks for your answers!
Technical SEO | | Hermski0 -
What is link Schemes?
Hello Friends, Today I am reading about link schemes on http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66356 there are a several ways how to avoid Google penalties and also talk about the low quality links. But I can't understand about "Low-quality directory or bookmark site links" Is there he talked about low page rank, Alexa or something else?
Technical SEO | | KLLC0 -
I add microdata but why Google don't show it in SERP?
Site is: http://www.lightinthebox.com/, I've already added microdata for all product pages a month ago. And I used google Rich Snippets Testing Tool which shows me everything is all right. Like: http://www.lightinthebox.com/ouku-horizon-3g-android-smart-phone-with-3-5-inch-capacitive-touchscreen-800mhz-wifi-gps_p225435.html But Google just don't show the Rich Snippets in SERP. Any idea?? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | Litb0 -
SEOMoz is indicating I have 40 pages with duplicate content, yet it doesn't list the URL's of the pages???
When I look at the Errors and Warnings on my Campaign Overview, I have a lot of "duplicate content" errors. When I view the errors/warnings SEOMoz indicates the number of pages with duplicate content, yet when I go to view them the subsequent page says no pages were found... Any ideas are greatly welcomed! Thanks Marty K.
Technical SEO | | MartinKlausmeier0 -
Pictures 'being stolen'
Helping my wife with ecommerce site. Selling clothes. Some photos are given by producer, but at times they are not too good. Some are therefore taking their own photos and i suspect ppl are copying them and using them on their own site. Is there anyting to do about this - watermarking of course, but can they be 'marked' in anyway linking to your site ?
Technical SEO | | danlae0 -
I just found something weird I can't explain, so maybe you guys can help me out.
I just found something weird I can't explain, so maybe you guys can help me out. In Google http://www.google.nl/#hl=nl&q=internet. The number 3 result is a big telecom provider in the Netherland called Ziggo. The ranking URL is https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/. However if you click on it you'll be directed to https://www.ziggo.nl/#producten/internet/ HttpFox in FF however is not showing any redirects. Just a 200 status code. The URL https://www.ziggo.nl/#producten/internet/ contains a hash, so the canonical URL should be https://www.ziggo.nl/. I can understand that. But why is Google showing the title and description of https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/, when the canonical URL clearly is https://www.ziggo.nl/? Can anyone confirm my guess that Google is using the bulk SEO value (link juice/authority) of the homepage at https://www.ziggo.nl/ because of the hash, but it's using the relevant content of https://www.ziggo.nl/producten/internet/ resulting in a top position for the keyword "internet".
Technical SEO | | NEWCRAFT0