Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Thanks for the response Andy but i think i have solved it.
It belive the links redirect as originally posted, but i found a link set to the original link http://www.domain.co.uk/blog
I have updated this link and as hopefully this will stop the error in Moz.
Thanks for taking a glance though
Hello,
We have a wordpress blog attached to our magento website located at
Moz was coming back showing we had multiple page versions on show (http and https)
So i updated the htaccess file to what is below. This has fixed most of the errors, however the homepage is being a little tricky. Moz is now saying that the page is redirecting and redirecting again
http://www.domain.co.uk/blog to
http://www.domain.co.uk/blog/ to
https://www.domain.co.uk/blog/
<ifmodule mod_rewrite.c="">RewriteEngine On
RewriteBase /blog/</ifmodule>
RewriteCond %{HTTPS} !=on
RewriteRule (.*) https://%{HTTP_HOST}%{REQUEST_URI} [L,R=301]
RewriteRule ^index.php$ - [L]
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteRule . /blog/index.php [L]
Within wordpress settings the urls are set up as follows
Wordpress Address URL: https://www.domain.co.uk/blog
Site Address URL: https://www.domain.co.uk/blog
i tried to add a trailing / to these but it gets automatically removed. So i am assuming that wordpress is serving up
**RewriteBase /blog/ **is re-directing it to /
then my https rewrite is re-directing it again
I am not sure where exactly to fix this, could anybody advise?
Many thanks,
Can I clarify a few things Andy,
Firstly this is a sub-category page im talking about not a product, all our products are myurl.co.uk/product.html
"https://www.thisismyurl.co.uk/ > spacehoppers > special-spacehopper - this is a pretty easy fix and something I would recommend on all eccomerce sites"
Is this a suggestion to remove the /product/ section?
Rich snippets are a later planned project
Hey Mozzers, long time no post.
Just a quick one for you regarding URLS, this is an example of a url on a site
https://www.thisismyurl.co.uk/products/spacehoppers/special-spacehopper.html
Many of these pages are getting flagged for having a url that is too long. The target of this page is "special spacehoppers". Should i be concerned with the url being to long given my keyword is at the end?
Would this be a suitable idea?
https://www.thisismyurl.co.uk/p/spacehoppers/special.html
2)Would removing the "spacehoppers" bit from the url be worth it? Yes it would shorten the url but would also remove the exact keyword from the url which could be detrimental to rankings.
Yes this fixed ours fully, we had to wait a couple of week for things to update and get pulled back through but it did the trick
Hey Mozzers,
We are improving our B2B site by adding product codes to headings & meta information etc to gain some traction ranking for our own products and those supplied by others when searched for by product code. Almost immediately we are hitting the top half of the first page for most of these and seeing some nice results.
We would like to track our placement for these product codes in google but feel this would be a waste of our Moz Keyword limit and we really dont need to check them once a week, just one a month or so.
Has anybody got any methods of tracking our ranking for a a big list of keywords say once a month which isn't too labour intensive?
Many Thanks
Hi guys,
We are currently working on increasing our online marketing presence and with a new website on the cards I am turning to all of our B2B business directories to update, and being tracking referrals etc to see ones that may be worth premium listings.
I have a list of 200 business directories to scope and check, some are relevant some are not, obviously i dont want to sign up to them all and risk a dodgy link profile so im going to be selective, but im not sure how many to aim for etc. So im looking for some general advice and guidance at this early stage so I can properly plan my approach.
What advice would you give and are there any major DO's and DONT's of sorting through these directories to look for some new ways to source customers.
EDIT: We are UK based
Thanks
Back to the old fashioned way it is then 
Thanks for the reply
Rand,
I am a UK user.
I just went onto the keyword difficulty page and it said it is being removed from June 2nd to be replaced by the keyword explorer tool. Whilst I welcome this change as I love the keyword explorer, as a UK user i rely on the keyword difficulty tool for volume metrics as they keyword explorer doesn't yet show these for the UK.
Why the haste to remove this tool? Its a vital part of the puzzle for me until the explorer is fully operational. Could it not stick around until the explorer is fully functional?
Thanks
Just had a brain wave that I will see if fixes the issue.
Im guessing the landing pages tab pulls the information over from the linked analytics account. Whoever set up the account there has index.php set as the default url. I have removed this from analytics and will see in a few days if this changes the outcome of landing pages in moz.
No idea thats kinda why im asking,
www.domain.co.uk/page-url/index.php returns a 404 page
www.domain.co.uk/page-url/ is the actual page that displays content
on the moz campaign keyword ranking tracker
20 of my no1 ranked keywords return www.domain.co.uk/page-url/ as the ranking url this is what i expect and is perfect
but on the moz landing pages tab (the one that shows percentage of traffic from keywords etc)
www.domain.co.uk/page-url/ is nowhere to be seen and is instead replaced by www.domain.co.uk/page-url/index.php
The is an issue because the other part of moz thinks that www.domain.co.uk/page-url/ is ranking for the keywords and as such shows that im tracking no keywords for this page
I don't know if this is a wrong setting in magento, or just requires a redirect of /index.php to / or if redirecting like this would cause hundreds of infinite redirect loops as technically the version without index.php is still displaying index.php. Basically all im asking is, why does the different parts of moz display lthe 2 different urls and how do i fix it?
Thanks
Hey Mozzers,
Our site uses magento. Pages within the site (not categories or products) are set to display as www.domain.co.uk/page-url/
The hta access is set to redirect all version such as www.domain.co.uk/page-url to a url ending in a /
However in google analytics and in moz landing page tracker these urls are being represented by www.domain.co.uk/page-url/index.php
When visiting www.domain.co.uk/page-url/index.php a 404 is displayed.
I know that by default when directed to a directory it automatically finds and displays the index file. So i understand why this is happening to some degree. However, when manually visiting this link does not exist.
This poses a problem when trying to view the landing pages information in moz pro. I have 20 keywords being tracked in relation to www.domain.co.uk/page-url/ but because moz is recording it as www.domain.co.uk/page-url/index.php the keywords are unrelated so not showing information in relation to the page.
Any ideas?
Hi Gaston,
Thanks for verifying my own thoughts on the matter. It is currently set up as the first one with breadcrumbs. At 400-500 products this is probably right.
I may look to convert it for when we expand the product range in the future but I will keep it as it is for now. Thanks for the input
Hey Mozzers,
Nice quick and simple one for you. Which of these 2 options is better for SEO and userbility and why
domain.co.uk/productname.html
domain.co.uk/shop/category/product.html
The top one stops stops any funky problems with magento making 2 paths to the same product but the second option feels more natural and helpful to the user.
I feel both a valid but I would like some opinions please
Nah moz is smart enough to auto detect the changes and adjust accordingly.
Make sure all your 301 redirect are in place and over a week or 2 moz should begin listing the https as google index's then and replaces your http.
Afternoon,
You don't need a new account, you just have to add a new property.
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/home?hl=en log in and click on the red "add a new property button"
Set it up exactly the same as your http property. Verifying the new property should only take a second as the same google analytics code etc will still be active and working.
To make sure your analytics works properly ensure you update the GWT property it updates from in the analytics options
Hey,
I have noticed that for the last 3 weeks or so the emails from Moz have been displaying incorrect information. The results it shows in the email seem to be from previous crawls.
For example
The previous week a sitemap that didn't update that caused 400+ pages to appear as 404's. This wasn't reported in the email and it stated there were only 2 errors on the site. (Of which we knew about anyway and choose to ignore). Thankfully i checked the crawl report anyway out of habit and saw the onsite report to show 400+ crawl errors. I went on to fix these errors.
This week, the crawl report showed 400+ crawl errors, I immediately logged on to the website to check the campaign to find there are only the 2 expected crawl errors.
It is almost as if the info from the campaign is being pulled and emailed to me seconds before it is updated from the crawl info. I am finding this to be the case in both the keyword and crawl errors email reports.
I thought I had but i had just hit the thumbs up button instead
Hi there,
You have kind of answered your own question in my opinion.
"The usage is quite different (indoor vs. outdoor)" & "the specific outdoor categories and products don't map logically to specific indoor ones"
You only want to be redirecting if the location is useful to the customer. Thinking "i dont want to loose the authority i've built up", whilst a valid chain of thought doesn't mean you should redirect it somewhere for the sake of it
I would personally take 1 of 3 approaches
Some may disagree but thats what I would do
Hey Mozzers,
I am optimising a chaotic section of the site including many similar products. Writing unique content etc. The titles and urls were all over the place so my first job was to tidy them up so I could make some sense of the situation, especially as sometimes they didn't even match!
I should point out were on Magento, so product name = Both the Heading and Title of the page, the meta title can be set separately. When i refer to title I mean both <title>and <h1></strong><br /><br />Before they existed as such<br />URL: domain.com/200-x-0-5-g-rs-232-balance.html<br />TItle: PC-1234 200 x 0.5g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance<br /><br />This format was (Product Code, Capacities, Resolutions, Accuracy, Product Title)<br /><br />The issue was all 60 products in a page followed this format. Navigating through the page was a nightmare and was just a jumble of numbers and highly confusing even to me who learnt what they all mean, especially when you had 8 products from the same range you got presented with<br /><br />APC-1234 200 x 0.5g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance<br />APC-1235 500 x 1g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance<br />APC-1236 1000 x 2g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance<br />APC-1238 5000 x 10g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance<br />APC-1239 10000 x 15g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance<br />APC-1210 20000 x 25g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance<br />APC-1211 50000 x 50g x 0.3 RS-232 Balance</p> <p>I changed them to something more user friendly.<br /><br />URL: domain.com/200g-precision-balance.html<br />Title: 200g Precision Balance<br /><br />This has seen the following benefits<br />- URL is now clear and means something to the user<br />- Product titles are easy to navigate and the page is more pleasing to the eye<br />- The jumble of numbers in the title are now all labelled and shown below each product listing in bullet point so the user can see the basic spec of a product without having to decipher any titles<br /><br />Upon reflection I has a couple of concerns I was hoping you could discuss, I am wondering if I have made the titles too simple.<br />1) I have no product code in the title<br />We have our own products manufactured and sell existing brands with their own product codes. Some of these can be lengthy. Adding them makes them hard to the eye and the page looked cramped.<br /><br />The codes are listed beneath each product title on category pages and on a list on the actual product page, but no where in the titles. <br /><br />2)None of our products have a brand listed in the title<br />None of the products on the site had brand names in anything but the images when i started and as such it snuck under my radar. But should i pre-fix all titles with a brand name?<br /><br />Should </p> <p>URL: domain.com/200g-precision-balance.html<br />Title: 200g Precision Balance</p> <p>become</p> <p>URL: domain.com/BRAND1-200g-precision-balance.html<br />Title: BRAND1 200g Precision Balance<br /><br />My instinct tells me to change things to include brands as its useful to the customer and should have an SEO benefit, but to leave out product codes as they are accessible to the customer where they are now and dont make things messy and unreadable.<br /><br />As always, thanks for the input!</p></title>
Hi there,
Sounds like you are dealing with a bunch of issues here.
I suggest the first thing you address is the trailing slash issues
http:// domain. co.uk/home
http:// domain. co.uk/home/
are different urls in Googles eyes despite being the same on your website.
To fix this take a loot at a previous post by myself figuring it out
https://moz.com/community/q/cms-pages-multiple-urls
This should hopefully cut down the number of errors appearing dramatically. Make sure your only ever using one version of link either with or without a trailing slash. Make the decision and always use that format.
As for your images appearing on a page of their own. We would need to know your CMS platform. A link to your site would also be helpful as you have so many errors its kinda a stab in the dark to figure it out for you without looking
I should have also mentioned the linking structure within the site.
All 23 versions of the product are linked from within 1 category that contains roughly 70 products. This is why the products must be kept separate. So users can browse the different specs alongside other products with similar comparable specs in the same category.
An example can be found here: https://goo.gl/5L4cpK (its a little unordered at the moment but will be more organised soon)
Take the 572 series, on the page above, it has 11 variations, the link currently filters the results on the page all 11 models are currently canonical'd to one version of the page. The filter also produces a category page that isn't linked on the website (https://goo.gl/c53sBY) This page is currently no-indexed.
How is the following for a solution?
Turn the 572 series filter link into a link to the 572 category page (https://goo.gl/c53sBY)
Change this page to be indexed and make its description a detailed guide to the full 572 series listing all models, options etc as you suggest
Make all the 572 products canonical of this super descriptive all singing and dancing page
The lack of options is the biggest problem, hopefully some people have some more ideas or i guess ill stick with is
Hi Patrick, thanks for taking a look.
I agree with your first comment regarding my example product. At the moment im just trying to clear out the duplicate content flags as there are 400 products all guilty of similar crimes. A lot of work needs to be done before i can address individual product descriptions and look to insert the schema. So whilst all the traffic is going to one version of the product at the moment, because of the duplicated content neither were ranking before, so this isn't a problem. In time i will indeed look to make them different, remove the canonical and give it unique content.
I like the idea of the "main product page containing all versions", however, wouldn't this just add another version of the product with more duplicate content? Would all the other products become canonicals of this main version that links back out to them all?
Because it listed the different models + contained all the tech specs etc woulnd't it be too different to utilise a canonical in this manner?
Hey Mozzers,
Questions around this have been asked time and time again. But i have a specific example I would like some advice on.
I have 2 products,
Product 1: https://goo.gl/Gzo1WC
Product 2: https://goo.gl/VbrHQJ
As you can see, the products are almost identical bar some technical specifications. The owner of the business wants them listing as 2 products, combining them into a single listing with configurable options is not an option.
As such I have simply made one a canonical of the other. Whilst not ideal this seems to be the best "SEO" fix.
Option 2: My second option is to rewrite the descriptions to they are different - not too hard on this product and a future options when i have more time, however....
I am presented with a similar problem for another product where there are 23 versions of the same product, i cannot rewrite the same info this many times. They are different sizes, ranges, capacities, resolutions and accuracies and must be listed separately but contain all the same features and basic product information. The basic info is too important not to talk about, and talking about all the technical specs would be too much and teaching the customers likely to buy them to suck eggs.
As such I have taken the 23 products and broken them down into 5 similar groups of 2 to 6 products. I have then picked 1 product from each group and written a unique description and changed all similar products in its group to match choosing 1product in each group as the canonical for all the others.
So 23 same products become 5 unique products with 18 duplicated products pointing to them as canonicals.
Any product pointing to another only differs in technical info, 95% of the page is the same.
Whilst obviously not ideal, Is this an acceptable use of canonicals?
No prob, let me know how things turn out (professional curiosity)
Like yourself my main project is dated in areas and a workaround is more cost effective than a rebuild, always interesting to see how people get around issues.
GL!
Sorry just want to check i understand this,
The product is originally created as domain.com/123456.html and is utilised at this url for a period of time.
You get the canonical url of domain.com/product-title.html later the day the product goes live.
You then create the canonical url and insert the canonical tags at a later time?
If all these are correct then it could explain why your having issues.
Google will crawl and index 123456.html pretty quickly, if this is the base url the product is created at you will most likely find that the links off your category pages use this url and any initial links use this url, this is bad for what you are trying to achieve.
When you then change to the canonical you create a situation where you have 2 copies of the page. 1 with loads of links pointing to it, especially internally, and another with no links. But your trying to tell google that the one with no links is the main version. I would bet this is why it is indexing both.
Even if you change all of the links and add the correct canonical tag it can take time for google to change, even then it can choose to ignore it (it can be frustrating).
Ideally you want to create the canonical URL first or at the same time as the 123456.html url and instantly add all the canonical tags, this way that all default links that a created internally point to it, and the first time it gets crawled it is already pointing to the canonical url.
In your current timetable, I would say redirects would be more suitable than canonical for both the order you release them and the general use.
About your plan,
If your timings are correct, then sure, that doesn't sound like too much of a time commitment and i think the benefit would be worth it. What I would expect to see within the month is the de-indexing of all the 123456.html versions
**Just remember, check all your canonicals actually need a 301 before doing them on bulk. You may have places on your site that you have canonicals because both versions of a page are needed, don't redirect these in your haste
Hi Thomas,
Firstly, the canonical does the same job as the 301 (for all intensive purposes) without the physical redirect. So in theory only the canonical should be being indexed and all the link juice should be being passed.
The fact that both are indexed suggests that the canonical isn't behaving as intended
An issue with using canonical like this is that people who use the search are not sent to the main canonical url. This gives people the opportunity to copy and link to the wrong version of the url, which isn't a practice you want.
A possible solution would be to find all backlinks and get them changed to the main canonical version internally and externally, this could be a lot of work.
The 301 redirect is better in my opinion because it achieves the following
However, unless you can automate this procedure, it can take too much time to create all those 301's for every product.
Personally i use the following guidlines as i find it keeps things clean and tidy
301 any url that isn't domain.com/main-product-url.html
keep the canonical on domain.com/main-product-url.html so that any version created from filtering or unexpected cms pages dont create duplicate content.
Ultimately people complain about DA because they lack the understanding of what it measures.
DA paints a picture of the hierarchy of the web and your "ranking" within the web. This is how DA was designed. As professionals we have chosen to utilise this ranking but sadly people are using it without first learning fully what it means and as such fall into pitfalls
The scale is designed to represent the whole web. The web is to large to simply divide into smaller sections that allow you to have a scale in which you can climb. If you define a static ceiling or remove the ceiling you either end up with all websites above the ceiling forcing it to be redefined anyway or allow DA to climb so high that it is unobtainable anyway.
DA can tell you everything you need it to, as long as you stop looking at it as a figure only you can influence.
Hi Oscar,
I answered a similar question to this a week or 2 ago but cant find it. Ill keep trying but here goes again 
Moz Authority shouldn't be compared a month to month basis. It is not a direct reflection of how well or badly your website is doing. What it is, is an indication of how much authority you have COMPARED to other websites.
Lets say facebook is the top website and has 5000 links pointing to it. This means that DA 100 = 5000 links
During the same month your own website has 500 links. And is DA 30.
The following month facebook gains 1000 links. The benchmark for DA 100 now = 6000 links. Your own website gained 10 link but your DA dropped to 25.
Your website hasn't changed and you own backlink profile got stronger. However you lost DA. This is because the "standard" got higher. Likewise if the best website lost 1000 links and you did nothing your DA would climb.
As such you can't compare it month to month, but should compared it verses your competitors. As you saw from your attachment, all the website you are tracking dropped. So in relation to your direct competition you are still fine, there is nothing to worry about.
I would suggest that you consider the time of year. As Christmas approaches the internet goes link crazy as they begin to advertise and all sorts of reviews and recommendation are made. As such expect the best website particularly to gain massive amounts of links, this in turn increases the "standard". The result is, all website that havn't built as many links that month experience a drop in DA.
As long as you havn't experienced massive drops compared to competitors i wouldn't worry.
Hey Dmitrii,
They all seem to be set up correctly. No mistakes mentioned in the article are present.
I've given it about 3 weeks so far, which may or may not be long enough i suppose
Hey Mozzers,
We have several products that all have upto 6 different versions, they are the same product but in a different specification. As users search via these specifications (within our website) it is beneficial to keep all 6 products as different listings on the website. In google however it is not.
So we kept all 6 listing but chose 1 to be the google landing page, the only different between them all is the technical specification + occasionally size. But 95% of the pages are the same.
Let call the products A, B, C, D, E, F, we made all the canonicals point to C because this is out best selling version of the product. However, google has chosen E to rank instead.
What is my best move here? Should i accept the page google has chosen and change the canonicals the point to that version or should I be stubborn and try to get google to change which version it ranks.
As always many thanks.
Morning Mozzers,
We have finally come to the point where we can start to focus on making good original content.
We were wondering how you guys come up with ideas for your content. We are currently doing lots of keyword research to gather ideas and subject areas. But we are struggling with 'angles of attack'.
Being an eCommerce site it is easy to do lots of "The 5 best products for this" type of content. But we feel there is limited value in these especially if we want to gain links to our articles in future as valued content.
How do you come up with your ideas for more valuable and linkable content especially in very niche product areas.
Thanks all.
Sure thing,
Using a canonical only would still let you access mysite.com/index.html and would display that url in the browser. This means 2 things, firstly a user can see this url (and it can look a little messy) if they happen to find their way onto this page and 2, they may link to your website using this url (many people copy and paste links from the browser window). Whilst this isn't a problem as the canonical would pass link juice anyway it makes things a little "messy".
A 301 would do exactly the same as the canonical in terms of passing link juice etc but it wouldn't let the user access mysite.com/index.html they would be redirected to mysite.com removing the possibility anyone would see or link to index.html
Both solutions fix your problem, one is just a little neater.
Hi Jorge, sorry for the delay responding i was away for the weekend.
You most likely don't have any links pointing the mysite.com/index.html
Index.html is the default hompage for most websites. mysite.com technically points to a folder and searches for the index.html file within this folder. As such, both address for your homepage are nearly always found.
A canonical will fix this, if you have the non-www version as your preferred domain go with
Many people prefer to 301 redirect this page as its neater in the browser. But the canonical will do the job.
Hi Jorge,
lets take it from the top
Moz tries to show you, and report on how google would see you site.
When you type in a url, the browser and server holding and displaying the website doesn't care if you use capitals or lowercase, for their purpose it is the same page. This is why you will have only created this page once on whatever web platform you are using. However, google sees them differently, each one as a different page.
You could access this page from any combination of capital letters even something stupid like
These hundred of variations are never picked up on simply because we dont use them.
Lets presume you wanted the the page to be reachable at "mysite.com/contact-us.html" and made it this way. The reason the second variation has been picked up on is most likely because you have used it (or someone else has) to link to that page. Somewhere somebody will have Link Text
Because of this link the second variation is found and because google treats it as a different page, moz is reporting it as a different page.
It is a similiar case with your
mysite.com
mysite.com/index.html
Is is the same page accessible at 2 different urls.
To combat this, you need to use a solution such as
1. Canonical Tags (Recomended)
On your homepage get this code inserted between the tags
On your contact page get this code inserted between the tags
This will cause all versions of this page that are "accidentally made" to say "Hey, im just a copy of this page"
2. 301 Redirects
The second solution is to put a 301 redirect in place, this varies depending on what web platform you are on. This simply redirects the user and any crawl bot to the intented page
i.e. someone tries to go to mysite.com/index.html and your website stops it loading and sends them to mysite.com
This is normally done by editing your htaaccess file. If you want to go this road tell us what platform you website is on and we can give you instructions.
I asked a similar question back in September and got a different response. Would you mind taking a look and commenting as i value your opinion. https://moz.com/community/q/display-none-read-more-implimentation
Hey Mike,
Nope nothing to worry about. Moz Domain Authority is always jumping an and down. This is how its designed. It shouldn't be compared month to month as the previous month has no bearing on the next. Instead you should judge it on how well you are doing compared to your competitors.
Rand posted an article about it this month (https://moz.com/community/q/da-pa-fluctuations-how-to-interpret-apply-understand-these-ml-based-scores) Took me ages to find it... turns out it was pinned to the top of the forums... typical
In summary
The best website on the web has DA 100. This month they have 5000 links.
You are DA 30 and have 1000 links
If the following month the best website gains 3000 more links so its at 8000 links - the DA 100 benchmark has moved
Compared to this benchmark you are not as authoritative as you were, your DA has dropped you are now
DA 25 and still have 1000 links
Your site hasn't change and you have no extra links. But compared to the best website you are slightly worse.
As long as everyone else in your niche has done the same don't worry.
If however, you drop 5 DA and your competitor gains 2 DA. They have improved their link profile much more than you have yours and you should look to act.
DA is also affected by changes to the moz algorithm as they prioritise different factors to get a better reflection of how google perceives your website.
So the simple rule. Compare yourselves to your competitors not to last months DA alone.
Hi C Pagan,
It been a little while since my wordpress days so bare with me.
Wordpress themes normally add a page title in the form of a heading to many pages - The hide title option as far an i am aware removes this heading, either by stopping the code generating it or moving it way off the page where it is not visible.
If this is still correct, then the hide title features will have no impact - the error from moz it talking about the Title bar - this is the text that appears on the tab in your browser, you can preview it in its full length in most browsers by mousing over it for a few seconds. You can use this to preview any changes you make without having to wait for the listing to change in google.
I would imaging your titles are being automatically generated using the page name plus a prefix or suffix and together it has become to long
I think in yoast you do something like SEO → Titles & Metas to get where this is editable, but it has been a while.
Ow im sorry, totally mis understood - sorry if i was explaining something you understood.
Moz use
you said they use
/> i presume now you mean the / at the end of the tag.
This is an old school closing tag. HTML elements were traditionally opened and closed in HTML versions before HTML5. Normally this is done obviously with tags such the opener "
" and closer "
". However some elements dont have a seperate closing tag such as "" tags. In older html versions these were closed using the format
Missing these tags didn't used to do much as most browsers rendered the page correctly anyways, but best practice was to include the / to close elements. However with the dawn of HTML5 things changed.
HTML5 doesn't require the closing tag. Elements that used to require one now simply dont. Browsers still understand both versions absolutely fine and its kinda ok to use either. But the most modern and correct practice is to use it without.
Edit:
Racking my brain, i believe the / was added as best practice to assure compatibility with XHTML which was pegged to be the next version of HTML. When XHTML was scrapped in favour of HTML5 it changed. Somebody may correct me on this one though
Looks fine to me, i think you misunderstand Mistake 2
They are using an absolute URL
If they did the "mistake 2" their canonical tag would look like
You canonical tags should always be absolute for good practice
is correct
or any variant of this would be wrong
I hate these situations, its one of those 'for the long-term' cases.
Sure they rank well now, but eventually Google might/will penalise them. At the same time, you are not being employed for SEO and the client must make the final decision with all the facts. If you are being employed for SEO I would stand your ground a lot more. But as you are not you can simply offer your professional opinion and leave it to them.
Sure, if you cut out the SPAM they might loose rankings, but if you dont cut SPAM they might get penalised.
Your way, they become future proof, the risk is safe, monitored and means no penalty just rankings that can still be improved over a relatively short period.
Their way, the risk is dangerous, their rankings could be destroyed for a long time and it could happen at any time.
I would simply explain that good SEO is also 'preventative' not just 'responsive'. Get it in writing, and cover your own ass and let him make the decision.
Hey Prime 85
Im in the UK and have used the free version of the tool without signing up for full moz local
It listed my company as 32% complete and it claimed it could get me to 96%
I worked through the listings 1 by 1 using the information the free version provides and currently have it up to 79%
The free version does exactly what you said, by following the tabs it tell you where inconsistent data is found and which profiles are incomplete and where duplicate listings are found.
This approach involves much more work but is great for a company like my employer who wont spend on the features. I still know exactly what I need to do to climb the extra few percent but it is proving hard as some of them dont allow edits unless you pay for listings etc.
I understand if you pay for moz local, you basically sync up all your listing accounts with your moz local account and it goes through each automatically updating the information to be the same. The only work you have to do it providing is access and permission to edit those account.
It basically removes the hours of leg work i have put in to acheive around 80% and gives you a 95% + completion in super fast time and makes it easy to maintain and update these listings without having to do each one individually.
Hopefully someone who pays for it can give you a better idea of how to full paid product behaves, But this is how i understand it.
Hope it helps
On first use it looks pretty good. cheers Dmitrii.
Thanks for the suggestion I found this one too, i tried their single page one and it seemed ok.
But it doesn't let you download results to see how good they are, i was hoping for a recommendation from someone who has used a couple as i dont want to throw money at something to find out its a waste of time.
Hey moz,
Im currently converting my site to mobile as its an older template based on tables it will make a lot of CSS redundant. I cant delete as i go incase a page uses it im unaware of so need to clean it up when its done.
Is there a tool that crawls my entire website and highlights the unused CSS in the files? Ive found a few paying tools that claim to do so but am reluctant to just spend money on something without a recommendation.
Cheers!
Hey Mozzers,
Im having a go at making our site mobile friendly without enlisting the help of developers and incorporating additional costs.
I am ok with most of it as its just CSS work bar the odd occasion when i need to reposition some elements within the code.
However, i have found myself wanting to use display:none {} on many elements that are just not practical on a mobile site. Some pages may have to hide substantial content.
Would this be considered an issue or will google just see it as me hiding impractical elements for a different sized screen.
I have googled this question for the past hour and there is a whole bunch of conflicting advice.
As always, Many thanks
Thanks for the latest responses guys
I have researched it into the grave and it the way Magento generates the sitemap makes it impossible for me to exclude these URLS.
I will just unblock them from robots, and make them all noindex. This seems to solve all problems, i will then block them when im 100% sure they are unindexed.
Thanks Again chaps.
Big help as always.