Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks guys for letting me know I'm not the only one getting these errors. Right now it works, but great to know someone is already looking into this.

Cheers, Chris

The healthpage says it is operational but I'm getting a ton of  'There was an error getting your data' messages. First I thought, it just happens to smaller pages, since testing it with moz.com worked. But even pages like nbc.com give me this error. I tried logging out an in again and even swithcing browsers - without success.

Anyone else having problems like this right now?

Cheers, Chris

Hi Rand,

thank you for the quick reply. After looking into the data again, it seems like I have exaggerated a tiny bit. Here are some examples. One of them is old kwd 38, new kwd 4, another one is old kwd 46, new kwd 6. Technically not "40+ to <5" but pretty close and bad enough.

ddzvs7vl.png

Hey Rand,

from your blogpost regarding the launch of keyword explorer I got, that you guys are planing to retire the old keyword-diffuculty tool in favor of the new kw-explorer. On the other hand it is stated in that post and here as well, that the new explorer is - and for at least some more month will be - US and english language-centric.

After fiddling with it for a while I get more then > 90% "no data" for volume and many of the new difficulty scores don't make much sense to me (e.g. difficulty scores of < 5 for terms that got a score over >40 in the old tool).

That leads me to two questions:

• If the new tool is more precise than the old one and the differences in scores are that big: Was it either a terrible idea to use the old scores for decission making in the first place? Or could it be, that the new tool has still some difficulties when it comes to non-english languages or non-us-searches?

• Related to this: Why retire the old tool so quick if the new one is not an adequate alternative for folks like me yet?

Thanks, Christian

Hello Jon,

thank you for the fast answer. Regarding your questions:

First I was thinking about ignoring suggestions on a single page level, which I think should be an option. But your question got me thinking. Additionally telling the system to ignore this for the whole sub- or root-domain would be nice too. An example for each case.

• My target keyword for a page is something like "Überclothing for Hômmes". To be able to ignore the URL-suggestion for this page would be nice, but ignoring it on a domain-level not so much, because on other pages I might target keywords that just contain ASCII-Symbols like "funny shoes" and therefore the suggestion would still be valuable.
• The suggestion for using a canonical tag, url-length or static urls on the other hand could be a domain-wide limitation comming from a CMS or eCommerce-System, so I'd prefer not to ignore it manually for every page.

To wrap it up: The best solution in my oppinion might be something like you are doing allready when I'm hiding an insight. There, when I hide one insight, the page asks, if I'd like to ignore ths insight forever. This might be a good idea for ignoring suggestions too. Whenever someone chooses to hide a suggestion, the page could ask, if this should be done for this certain page (as default) or all pages on this sub- or rootdomain.

Regarding the influence of ignoring suggestions to the score: One could think it would be nice to have a score relativ to the non-ignored suggestions, where e.g. 82 points is 100% of all open suggestions and therefore the percentage would be more interessting then the raw score.
But that might get confusing in some cases.

So at least I personally would be fine with this not having any impact on the score at all. Like I said in my first post: I don't care as much about a score as I care about actionable suggestions. So If I see "allright, thats just a score of 75, but thats as good as it can get right now", that would be sufficient - and maybe even a strong reminder, that I might think about implementing features like speaking urls or canonical tags into the cms/eCommerce-System, which is currently holding me back.

Cheers, Christian

Hello,

I just ran about something, which looks like a minor change (at least to me, but i totaly get, that what looks like a minor change to the outsider might in fact be a big deal from the developers view) but could easily enhance productivity with the new onpage-tool.

In the overview of tracked on-page reports, I think it would be a great idea, to show the number of unsolved suggestions next to the score. Additionally, I'd love to flag some unsolved suggestions on a single page as "ignored". Why should I ignore a suggestion? For example

• I'm working for a customer, who is using a pretty old e-Commerce System. Therefore there is no possibilty to easiely add canonical tags.
• Also on some pages, it is not feasible to get below the 100 links per page threshold.
• On Pages, that list all products of a certain brand, I naturally get the "avoid spamming" suggestion regarding the brand-name
• Some Pages adress Keywords with german Letters like ÄÜÖß, which cannot be found in the page URL (while Google does get that "über" and "ueber" are the same thing).

So there are cases where I can't - or simply don't want - to solve the suggestion. Now it happens almost every week to me, that I see keyword ranking, lets say, at 7 with a score of something like 87. The usual instinct is to click the report to look for the last tweaks. Often then I realise, I checked this report few weeks ago and can't or won't do anything regarding the remaining suggestions.

If it would have something like "3 unresolved suggestions (+ 2 ignored)" standing next to each score in the reports overview, it would be my personal usability dream come true - since the number of open suggestions is more important to me then the score.

To make it even more aweseome, add a simple filter: "Only show Reports with not-ignored unresolved suggestions". Whoohooo, that would make you one happy customer!

Maybe that is something, many people would enjoy to see in an update.

Cheers, Christian

P.S. sorry for my bad englisch - hopefully you got the idea.

unbenannt-3.jpg.html

hmm, still I beg to differ. Another quote from the same episode:

"Number four, the first anchor text in the HTML of a page is what Google counts, Bing as well. This was discovered on SEOmoz a couple of years ago. We ran some tests about it. We published the results. There was a lot of skepticism. I think Debra Mastaler from Alliance-Link wrote about it and said, "Hey, Matt Cutts, would you please confirm this?" And he did. He came out and said, "Yeah, that's how we interpret it".

So, basically, here's what's going on. If you see a web page and it says this website is awesome, it features highlights of great Portuguese cooks, now look, these two links are both pointing to the same page. [...] That means not that the website is going to get credit for the anchor text website and the anchor text Portuguese cooks, but rather they are going to consider the anchor text website and ignore Portuguese cooks." (if website is the first anchor-text).

I was surprised about this by myself. Rand talked about it in January 5th whiteboard friday "all about anchortext".

http://www.seomoz.org/blog/all-about-anchor-text-whiteboard-friday

Quote: "What I want to cover is some intricacies around this, some details that you may or may not know about anchor text, and those include: Number one, multiple anchors from the same page "do not" provide more value."

This still doesnt mean, that two links from let's say page X to page Y are not better then only one link in regard to linkjuice. One could say; "Multiple links from the same page still provide more linkjuice." But in regard to anchortext it's the one of the first "x to y"-link on a given page X which matters for page Y.

If I totaly missunderstood this please take my dearest apologies, as for my "semi-pro" use of the english language.

Hi,

allthough this might pass some additional linkjuice, this will imho not help you rank better for the used anchor-text since  google only takes the anchortext of the first link to a certain page into account. Since you have already a link with the anchortext "home" in you menu, I think there is no extra effect for using another anchor-text in our footer.

Best regards

The 301 should be outside the <ifmodule>. Maybe you could post the other 301 redirects and the one which isn't working here.</ifmodule>

Creating a new index.html and redirecting from it would give you a 302 or even a meta-redirect, which in regard to seo is not recommended.

Do you allready have some rewrite-rules in yout htaccess? In this case try placing it at the end of them.

Works without any tags for me.

Hi Pascal,

Try this in you htaccess

RewriteEngine on

RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^[A-Z]{3,9}\ /index.html\ HTTP/

RewriteRule ^index.html$ http://YOURDOMAIN.COM/ [R=301,L]