How do you feel when Moz marks one of your questions as "answered?"
-
Hi everyone,
This is not meant to be snarky at all, so I just want to preface my question with that.
So, since the new re-branded Moz rolled out last year, I'm sure many of you have noticed that if you ask a question and it is answered by a Moz associate, your question is marked as "answered."
I'm sorry, but I don't like this. Here's why,
I'm the one who asked the question. I should be the one who determines if the answer was adequate for me, or if it didn't sufficiently answer my question. This is particularly true when my question doesn't have to do with a customer service issue or a Moz tool question.
If I ask a question about SEO, Content, CRO, marketing or any other subject, I feel like it should be me and only me who determines whether or not I feel like my question is answered.
In addition to this, Moz is actually depriving themselves of useful UGC by shutting down questions in this way. How? Because when the rest of us who frequent the Q & A see a question that's already been marked as "answered" we tend not to open it, read it and respond, because we think that person has already gotten what they needed....when in fact, it could be that a Moz associate has jumped in and marked their question as answered when it really wasn't. Consequently, we all miss out.
I propose/move that Moz associates can only mark questions as "answered" when they pertain directly to Q & A about Moz tools, service and support. All other questions must be marked as "answered" only by the asker or closed as "answered" after they have been dormant for 6 months or more.
Can I get a second (motion) ?
-
I don't think you came across as defensive at all. I totally get the house-keeping issue. I know the "Bounty" section is something quasi-new...what about the possibility of just moving unanswered questions over there after they've gone unanswered for a set period of time, provided the person who posted responds to admin emails and indicates the question is still unanswered?
Perhaps another option would be for the original poster to reverse the "Answered" status?
I don't think Moz's intent at marking questions as "answered" was to effectively shut-down a topic, but, unfortunately, I do think that's what happens.
I agree with EGOL, I am not looking to see if someone marked my answer as a "good answer" or not, although I am always thankful if they do. What I do do is go back to questions I've answered to see if the person responded with another question or needs clarification on something and I try to help them if I can. Because I know sometimes people who are newer to Q & A often mark a question as "answered" when they read a response they "like" (but not be a complete answer), I'll often encourage them to continue to solicit answers from more people so they can get more input from the community.
It would be interesting to see data on how many threads complete stop getting new comments once they are marked as "answered." I bet it's more than 90%...which, from a UGC viewpoint, could mean Moz is losing out on content they would be getting by leaving more threads marked as "unanswered." Hmmm,
-
Amen! - Side note....I originally posted this discussion topic a week ago and it took me this long to come back and respond. I was really excited to see 13 new comments!
I totally agree with EGOL and Donna about the default view being changed to "Active." If this post hadn't been one of mine, I probably wouldn't have ever found it.
-
Excellent response! You know, I am here a lot...and I had no idea there was an "Active" view, so I am a perfect example of exactly what you described.
I really like your idea. It looks like Jenn has already picked up the ball and started running with it. That's very cool.
I agree with you EGOL that most often things get marked as "answered" when something is liked, but not necessarily answered. I have seen the thumbs down for answers that aren't necessarily what someone wanted to hear too, but less often lately.
I guess the whole reason I brought it up was because a few times I wanted more varieties of opinion on a question I had asked, but because it got marked as "answered" people stopped looking at it. Sounds like Moz might consider making some changes to the Q & A that could make it better. It's already really good, but I'm sure with some good feedback they can make it even better. Thanks again for chiming in!
-
Agree.
-
Here is a question?
Who sees if these Q&A questions are answered or not? Does anybody see it? Is anybody lookiin'?
I don't think that anybody is lookin'.
On a good day, in "Latest Question Format" a question will drop off the bottom of the page in a few hours. On a bad day it might languish until tomorrow. Then it drops off and nobody sees it.
Members are not going to mark a question as "answered" for a number of reasons. Maybe they don't like the answers. Maybe they just don't think of marking them "answered". I might not mark my questions as answered. I just don't think of it.
So, I would not spend one minute thinking.... "Hey, I answered that guy and he didn't mark it." But, when I see five people give generous replies to a question and the poster never replies or even returns to cuss me. Then I know that I wasted my time.
I've seen Ryan Kent type wonderful answers that must have taken him at least an hour and a half to compose and then the original poster didn't even return to argue. I have seen that several times and thought... "Wow.. that person doesn't realize the valuable free gift that they got."
=========================================
I am still making pitches for "active" view as default.
I am asking Mozzers to open two browser windows, one with "latest" view and one with "active". Which one looks like an impressive place, where you question will be considered and engaged? "Active" markets Q&A a lot more strongly than "latest".
And, this thread we are posting in now. Do you think that very many more people will join the discussion since it has dropped down... at the moment... to the middle of page two? If Mozzers think that this thread might be useful would you not want fresh minds in it? The deeper it drops the less likely that will happen - even if the few of us are talkin' here til Christmas.
I think that members would be like you and want to see more contributors, more action on their question. And, if they reply it will go back to the top of the list and might pick up more participants. Some people on other forums value that so much that they will risk wrath and bump the thread. So, I think that it is a good bet that people who ask questions will participate more if their participation increases the visibility of the discussion that they have started.
-
Dr. Pete, I don't think you sound defensive at all. It's good to share all perspectives. And EGOL, as usual, is very open with his thinking.
Clearly it's a balancing act and there is no miracle cure. I suggest that we could ask the original poster to indicate if they're satisfied with the answer(s) provided and state that the question will be marked closed when we hear back from them OR in X days, which ever comes first.
Of course there's many ways to skin a cat and you've probably considered that, or a similar suggestion and quite a few others. If nothing else, this discussion clearly demonstrates Moz TAGFEE in action!
-
I read a few different SEO forums and see lots of people have a problem with their website then run around posting the same question in 20 different forums to see what advice they can get without payin'. Then they never reply to any threads anywhere.
A few weeks later they are back at all 20 forums, this time registering under a Joe Schmoe, askin' same question. Just query Google with a copy/paste of their question and you will see it posted everywhere.
I know quite a few SEO forum posters, sometimes including me, who often don't answer questions posted by noobs. I'll gladly spend time answering a question for someone who replies even a couple times. So, often when a noob asks a question, I ask for more details or poke at them, then if I get a reply I'll spend time to compose an answer. Some answers can take 30 minutes or more to compose and I don't want to give that to a Joe Schmoe who ain't readin'.
Something that lots of other forums have that I think is handy is a link to see a member's recent questions and replies. A quick look there can tell if this person is a mooch or if they participate in the threads that they start. I am not doing that because I want to be stingy with my time, but 10 seconds to check saves me 30 minutes trying to help a phantom.
-
I think some of this is a legacy from Private Q&A days, when we tried to make sure that every question had a resolution, as opposed to being an open discussion. Even now, though, it's partly a "housekeeping" issue - if we see a question that's 80-90% resolved and mark it "answered", we have a better sense of where to prioritize our efforts and serve the questions that have no answers or bad answers.
Unfortunately, it's also complicated by 30-day trials and people who ask opportunistically and then disappear. We've always struggled with how to filter that kind of question while serving our long-term members better.
Even when doing it, there are times when I know that the original author may not feel the situation is fully resolved. So, it's a balancing act of empathy toward the author vs. empathy toward the pool of all authors. It's an imperfect solution and I think it's definitely something we have to revisit from time to time. I would only argue that leaving everything "open" has down-sides as well (as we've seen in the past).
Edit: Reading this back, it feels a bit defensive, and I don't mean it that way. Sorting out how to balance this all has been an ongoing discussion for us for years, and I think it's absolutely valuable when people tell us what they're feeling about the process out loud. I'm just not sure there's a simple answer.
-
Yes Jennita, it does help. Thank you for the explanation.
-
Yep! I totally read it. I'd say this part "For us, we find that many people don't come back to mark something as answered, which is why we changed it around a bit. We use the "answered" bit, as a way to see how many questions get asked, replied to, AND "answered." answers that. We want to see how many questions were answered, and the original posters are notorious for NOT marking things as answered. Even after we started emailing them asking them to mark things as answered.
I'm not saying it's perfect, just giving you our thoughts on why we do it. Also, I don't believe anything happens automatically. But Associates and staff are asked to mark a question as answered if they feel they've answered a question. A lot of this comes from the old days of "private questions" where if we didn't mark a question as answered, we could literally spend hours and hours going back and forth with a member.
Hope this helps bring light to why we do things that way. As I mentioned above, we're totally open to changing, and I'm definitely not trying to say our way is best. Just giving insight as to WHY we do it.
Thanks!
-
Hi Jennita.
This statement - "In our mind it simply means that the original poster got the answer they needed." - makes me wonder if you might have missed a key point Dana was trying to make, that being shouldn't the original poster be the one who decides if they "got the answer they needed" or not? Perhaps you got that totally and I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill, but I think her point is an excellent one and that's why I'm circling back on it again... just to be sure.
-
Thanks for this response EGOL, between you and Dana, you've got us all talking. We want to make the right changes for the community, so I always appreciate when these conversations come up. We're going to keep your suggestions in mind as we start to delve into some changes to Q&A.
Also, thanks for all you do!
Jen
-
Hi Dana,
Thanks for bringing this up! It's an interesting topic for sure, and actually something we've discussed. For us, we find that many people don't come back to mark something as answered, which is why we changed it around a bit. We use the "answered" bit, as a way to see how many questions get asked, replied to, AND "answered."
I'm not sure I totally agree that by marking something as answered, means that it's shutting down the discussion. In our mind it simply means that the original poster got the answer they needed. It doesn't necessarily mean that the discussion has ended. But this does mean that if it's not clear, we should re-think it.
We'll definitely take this into consideration though in the coming months as we discuss changes/upgrades/etc. to Q&A. I love that people care enough to even bring this stuff up!! We may reach out to you if we come up with some changes/solutions, and get your thoughts. I also like the idea of proposing some ideas here in Q&A for changes to Q&A and see how people respond. This gets me very excited!
Thanks again for bringing this up, and getting this conversation started. I know we'll be talking about it soon because of it!
Jen
-
**I think your suggestion about making "active" the default view is a good one. **
Let's use this question as a case-in-point. If Q&A is in "latest" view only a few people will participate. But if it would be in "active" view then this question would remain visible, have a lot more participation and be more valuable.
If Q&A is changed to "active" view then the number of questions display per page should be 2X or 3X as many - because people will scan them looking for recurring topics. Actually, increasing the number of questions displayed per page might increase participation in both "latest" and "active" views.
-
You both (EGOL and DANA TAN) raise good points of consideration. I'm glad this topic came up b/c I have myself been frustrated when my question gets marked "answered" when I feel it has not. I like her proposal.
EGOL, I suspect your first two observations are accurate - that people "mark a question as "answered" when they get a response that they "like" instead of the response that they "need" and that "the best answer sometimes gets thumbed down because it requires work." A suggestion would be that they simply get tagged "closed" with no judgment as to whether the answer was good or bad, answered the intent of the query or not. That might also help when people do a subsequent search for a topic and find conflicting answers. That's happened to me, and to EGOL's point (rules and best practices change over time), I understand why. But seeing the question marked as "answered" just adds to the confusion, especially if you're new.
I think your suggestion about making "active" the default view is a good one.
I also want to say that I love it when Moz chimes in and marks an answer as a good one or endorses it. Really encourages participation and provides helpful information to all readers.
-
I see your point.
I usually don't pay any attention to the "answered" label.......
I think that a lot of members mark a question as "answered" when they get a response that they "like" instead of the response that they "need".
I also think that the best answer sometimes gets thumbed down because it requires work.
=============================
Side comment: I have been posting in SEO forums for about ten years and the threads where I have learned the most and enjoyed the most were huge discussions, often arguments, that raged on for a couple of days.
When a question is posted in the Moz Q&A format, if you don't see it before it drops off of the first page you probably are not going to see it. In other formats, when a question gets a response it goes back to the top of the list, and that allows the most active (often the most interesting) threads to remain visible as long as people are engaging them.
Moz does offer an "Active" button at the top of the Q&A list... but by default people only see the "Latest" questions posted. I am willing to bet that most people who look at Q&A don't know about the "Active" view.
I believe that making "Active" the default view would dramatically kick up the activity and quality of Moz Q&A.
Making "latest" the default view gives fast "draw and shoot" answers to questions. Is that the goal?
Making "active" the default view will put more pairs of eyes on the most engaged questions and that will change "draw and shoot" answers into "reviewed and debated".
Which would you rather have?
=============================
Getting to your original question.... In SEO, I think that very few things are "answered" and a lot of "answers" will become wrong given time. And, since we are often responding to questions without even seeing the site... or just taking the five minute look... there is an awful lot of things that could be missed. So, I think that things that are "answered" could still benefit from "debate and refinement", and that is another argument for my suggestion of switching to "active" as default.
Philosophical: I have spend most of every day for nearly the past ten years working on a single website. I can't tell you how many times I have torn it apart because I had (or thought that I had) a better idea. I don't have any "answers" about that site yet... because there is always a way to make it better... and lots of stuff changes over time.
Questions on Q&A are only "answered" until a smarter person or a person who knows one small detail, or has a simpler idea arrives. So, I would not mark anything as "answered".
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
-
Strange insight "tracked keywords" from Moz
Hi there, I was wondering if somebody is seeying the same problem. Since a couple of days i got a new keyword insights in my mail and i've seen some strange things for two accounts. The branded keywords are dropped lower then position 51. The thing is that i got an insight, i checked it in my private mode and the branded keywords are still there. Other keywords are still ranking, and there is no effect on my traffic. There is no connection between the sites. One has a couple of links and the other a lot. One has a very good page with nice optimalisation and the other has no text. So it couldn't be over-optimalisation and incoming links...
Moz Bar | | NielsVos
Does anybody have the same problem? Greetings,
Niels0 -
Moz Keyword Tool Monthly Volume
Ive recently put together a Keyword List of about 100 keywords on the Moz Keyword Explorer tool. One keyword, aerial filming, stood out as very low search volume of 51 - 100. I took the same 100 keywords and passed them through the Google Keyword Planner by Google AdWords. Aerial Filming has an average search volume of 1k - 10k according to the Keyword Planner. Even though Keyword Planner gives me a range of 1k - 10k, the lowest number is still 10 times higher than what the Moz Keyword Explorer was indicating. This drastic difference of volume was consistent across all 100 keywords. All of the Monthly Volume numbers were divided by 10. Why does Moz Keyword Tool display a search volume that is 10x less than what Google Keyword Planner is suggesting?
Moz Bar | | fictionarts0 -
How can I be sure Moz Campaign for blog is working?
I set up a Moz Campaign to track my blog domain (made a separate one for our website) and added in keywords I've optimized our blog posts for. I've spent about 2 months optimizing pages and there's been no change in the numbers I see in the dashboard (specifically Search Visibility and Top National Keywords) and Rankings module. It all basically says either 0 or '--'. I think I've set this campaign up right because the website campaign has been changing and showing different results in the same amount of time. I'm going to ask the stupid question -- is this because I've set up the blog campaign wrong, my site is blocking Moz from accessing blog data or my SEO efforts simply aren't working? Please help. I need a sanity check here. Thank so much in advance!
Moz Bar | | Visier0 -
Moz Trust do not display
Hello, I just see there is some problem in seo moz even pro membership. I can not see Moz Trust to check trust ratio.How I can do it if it is blank. I also do not find a Single Question example for Example Trust Link profile I see there is a similar post by majestic but not in Seo moz. I would like to know similar details like majestic showing the example good site or bad site.Example reference below.
Moz Bar | | rarcntv
https://blog.majestic.com/general/using-majestic-citation-flow-trust-flow-check-quality-link-prospects/ So I see similar example post that is atleast help me to understand the depth of quality link profile and bad link profile point of view from seo moz. Thanks0 -
Canonical in Moz crawl report
I'm wondering if the moz bot is seeing my rel="canonical" on my pages. There are 2 notices that are bothering me: Overly Dynamic URL Rel Canonical Overly Dynamic URL - This notice is being generated by urls with query strings. On the main page I have the rel="canonical" tag in the header. So every page with the query string has the canonical tag that points to the page that should be indexed. So my question...Why the notice? Isn't this being handled properly with the canonical tag? I know I can use my robots.txt or the tool in Google search console but is it really necessary when I have the canonical on every page? Here is one of the links that has the "Overly Dynamic URL" notice, as you can see the the canonical in the header points to the page without the query string: https://www.vistex.com/services/training/traditional-classroom/registration-form/?values=true&course-title=DMP101 – Data Maintenance Pricing – Business Processes&date=March 14, 2016 Rel Canonical - Every page in my report has this notice "Using rel=canonical suggests to search engines which URL should be seen as canonical". I'm using the rel="canonical" tag on all of my pages by default. Is the report suggesting that I don't do this? Or is it suggesting that I should? Again...why the notice?
Moz Bar | | Brando160 -
Do exact keyword matches exclude "in", "based" etc?
I am trying to build a landing page for the search term "web design london" and I have included this search term as well as some variations such as "web design in london", "web design based in london" as the content doesn't really read well if I don't put in a connector word (I can't remember what the term for the use of "in" etc is). However I am using the Moz On-Page Grader to make sure I'm dotting every i and crossing every t, but it doesn't seem to pick up on the search term when "in" or "based" is used. Now is this a limitation of the On-Page Grader or should I expect Google and other search engines to not pick up on the search term when it contains these sorts of words?
Moz Bar | | mickburkesnr0 -
Why do my search results differ from MOZ's rank tracker
This is starting to happen a lot, i mean they weren't always an exact match but they differed by a few places. But now the gap between results I'm getting and MOZ's own rank tracker is quite large. For my keyword my page ranks on MOZ at 39 (it was 25 but has slipped down). Im seeing my page on page 1 locally and page 2 in incognito mode. Now I understand there are other factors such as browser history, cookies, am i logged into gmail etc. Thats why I asked colleagues to use Internet explorer and they have nothing to do with SEO so their history wont affect the search. They report seeing it on page 2, even colleagues in a different office in a different city sees it on page 2. I want to contact the department in question and share the good news that they've gone from none existent to 14th in what is a very competitive area. But MOZ's result has be second guessing whether I should. Any ideas why the gap between results is so large? Thanks
Moz Bar | | Brabian0 -
Moz crawl issues: All pages keep resolving to our "cookies not enabled" page
Upon running the Moz Pro site crawler, I noticed that I received quite a bit of duplicate titles along with 302 redirects (which is our site creating a temporary 302 to our "cookies not enabled" page). How would I get around the crawler being redirected to this page? I've never ran across this issue before, despite using the crawler with sites that use the same framework as the one thats affected. Any ideas?
Moz Bar | | responsivelabs0