Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This is actually what I had in mind, information overload I must have confused the source.

Thank you very much.

Was actually one of the first places I looked, his posts here, as well as on distilled. Great content, but not exactly the post I was after. Appreciate the response.

Hi Guys,

I'm looking for a specific video post I recall watching, i thought it was on moz.com, all about creating a decent set up for video production. It discussed things like lighting setup, sound, hardware on a budget etc.

I have searched the moz.com blog video tag archive, as well as the Q&A, but haven't been able to find what I'm looking for.

Can anyone help?

Thanks!

Cheers, Peter.

This is the feature I'm looking forward to most, bring it on!

I assumed the same, hoping for a reply from staff.

Thanks.

In the guide video (http://moz.com/help/guides/getting-started) a report button is show. However, I cannot see this button in Moz Analytics.

I'm assuming this is due to the tool being in beta?

You may not like this answer as I'm not going to recommend some service which makes it easy to find quality blogs that will accept your content. Because that service does not exist. There are plenty of sites offering such services, but the quality of sites that partake are typically pretty sketchy. A few years ago this may have been an option, but now that guest posting has blown up, those sites are ineffective in my opinion.

If you want real results, you'll have to do some outreach to secure posts on awesome sites that aren't simply a free-for-all accepting posts from anyone. Of course, this means the content you put forward has to be equally, if not more awesome.

Hi guys,

Wondering if anyone can comment on their experience using Adroll, especially in terms of it's performance in comparison to Google Adwords retargeting campaigns.

Thx!

You might want to get some rel="alternate" hreflang="x" attribution on those different domains to be safe. Especially if you are (you should be) using localised spelling for each country.

See: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en

From above link, scenario where rel="alternate" hreflang="x" is recommended:

"Your pages have broadly similar content within a single language, but the content has small regional variations. For example, you might have English-language content targeted at readers in the US, GB, and Ireland."

No. No, NO, no, no, no, no, NOOOOOO, No, no!

Unless you want to get penalised, then, yes!

Thanks Robert, appreciate the reply.

Hi Guys,

Does anyone have an example of a site using schema.org Organization logo markup (as per: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com.au/2013/05/using-schemaorg-markup-for-organization.html), with the logo appearing in Google SERPs?

One of the designers is pressing me ofr an example. I've found plenty of brands getting their logo in the SERPs knoweldge base results, but they have all been using G+ verified company profiles, or other methods (Googs simply selecting a best fit?) to achieve it.

Thx!

Hi Jan,

I posted a similar question just the other day (http://moz.com/community/q/thoughts-on-proactive-link-disavow)

Sheldon commented on that question with a link to an interesting G+ Hangout where they touched on it slightly. You might want to check that out.

I also posted the question on G+ and got a number of replies which may be interesting to checkout:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/112470203895742795102/posts/gAXXxDWMLNS

Like most things SEO, there are people on both sides of the fence. One side suggessts that you don't want touch the disavow tool unless you get a warning email (or penalty) from Googs. The other side are all for regularly, proactively disavowing junk. You may need to take all the available info into consideration and make your own judgement call.

Hope this helps.

Thanks for the reply, Michael. Issue is, these aren't the kind of sites that are easily contactable, and even if I did hunt down contact details, I wouldn't expect a reply from them.

Thanks for the reply and the link, will definitely check it out.

If anyone else is interested in this topic, Enrico Altavilla pointed me in the direction of this Matt Cutts video, which encourages the practice. The comments are pretty damming, however.

watch?v=znOqJu3le2g

One of my newish hobby sites has began to attract some crappy links - as per Google Webmaster Tools, Links To Your Site report. The typical .ru and .pl kind of crap that seems to seep into all somewhat successful sites' link profiles.

I have not received any notifications or penalties, BUT I am considering proactively disavowing these, but wanted to bounce this idea off some other SEOs before proceeding.

Cheers!

Thanks for your reply, the issue is our in-house designers have very keen eyes and don't settle for anything less than perfect, so even a little bit of blurriness of the text in the image is an issue. Highest my work screen res goes up to in 1200x800 but the designers are working on high-end macs.

Asked the designer about the image res, his reply was that everything they did for the web was at 72px so that shouldn't be the issue. However, if you (or anyone) has any evidence to the contraryt, I'd be happy to take it to him.

Re the article, it suggested creating the image at half the dimensions, which I assume would only compound the compression issue.

Thanks for responding!

Does anyone have any tips on getting a super crisp cover image uplaoded to G+?

I have a clear image, full dimensions of 2120 x 1192, but once I've uploaded it, G+ appears to compress it and it loses sharpness / quality. I have turned auto-optimise off, and and tried both JPEG and PNG files - PNG seems to work better, but still not quite there.

Example: https://plus.google.com/116325067504054061939 (scroll up to see blurry text)

Thx!

I don't think standard tags get used much by visitors. Related posts, especially if acompanied by thumbnail images, perform much better in my experience.

To put it simply, the more (decent) content you have, the more opportunites you have to rank for keywords in search.

My opinion, if you're going to do it, do it properly.

I've had great and affordable results hiring translators on Odesk. Get them to do a sample and have another, or multiple native speakers review it. If you can't afford to translate an entire site, consider just doing a mini version of the site or just core pages in another language.

I asked a similar question a little while ago, there were some suggestions there including: AnalyticsSeo and SEOanalytics, I haven't used either of those, but maybe check them out.

You might want to wait and see how the new Moz analytics performs, how the reports look. I understand Raven Tools are also working on something new atm: raventools.com/simple/

I'm quite eager to get my hands on both!

As this post backs-up:

http://www.analyticsresults.com/2013/06/recover-google-analytics.html

Don't be disheartened, get back on the horse and continue to write regular, awesome blog posts. You might consider some guest blogging to increase visitors from referring sites, and to assist with rankings for more search traffic.

Good luck.

Without you providing additional information, basically you need to start working through your list and addressing the issues, based on which are the most pressing. You probably want to take a look at the Moz SEO guide and make sure you're following best practices in optimising the site overall.

I wouldn't be too concerned, Google is clever enough to identify page elements, like header, nav and content serparately.

Once the redesign is live, do a crawl as Googlebot within Google Webmaster Tools to make sure it can crawl the entire  page.

The other consideration you might look into is site speed, have a look at how the redesign impacts load time, you can compare within Google Analytics (Content > Site Speed report), and/or use an external tool like http://www.webpagetest.org.

I suggest using rel=canonical on those pages, but be aware that they may still show up in the moz report.

In the case where the client wants the product page removed from the site, we've had custom programming to implement 301 redirects, up one category level, so that the customer is take to relevant products in the same category that they were seeking.

Return a 410 http status (page permanently gone, disregard links) on that URL, move the content to a new URL.

If you're using tags internally to help organise content, you could just stop them from appearing on the front end of the site.

The alternative is to keep them on the front end, but to no-index the tag pages.

I don't beleive you will get in trouble for favoriting too many tweets as it doesn't breach any of their T&Cs, guidelines.

If you used some kind of automation software to interact with Twitter, that may be another issue.

410 will kill the link equity. In cases similar to yours, I have implemented a 301 to the category page of the product removed. This gives users products similar to the one they were looking for, and retains link equity.

Raven Tools has a social media monitoring tool. I haven't used it myself in a while and I beleive they recently updated it. Check it out here: http://raventools.com/tools/social-media-monitor/

If possible add unique content to your category pages, and use unique post extracts. Then no need to block.

Don't block "read more" as these link to full posts.

"the www version has more linking root domains, and for most of the keywords the www version shows up in Google"

In that case I would stick with www.

The worst, in my opinion, are the unethical ones.

Case in point, a web developer scored a job to create a website for a popular government owned (.gov) attraction. They added a, SEO Services page (TOTALLY irrelevant) to the site, and linked back to their site with it.

Let's just say there was something my, 'but...' assumption.

Official answer is no, unofficial may be different if you have friends in the right places (I personally don't, but I know a case where a deleted profile was restored.)

Nice find - the feedback seems a bit iffy, but it is the kind of thing I was looking for, perhaps it will improve / include social metrics with future development. Thanks!

I don't believe anything like that currently exists.

Short answer: no.

Long answer requires more info.

• I can't see any attachment, that would be interesting to see.
• Where is the traffic from?
• How does the traffic get to your site?
• How does the traffic perform on your site?

I see a lot of junk in the link profile, such as:

• proinfolink.info
• topseodirectory.co.uk
• netdirectoryltd.info
• seosong.com
• seolinkdirectory.co.uk
• netsitedirectory.info
• ilinkindex.info
• dsubmit.com
• seorganix.com
• seolistworld.info
• bestsubmitsystem.info
• etc

You might consider cleaning those up and focusing on earning some awesome links

How recently?

OSE's index was last updated on May 15, if it was later than that, you won't see any data. Next update is due on June 12. But to be blunt, wix is horrible for SEO - get a self-hosted Wordpress install, with a few plugins you'll be on the right path.

So gald they are gone, it was extremely outdated and most of them were junk. People were still submitting to them due to the fact that they were on an SEOmoz list!

These appear to be tools to check if the site has been black listed for email spam. While it's good to check for when buying a domain, it won't tell you if Google has penalised the site.

Is there a site on the domain at the moment, or has there been one recently?

If there is you could see how well indexed it is (site: command), see if it ranks for it's own brand terms, and even moderately competitive terms.

You can also run the site through opensiteexplorer and see how dodgy the external link profile is.

One of the most obvious ways is to compare organic search traffic to the dates new algorithms go live. Checkout the Google Algorithm Change History page. There is even a chrome plugin called Chartelligence that overlays the algorithm change dates over your traffic data.

Also checkout webmaster tools for messages for unnatural link warnings from Googs themselves.

Hope that helps!

A few things to investigate:

Did you try the site: command? Your post says 'siteaddress:' - I don't know what that is.

What date did this occur?

Have you tried the Fetch as Goole tool in Google Webmaster tools?

Checked for crawl errors in GWT?

Submitted an XML sitemap to Webmaster Tools?

Is Bing indexing it?