Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Hi
The syntax you use is wrong:
Example page: https://www.whichledlight.com/bulbs?page=2
The canonical should be
(currently )
Check this reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
The rel next /previous should be:
(currently:
Check this reference: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en
Hope this helps;
Dirk
It is inline with Google policies as long as you add the rating to your organisation & not to an individual product.
If you check the different guidelines
(sources: https://developers.google.com/structured-data/policies & https://developers.google.com/structured-data/rich-snippets/reviews)
Don't see any issue here.
rgds,
Dirk
Hi
the easiest solution would be to take your existing funnel / checkout report and select segment mobile and/or tablet traffic which gives you the figures you're looking for.
Alternative would be to create a new view and to add a custom filter mobile and tablet (these are pre-defined) or create a filter based on screen size.
Advantage of the second method is that it doesn't involve sampling (segments are sampled if visits are high or if you look at historical figures). The disadvantage is that reporting only starts tracking the moment you create the view (segment also work on historical data.
Hope this helps
Dirk
There is one link in Open Site Explorer (in the fresh discovered section: https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/just-discovered?site=http%3A%2F%2Fb5footballcup.com&filter=&source=&target=page&page=1&sort=crawled)
It's quite possible that there are more links to your site, and that Moz hasn't discovered them yet. You should know however that no tool will be able to discover all the links to your site. Most of them can find the links from high ranked sites, but the more links you have from smaller & less well known sites, the more difficulty the tools will have to find these links.
There was a similar question a few days ago - you might want to check these answers as well : http://moz.com/community/q/link-building-links-aren-t-showing-on-moz-or-semrush
rgds,
Dirk
According to Google: "Duplicate content generally refers to substantive blocks of content within or across domains that either completely match other content or are appreciably similar."
The example you give is a bit in between: it contains a part which is unique - however the tabulated content which would appear on each page contains more content than the unique part. Personally I don't think that these pages would be considered duplicate content. However, if you want to be on the save side you could make a separate page with all possible configurations. This would also have the advantage that you could do without the tab's (end of of 2014 John Muller indicated that hiding content under tabs is not the best seo strategy (https://www.seroundtable.com/google-hidden-tab-content-seo-19489.html).
I wouldn't go for the iframe solution - it's a bit an outdated way to present information.
Hope this helps,
Dirk
You can put in all your product pages. It seems a logical thing to do both for your company & and your users - a good score from a reliable source will reassure potential buyers that you're a serious company that can be trusted to buy stuff.
I am not sure if the aggregate rating will be displayed in the SERP's (most examples you see are ratings & reviews for individual products), but it will certainly do no harm.
rgds,
Dirk
Hi
you can select the segments at the top of the page in your analytics report. By default it list 100% of sessions - next to it 'add segment'. When you add a segment you can add mobile / tablet. If you only want to see mobile you close the 'all sessions segment and only keep the mobile segment.
I only have mobile internet access so I can't send you a screenshot
rgds
Dirk
Hi,
I don't really agree with the answer of Verbinteractive: disavowing links in WMT only concerns Google - there is no way Moz OSE is able to know that these links have been disavowed.
If these sites no longer exist than it's quite possible they will disappear in OSE, but not because of the disavow. If the links are from crappy sites it's quite possible that Moz crawled them once, but is not crawling them again (while the number of pages they crawl is huge - it's still limited).
Wait for the next crawl (Sept. 9th) & if these links are still present I would contact Moz directly.
rgds
Dirk
Hi Pete,
Personally I am not a big believer in trying to funnel link juice across the site - but theoretically yes, if you reduce the number of (unique) links on the home, the more link juice is passed to the categories below.
On the other side, the fewer links you have on the homepage, the more you are pushing content deeper in your site (number of clicks from the homepage to reach pages).
The other point - you can structure your URL anyway you want (best is to keep them quite simple so that they are easy to remember and not too long). For the depth - Google is looking at the number of clicks to reach this page (starting from home) - they are not counting the number of "/" in your url.
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Edit: you might want to check these resources: http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2316757/matt-cutts-on-linking-guidelines-how-many-links-on-a-page - and this one https://moz.com/blog/how-many-links-is-too-many
Hi,
Agree with Patrick. Some additional info & resources:
It's better to avoid 'soft 404's' - in fact Google prefers "real" 404 pages (which are are an ok strategy in case of a large number of out of stock products).
You could check this article with the different options according to Matt Cutts (http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2334932/ecommerce-seo-tips-for-unavailable-products-from-googles-matt-cutts
Are soft 404's going to hurt your site: check this answer from Cyrus Shepard on a similar question (http://moz.com/community/q/soft-404s-for-unpublished-301-d-content#reply_291233
"How much will it hurt you? Probably not much, but it's hard to say.
Let's ask these questions:
Hope this helps
Dirk
There was a similar question a few days ago (http://moz.com/community/q/can-i-move-google-tracking-from-one-account-to-another)- and unfortunately the answer is no.
I repeat the answer from google:
Source: https://developers.google.com/analytics/resources/concepts/gaConceptsAccounts
You could download most of the data to xls - and start tracking on a second account as you already did.
If the account was opened on the clients name - you try contacting somebody at Google to recover the account. If the account is from the SEO firm, it will probably difficult to recover it.
There could be some interesting info in this post - http://moz.com/community/q/is-there-a-way-to-find-out-who-the-admin-of-a-google-analytics-account-is - it's a bit a different case, but maybe the info can help you to somehow regain control over the account (update: this link from this question could be of interest: https://www.en.adwords-community.com/t5/Tracking-Reporting/How-to-gain-access-to-your-Analytics-account-Property/m-p/436348)
rgds,
Dirk
Agree, coffee does make a difference. 3pm here in Europe so I already had my daily dose 
Hi,
Far from being an htacess expert, but you could also try this rule:
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} /+[^.]+$
RewriteRule ^(.+[^/])$ %{REQUEST_URI}/ [R=301,L]
(off course I didn't invent it myself - it's coming from here: https://github.com/phanan/htaccess#force-trailing-slash )
I tried it here http://htaccess.madewithlove.be/ - and it seems to work if url is in the form
mydomain.com/article => mydomain.com/article/
If you check with mydomain.com/article.htm - it's not redirected
Could be an alternative if the rule proposed by Andy wouldn't work.
Rgds,
Dirk
I don't think there is an easy route here - you will have to get rid of these indexed search pages in any case. Keeping this low quality pages will continue to hurt your site.
If you currently don't have the resources to do the 'ideal' scenario - I would go for the short pain: cut out these pages now, it will probably cost you traffic on the short term, but at least you have a clean base to build upon. Keeping the pages is probably better on the short term, but the longer you keep them, the more your site's reputation is going to be affected and put's you in danger for future algorithm updates.
Just my opinion
Dirk
Hi Justin,
The easiest way is just to take the pages off line - they will give a 404 status & after a while they will disappear from the index.
If you are regrouping the content into a new article - it's probably better to redirect these pages to the new one, using a 301 redirect. Here's an how-to: http://www.howto301redirect.com/wordpress-page-301-redirect/ (using a plugin). You could also manage the redirect directly in htaccess - see example here: https://wordpress.org/support/topic/proper-301-redirect-in-htaccess (you can manage the htaccess via the Yoast plugin).
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Mary,
Maybe a temporary glitch in OSE? I just tried the domain in OSE & I get results without problems.
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Jac,
If you keep the content on your homepage quite similar to the existing homepage, you should normally be able to keep the rankings for the keywords that are currently generating traffic to your homepage. If everything goes well, Google should be able to figure out that for some keywords, other landing pages on your site are a better choice than just the home (although it's never a guarantee - just browse the q&a section and you'll find plenty of questions wondering why Google seems to prefer the home page rather than the skilfully crafted landing pages on the site)
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Pete,
These pages are not really duplicates, but they do not add a lot of value either. For these kind of pages I would use "noindex, follow" attribute. If I look at them, I really have difficulties to imagine for which kind of query these pages could provide a suitable answer.
Each of the articles mentioned in these list seems to contain useful content- but grouping them by date of apparition is not really adding value. If I were you - I would rather try to regroup them in logical themes (Taking care of your lawn / Painting / Maintenance / ...)
Put yourself in the mind of your target audience - they need to solve a certain problem & they probably need one of the products you have for hire. How would they search? What is the info they need? How can you help them? Many of the articles I see on your site are a bit too generic ('How to take care of your lawn in spring'). To be honest - that's a question I would never enter in Google. People are searching for things like "how to get rid of moss in lawn" - your site doesn't really seem to have a specific answer on this topic. It would however be an excellent opportunity to promote your lawn scarifier.
On first sight, it looks that your site has a lot of interesting content, but it's not really organised around themes, doesn't always answer the right question & links in a bit arbitrary way to the e-commerce part.
Try to do some keyword research (nice article here: https://moz.com/blog/keyword-research-in-90-minutes - a lot more resources here: https://moz.com/ugc/category/keyword-research) - to find out how your target audience is searching & optimise your content according to this;
Try to create smart internal linking using topical hubs (I love this WBF of Gianluca : https://moz.com/blog/topical-hubs-whiteboard-friday)
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Hi John,
When I check your pages with the Chrome plugin - I regularly get the message that the tag is implemented in a non-standard way. You should check if the tag is properly implemented.
On some occasions (which are unfortunately not always replicable) I noticed that 2 pageviews are fired - rather than one. I added a screencopy to this message.
Another thing you should take into account - as you use enhanced e-commerce tracking - each event that is launched on page can have an impact on the bounce rate & time on site.
It's probably interesting to read this article http://www.analytics-ninja.com/blog/2012/06/google-analytics-bounce-rate-demystified.html and/or this article http://cutroni.com/blog/2012/02/29/understanding-google-analytics-time-calculations/
Summarising - if your user is performing an action on the page which is tracked by the enhanced e-commerce tracking (and launches an analytics event), even when he stays on the same page, it will have an impact on both how the time on site is measured & the way the bounce rate is calculated. If you don't want an event to have an impact on the bounce rate you can set it to "non-interactive event" - see https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/enhanced-ecommerce - Google's advice would be to only use this for events that are non user initiated.
So the decrease of your bounce rate doesn't necessarily imply that somethings wrong with your measurements. I would try to check what is causing the "non-standard" implementation message to be 100% sure that the tracking is always working properly. You can use the Chrome analytics plugin to check if everything is ok - and use the Analytics debugger to check more in detail which events are fired on each page.
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Without the actual site it's difficult to say. Did you check your robots.txt? Do you block robot's in your headers? Is your site entirely made in Flash or Ajax?
If you send the site in a PM I could have a look.
Dirk
Hi
Did you check this article on infinite scrolling from Google Webmaster tools?
Without seeing the actual site it's just guessing - if you have thousands of pages that are listed I guess that it doesn't really make sense to use rel next/previous.
You could consider to only index the first page of the category and put a canonical on the remaining pages.
Are these category pages valuable as landing pages? If not - you could put noindex/follow to make sure that the underlying pages get indexed.
Hope this helps
Dirk
Hi Pete
Even if you don't make the videos yourself, it still ads value for your visitors if you use videos from Youtube and/or add additional info from suppliers. Engagement & time on site should increase - so indirectly it will have a positive impact on SEO.
It's not really necessary to make the external links nofollow - normally Google advises only to put nofollow on commercial links / links to low quality. Of course, if you are linking to competitors, it's better to put a nofollow (you don't want to reinforce their position).
rgds,
Dirk
Hi,
The non-standard implementation could cause measurement errors - but the times I checked it seems that the page views where measured correct. Unlike the normal Analytics code, it's difficult to check with the Tag manager if everything is ok with the code if you don't have access to the tag manager itself. I had the error with the double pageviews a few times, but it seems to appear erratically so difficult to replicate.
I think the main reason why your bounce rate went down is related to the events which are tracked by the enhanced ecommerce tracking - so I don't really think you need to worry about it;
rgds,
Dirk
Hi
Well - given the troubles Moz has to build the regular index in the past months I doubt they will add this feature anywhere soon.
Don't forget that DA & Trust is an internal metric of Moz - which tries to predict how well your site will rank in the SERP's. As all tools, it is just an estimate of the real thing.
Dirk
Hi,
In most cases having duplicate content is not going to punish/hurt you in terms of SEO (unless it's deceptive content) - see https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66359?hl=en
It remains however best practice to make sure that content on only one unique url - the example you give seems to be a text book example of 'when to use canonicals' - https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en
The fact that Google doesn't seem to index the #! pages is probably related to the fact that these pages have few incoming links and that it's making the correct guess that these duplicate pages are not really important. You should also take into account that the site: command is not necessarily giving you all the pages that are indexed.
Long answer to confirm that you better add the canonical.
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Hi,
The url https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum/?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=41 has https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum - however this canonical url doesn't exist - it's redirected to https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum/
If you update the canonical to https://kidsinministry.org/childrens-ministry-curriculum/ you should be fine, there is no need to redirect the url's.
rgds,
Dirk
John,
1 Events are used to do the advanced tracking of e-commerce so according to me there is no alternative; not even sure that you can configure them as "non interactive event"
2. Remarketing script shouldn't be an issue.
Not sure what you mean by point 3 - could you explain what you mean with this point?
rgds,
Dirk
None of the tools on the market is able to find all links to your site - and different tools will find different links. If you want to have the best view on who's linking to your site you will have to combine several tools (ahref/moz/semrush/search console/...).
Ahref used to be the tool who was able to find the most links (not sure if it's still the case) - which is in line with what you're seeing. Moz does a lot of processing of the data it's finding to calculate the page/domain authority - so they need to limit the index they work on (even if it's huge).
Dirk
Hi,
Not sure where you see the popup - it looks like a normal dropdown navigation (it's triggered by javascript but the links are in the HTML).
I would get over the concept of wasting link juice on internal links - it's absolutely normal (and even good for your visitors) to have pages like 'about us, contact us' and there is no need to hide these links using javascript or by putting nofollow's on them.
Check this article from Matt Cutts on linksculpting - a similar question can be found here - to quote the answer:
"No following those links (=hiding in your case) such as contact us does not mean that link juice is retained for the other pages you want to rank for. "
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Just to add to the answer of Luis - in most cases Google is quite capable of guessing the intention of the searcher.
Even in countries that traditionally have a lot of accents, a lot of people are searching for the words without the accents. This is probably partially due to the fact that on mobile it's not always easy to get the accents right, but also due to laziness (it's generally faster to just type the word without the accents).
If you search on google.fr for référencement (correct spelling) or referencement - the results are identical. All the results however use the correct spelling in the meta description & title.(if you check Google trends for this keyword you'll notice that the wrong spelling is even slightly more popular than the correct version)
If you take the example given in the question Luis is referencing - the results for Google.es for cursos de inglés & cursos de ingles are now identical as well
So my advice would be to use the correct spelling on your page - Google should normally be able to figure it out.
Just make sure that you escape the foreign characters in your HTML.
rgds,
Dirk
Hi John,
As far as I can see - using both the debugger & Analytics extension - I don't see anything wrong with the tags. The only reasonable explanation for the drop of the bounce rate seems to be the events triggered by the enhanced eCommerce tracking. I googled it & there seem to be more cases where implementing the eCommerce tracking had an impact on bouncerate. So, if you don't want the bounce rate to change you will have to make all the events triggered by the advanced e-commerce module non interactive. Not sure how you can do it with the tag manager (I am not using it myself).
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Dan,
As far as I know geo targeting in Webmastertools in only possible on the domain level (and only for generic tld's like .net, .com,...etc). I agree with Robert, in your case I would certainly not do it, as you try to attract 3 different countries with one TLD.
For one of the Spanish sites I manage we tried the geo targeting in GWT, but it didn't seem to give specific benefits. The only measurable effect we noticed was that the traffic from S-America was decreasing (slightly) , but there was no increase in traffic from Spain. We didn't experience a significant increase in rankings in Spain either, so we removed the geo targeting (this site had quite generic content, so not really linked to a specific location in Spain).
We still have the geo targeting active on a shop specifically targeting the Spanish market, but we still get approx. 45% of our traffic from S-America (which from our perspective is useless traffic as we don't ship to these countries)
Dirk
Hi Dave,
Because it's a bot that's examining the site you need the hreflang & geo-targeting. Algorithms are not perfect, and mistakes do happen, but I am convinced that on the long run you win by staying close to the guidelines (and certainly by putting the benefits of your visitors/customers first).
Personally, I think this whole duplicate content issue is a bit overrated (and I am not only one - check this post on Kissmetrics). In most cases, when finding duplicate content Google will just pick one of the sites to show in the results, and not show the others, unless the duplicate content has a clear intent of spamming. Panda is mainly about thin and/or low quality content, or content duplicated from other sites (without hreflang/geotargeting etc) so I would consider the risk in this case rather low.
There was a discussion on Google product forums which is quite similar to this one (Burberry had a massive traffic drop on it's US site) - and the answer from JohnMu from Google was quite similar to the answer I gave: use geo targeting & hreflang.
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Sam,
To clarify - for me the correct spelling is the spelling using the accents. For the foreign characters I meant to encode them. In the example above: not use référencement in the HTML but rather référencement
rgds
Dirk
Hi,
To quote google:
Source: https://developers.google.com/analytics/resources/concepts/gaConceptsAccounts
Is there a way to keep the access to the old account or does it belong to the hosting company?
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Justin,
You might want to look at your server configuration - all the domains seem to have some config issues (no SOA record / no DNSSEC processing). I am not really into this technical stuff, and cannot judge if these issues are really important or not.
http://dnscheck.pingdom.com/?domain=www.zenory.com.au×tamp=1429174636&view=1
http://dnscheck.pingdom.com/?domain=www.zenory.co.nz×tamp=1429174857&view=1
http://dnscheck.pingdom.com/?domain=www.zenory.co.nz×tamp=1429174857&view=1
(I noticed when I tried to crawl the .com.au site with Screaming Frog and got a Connection Error)
Apart from that, as mentioned in a previous answer, the fact that prices are listed in NZ$ is probably a bit strange for .com (and .com.au users). Language used is NZ version - in the States spelling is slightly different (ex. behaviour vs behavior).
Did you manage to create sitemaps for the US & AU versions?
Not related to the ranking issues - but the homepage seems to be very heavy - you might want to work on that (http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150416_2D_J3X/)
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Hi Sander
Redirecting based on ip address can be quite tricky. If you would redirect US visitors based on ip address to the US site rather than the corporate site you risk that you will redirect the main Googlebot (who is crawling your site with a Californian ip) to the US site as well. You could exclude the Google ip's from the redirection - but that would be against the Google Guidelines (check http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2008/06/how-google-defines-ip-delivery.html : "Googlebot should see the same content a typical user from the same IP address would see.")
You could consider to use the ip detection to show a message to US visitors - inviting them to visit the US site rather than the corporate one. This way you give the choice to the user - continue the visit on the corporate site or going to the dedicated US version (which is probably better in terms of usability as well - personally I always find it annoying when a site redirects me somewhere based on my location). For frequent visitors you could store their choice in a cookie & redirect them automatically if the cookie is set for this particular visitor)
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Hi Craig,
Not sure where you would put the nofollow:
the links to the search pages on the articles need to be of type "follow" - if Google is never allowed to follow the links to the search pages it will take a lot of time before the bot discovers that all the search pages became "noindex"
the links on the search pages themselves- here you can do what you want. As the final goal is to remove the search pages from the index - once they're not longer indexed it becomes irrelevant if the links on these pages are nofollow or not. I would keep these links of type "follow" - allowing the bots to easily access all the pages - find the links on them that go the other search pages and take them out of the index.
One thing that you should also check and that I didn't mention before - it is probably a good idea to crawl your site now with Screaming Frog and check the depth of the site (%of articles at 1/2/3... clicks from the homepage). It could be possible that if you remove the "search" pages a larger part of your content moves deeper in the site - this could have a potential negative impact on the ranking of these articles. If this is the case - you could decide
(or a mix of these)
rgds,
Dirk
Hi,
I would try to keep the current tracker as long as possible - but also add a second tracker from the Client account - after a while the current tracker will become obsolete. As backup - I would also download main historical stats & put them in xls.
Here you can find how to setup multiple trackers - I would call the current tracking something like "oldtracker" (the link is for Universal - it's also possible for the asynch version)
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Justin,
Next Tuesday is the 21/4 - the day the Mobile Friendly update is launched. You can find more info about it here: http://moz.com/community/q/google-s-mobile-update-what-we-know-so-far-updated-3-25
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Egol,
You can mask the url of the CDN behind your own url - so rather than displaying d3vam04na8c92l.cloudfront.net/imagename.jpg (the example is Cloudfront but it's possible for most CDN's) it could be something like images.mysite.com/imagename.jpg - so links to these pages would still be beneficial to your domain rather than the cdn.
Dirk
Hi Craig,
A. The logic seems ok - but doesn't say much about the depth of the site. Questions for me are:
Suppose worst case
If a product can belong to more subcategories or categories and/or there are fewer products, it's more likely that it will be closer to the homepage.
B. No - the products would not be removed from the index. However, if there are no links to these pages, they will not be shown in the results (google wants that each part of your content should be reachable by at least 1 link). No (internal) links = no value is the way Google thinks. The more links & the fewer clicks from the homepage the more value a page gets. You should put the new navigation in place as soon as possible - ideally it should have been done at the same time.
Hope this clarifies,
Dirk
Apart from the excellent answers already given above, don't forget to check your internal links - and check that you always link to domain.dk and not to domain.dk/default.asp (Screaming Frog can help you to check that). Inconsistent internal linking is often a reason why google detects the second version in the first place.
rgds,
Dirk
Hi Eva,
The setup you describe is quite a standard approach in countries with multiple languages - and should work just fine, even without the hreflang attributes. Check this article from https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/182192?hl=en. I live in Belgium - as we have 3 languages most sites have this configuration. On first visit -the user is offered a choice of preferred language, which is stored in a cookie. On subsequent visits - based on his previous choice the user is than redirected to the chosen language version
Adding the hreflang can help, but can also introduce new problems - you can check here how to avoid them -http://moz.com/blog/hreflang-behaviour-insights
Hope this helps,
Dirk
In addition to Matt's reply - you state that you redirected the doorway pages type site.co.uk/cleaning-enquipment-Manchester - however if I try this with the url you provided it returns a 404 - rather than redirecting to branches/manchester-tool-hire-shop or /cleaning-equipment
Dirk
Hi Craig,
Personally I would prefer folders because it's easier for reporting purposes
Cat tier 1:
http://example.com/category-one/
Cat tier 2:
http://example.com/category-one/category-two/
Cat tier 3:
http://example.com/category-one/category-two/category-three
Cat tier 4:
http://example.com/category-one/category-two/category-three/category-four/
It seems to go against the rule of a flat site structure, but in fact for that, it's more the number of links to the category that counts rather than the number of folders.
For the product url I wouldn't use all these folders. If one product belongs two multiple categories / subcategories you'll end up with duplicate urls - here I would rather go for
http://example.com/xxx/product-name-12345.htm. xxx could stand for the main category (if each product belongs to only one main category) or something generic like "products"
Some additional info can be found here: http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/structured-urls/
Hope this helps,
Dirk
Hi,
First of all, are you sure that Google didn't take the migration into account?I just did a quick check on other https sites. Example: when I look for "Google Analytics" in Google - the first 3 results are all pointing to Google Analytics site, however only for the 3rd result the https is shown, even when all three are in https. So it's possible it is just a display issue rather than a real issue.
Second, I did a quick crawl of your site and I noticed that on some pages you still have links to the http version of your site (they are redirected but it's better to keep your internal links clean - without redirections).
When I checked one of these pages (https://www.gomme-auto.it/pneumatici/pneumatici-cinesi) I noticed that this page has some issues as it seems to load elements which are not in https - possible there are others as well.
example: /pneumatici/pneumatici-cinesi:1395 Mixed Content: The page at 'https://www.gomme-auto.it/pneumatici/pneumatici-cinesi' was loaded over HTTPS, but requested an insecure image 'http://www.gomme-auto.it/i/pneumatici-cinesi.jpg'. This content should also be served over HTTPS.
The page you mention as example: the http version still receives two internal links from https://www.gomme-auto.it/blog/pneumatici-barum-gli-economici-che-assicurano-ottime-prestazioni and https://www.gomme-auto.it/pneumatici/continental with anchor texts 'pneumatici Barmum' & 'Barum'
Guess google reasons, if the owner of the site is not updating his internal links, I'm not going to update my index
On all your pages there is a part of the source which contains calls to the http version - it's inside a script so not sure if it's really important, but you could try to change it to https as well
My advice would be to crawl your site with Screaming Frog, and check where links exist to http versions and update these links to https (or use relative links - which is adviced by Google (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6073543?hl=en see part 'common pitfalls')
rgds
Dirk
Hi Justin,
If the same page exists as well on the .com version (which seems to be the case) I would replace the .co.nz version by the .com version.
In Screaming Frog under Bulk Export you can export all the outgoing links. This will give you both the pages with outgoing links & the pages where they are linking to. Open in xls - and filter the destination pages on links that contain .co.nz or .com.au (when you are checking the .com version). This will give you all the source pages which need to be updated.
rgds
Dirk
To be very honest I don't think it will make a difference if it's going to the /us/ version rather than the root.
If you prefer - you could keep the us version on the root & only redirect the non-us visitors to a country version.
Dirk
