Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi

According to Matt Cutts a 404 means page is gone (but not necessarily permantent) - permanent would be 410 (although he also indicates that there is very little difference between these two from SEO perspective.

What to do with these 404 depends a bit on the situation

• if these pages have external links pointing to them - I would try to redirect (even better ask the one who's linking to update the links although maybe difficult in practice)

• if these are old url's which haven't been used for a while & don't generate traffic - just leave them - they will disappear

• where do these 404 come from - if they are just listed in WMT - you can ignore them. If it's actual people trying to visit your site on these pages I would try to redirect them to the appropriate new page (if not for the SEO than for the user experience)

• check that no internal links exist to these old 404 pages (Screaming Frog is made for this)

You say you 301'd the pages of the old site - did you check your landing page report in Analytics before migration - you should make sure that these top 5000 url's are properly redirected - normally Google will figure it out after a while, but it can have a negative impact on your results if a lot of these landingpages generate a 404.

As additional resource  - probably a bit too late now you could check the different steps in this guide: http://moz.com/blog/web-site-migration-guide-tips-for-seos to be sure that you didn't miss something important.

Hope this helps

Dirk

The biggest problem with duplicate content (in most cases) is that you leave it up to Google (or search engines in general) to decide to which version they are going to send the traffic.

I assume that if you have a site in https you would want all visits to go to the https version. Rather than using a canonical url (which is merely a friendly request) I would 301 the http to the https version.

Dirk

In countries where the "old" image search is still used (like Germany) - it is counted as Referral traffic rather than search traffic (not sure why). You could check in Webmastertools what your % of image search is (and compare January & February)

You could also try to check the landing pages report for this referral traffic and compare this with the landingpages in Acquisition >Search Engine Optimisation > Landingpages with secondary dimension "Google Property"

rgds,

Dirk

Hi

You didn't answer the first part of Zoe's question - are you sure that your site is crawlable and that there are no issues with the robots.txt / noindex tags, ip detection  systems, canonicals on all pages pointing to the home and so on. It's not because you can see all pages of your site in a browser that they are accessible/crawlable/indexable by google.

Try a crawl with Screaming Frog and user agent Googlebot to see if your pages can be crawled and indexed.

Backlinks are needed to have your site ranked for keywords - but it's not a prerequisite to have your site crawled. (noticed that a few times when a dev site was indexed by accident)

Without the actual url it's impossible to give a more detailed answer.

Dirk

Just to add to the answer of Donna - migrating Analytics to the Tag manager is not going to help. They are equally affected (it's quite easy to retrieve the analytics id which is inside).

rgds,

Dirk

If the redirection was done quite recently - it's possible that Moz hasn't recrawled your site (crawls are once/week)

If this isn't the case - check the http header of the pages which Moz indicates as duplicates, to be sure that they are properly redirected (with a tool like httpstatus.io).

Adding a canonical never hurts but it's better to solve the problem at the root.

Dirk

Hi Michael

The first thing you should do is to define the geography you are targeting in webmaster tools (If you have a generic tld).

if you would block visitors from Brazil on your site the bounce rate measured by analytics will go down. However, Google is not using your analytics data to measure the bounce rate (at least that is what they claim). As al these people get an error message when they try to visit your site,the real bounce-rate will increase rather than go down, making the situation even worse, you just would not be aware of it.

What you could do is set a custom filter in analytics, showing only the traffic from your target country and apply this filter to a new view. This gives you better insights on the behavior of your target audience.

rgds

Dirk

Not sure if what Dmitrii is stating is correct.
If you check the comments here https://www.distilled.net/blog/distilled/distilledlive-london-a-few-thoughts-on-hreflang/ they state:
" hreflang anotations do not consolidate link equity." (source: Maile Ohye (Google's Developer Programs Tech Lead) at SES London) "Hreflang was not designed to consolidate link authority" (source John Mu - chat with David Sottimano)

Also on Moz - Gianluca seems to be convinced of the same - https://moz.com/community/q/will-website-with-tag-hreflang-pass-link-juice-to-other-country-language-version-of-website -

Dirk

Analia,

It seems to be a new kind of analytics spam - just checked an analytics account for a site which is under construction (only one page -  no real visitors & no events set-up).
I saw the same event appearing in my stats. Others see the same thing as well: http://www.redcardinal.ie/general/07-05-2015/just-when-you-thought-ga-referrer-spam-was-bad/

Not sure how these clean these events from the reporting.

rgds

Dirk

Edit: also 2 mentions in Google Analytics forum: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!searchin/analytics/to$20use$20this$20feature$20visit$3A$20EVENT-TRACKING.COM

In that case it will reinforce the domain (like any external link to any page on the domain).

It's just that a link to domain.com/es/page will not count as a link to domain.com/en/page even when they are "linked" via the hreflang tag. Idem where the domains are different. ex domain.es/page & domain.co.uk/page - a link to .es page will not count for the .co.uk page (and domain) even when they are connected via the hreflang.

Dirk

Universal Analytics is not tracking by default (even in Drupal)- it must have been something that has been set up in the Analytics plugin by your Developer.

If made a mistake in my first answer - you should look for Analytics in the source (and not events) - you will notice a bit of code stating:

"googleanalytics":{"trackOutbound":1,"trackMailto":1,"trackDownload":1,"trackDownloadExtensions":"7z|aac|arc|arj|asf|asx|avi|bin|csv|doc(x|m)?|dot(x|m)?|exe|flv|gif|gz|gzip|hqx|jar|jpe?g|js|mp(2|3|4|e?g)|mov(ie)?|msi|msp|pdf|phps|png|ppt(x|m)?|pot(x|m)?|pps(x|m)?|ppam|sld(x|m)?|thmx|qtm?|ra(m|r)?|sea|sit|tar|tgz|torrent|txt|wav|wma|wmv|wpd|xls(x|m|b)?|xlt(x|m)|xlam|xml|z|zip","trackDomainMode":"1","trackUrlFragments":1},"field_group":{"fieldset":"full"},"scheduler_settings":{"scheduler_local_storage":1,"ttl":

=> this bit of code is coming from the module and is tracking all downloads of the extensions listed (7z,aac, arc....etc)

Hope this clarifies,

Dirk

I do understand that you want to keep a copy of your old site - but don't really understand why you allow this site to be indexed by Google? (robots.txt allows full indexing).

The reason you kept it seems a bit off - redirects are made on domainnames. So keeping the site accessible under the IP address will not help you to check if the redirects are properly working.

Why would you need to install Wordpress on the old server - redirects are made in the htacess file. Absolutely no need to do this via Wordpress. Check here or just google it (if you also changed the url's the redirect links might be more complicated than the example behind the link).

Duplicate content - not too difficult to spot:

Examples:

https://www.cheaptubes.com/product-category/industrial-carbon-nanotubes-products/conductive-nanotubes-composite-additive/
https://www.cheaptubes.com/product-category/industrial-grade-carbon-nanotubes/conductive-nanotubes-composite-additive/

seem quite similar to me.

Some pages are also a bit strange - check this url

https://www.cheaptubes.com/product-category/functionalized-carbon-nanotubes/www.cheaptubes.com/product-category/functionalized-carbon-nanotubes/fluorine-functionalized-carbon-nanotubes/ - link is coming from https://www.cheaptubes.com/product-category/functionalized-carbon-nanotubes/ - I guess caused by a wrong formatted relative link.

Try running Screaming Frog to check these issues - it's an incredible tool to help you with issues like this.

Edit: you use canonicals on the strange url's above so they shouldn't really count as duplicates

Dirk

Maybe your site was mentioned in the Apple News App ? Check this article: http://www.i4u.com/2015/09/95161/apple-news-app-referral-traffic-spikes - apparently no referral info is passed when traffic is coming from Apple News.

rgds

Dirk

Google is indexing both - the url which is referring to the image & the image of the url itself. So yes - you can use two different domains. The domain that only contains the images will normally not be indexed (there is nothing to crawl there - the images are only accessible through the main domain).

Personally, if image search is important for you I would never put the images on a domain that you don't own (like e.g. an amazon s3 url). This isn't the case for Booking - the are also owner of the bstatic domain. The reason why they use this domain is probably performance related. Note that they also redirect the root of bstatic.com to booking.com.

Dirk

If it's only the Goal tracking you need: if your final url is changing each time but still has some elements that are always the same you could use regular expressions to match the part of the url that stays the same. Alternative would be to launch an event when the user action is completed and set goal tracking on the occurence of that event.

If you want to clean your reports in general - you can send a "fake" url instead of the real one to the reporting.

Example suppose you have a page like mydomain.com/thankyou.html?param1=xyz¶m2=kjkj¶m3=flkf and you only want to see  mydomain.com/thankyou.html you could overrule analytics using this type of code on that page:

ga('create', 'UA-xxxxxx','auto');
ga('send', 'pageview', {'page': '/thankyou.html',});

=> in your reporting you will now only see /thankyou.hmtl & not the "ugly" version. Disadvantage is that if you click to see the page in Analytics you won't see the actual page anymore. (most often this is used for single page applications - but it can be used in this context as well - check https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/single-page-applications for more info on implementation)

Another alternative would be to strip out parameters by default - by excluding them in the Analytics profile - a how to can be found here: http://blog.crazyegg.com/2013/03/29/remove-url-parameters-from-google-analytics-reports/

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Are you getting a lot of traffic from image search? Are these specific images worth finding (not just generic stock photo's)?

If not - it probably doesn't really matter. Is there a specific reason why they are doing this? Seems a bit odd for normal images (as it's mixing styling with HTML) - most of the time this is done for background images.

Dirk

The first ( Acquisition / All Traffic / Google organic searches) measures the traffic (on your site) with referrer = Google. This figure should normally be the most accurate.

The second report is coming from the Search Console - and measures the number of clicks in the SERP's. It's not abnormal that there is a difference between these two figures (check this link)- but in your case it seems huge.

Are you sure that the Search Console Account which is linked to the Google Analytics account has the same scope as the Analytics account (example - if you have a search console account measuring the traffic for the www version & analytics includes traffic from all subdomains)? If you check in the Search Console account - do you have big amount of non-web search (image/video)?

Dirk

Hi,

According to Google the value of the links is transferred to the https domain if your http is properly redirected to https.

Check this post on Google+ from John Mu: https://plus.google.com/+JohnMueller/posts/PY1xCWbeDVC

Quote: "Do I lose "link juice" from the redirects? No, for 301 or 302 redirects from HTTP to HTTPS no PageRank is lost. "

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi,

Did you properly configure your Analytics - normally someone who goes from the main site to the subdomain should not be measured as a bounced visit. If you are using Google Analytics, you can find here how you should change your trackingcode (if you use the async version) - here if you use Universal Analytics.

As google is not using your analytics tool to determine the bounce rate but uses it's own sources, this will have no impact on your rankings.

Apart from this issue, in general it is better to have everything on the main domain. You could check this presentation of Rand on this topic. You should check with your technical people if it wouldn't be possible to move the Magento to a directory of the main domain.

Plenty of sites are using different technology on different parts of the server, without it being visible to the visitors. As long as the user experience is not affected this should not be a problem - so there is no reason to put everything on one technical platform.

rgds,

Dirk

It depends a bit on what is causing the self-referrals; normally when you check analytics it gives an indication what the source of the problem might be.

You could check this article https://threeventures.com/how-to-fix-self-referrals-in-google-analytics/ or this one (http://gatipoftheday.com/use-the-landing-pages-report-to-isolate-self-referrals/) on how to fix the problem.

Hope this helps,

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Jonathan,

The rankings & competitiveness are checked for Google BE/ french so should be ok- the search volumes which are indicated are coming from Bing (which has almost zero marketshare for Belgium). Guess that's the reason why no figures are displayed.

For search traffic volume you can always try to the estimates on Google Adwords or tools like Semrush.

rgds

Dirk

Not sure if you could really call it a best practice - but in Belgium (3 different languages) the normal configuration is not to determine the default language automatically but rather to present a first time visitor a "choose language" page and store the choice in a cookie for future visits. This is mainly for direct visits.

People coming in via search engines use queries in one of the languages, so normally Google will direct them to pages in that language. Again, on first time visit, the implicit choice of language is stored in a cookie.

All pages contain a link to switch to the other language(s) - which also changes the choice stored in the cookie.

Disadvantage of this system is that you add an additional layer to the site (choice of language) - advantage is that error margin is zero.

Systems which are based ip, browser language, ...etc are not 100% reliable - which could lead to unwanted results (in Belgium quite a sensitive issue if you server a Dutch page to a French speaking person - idem for French & Dutch speaking).

Hope this helps,

Dirk

All the links are in javascript - and Mozbot doesn't crawl javascript (Google does however). Try visiting your site with javascript disabled - all you see is a blank page.

There is a similar question herethat may be can help you finding a solution - try also this post on AJAX & crawlability

Hope this helps

Dirk

Hi Justin,

It's quite common to have links between different versions of site if they are targeting different countries. It could also be considered good for the user experience to offer the user the choice to choose the site which corresponds to his country.

You just have to make sure that the links between these different versions are voluntary not accidental links. If a user is browsing your site and suddenly switches from to the .com to the .co.nz because the internal links on your site are not properly configured this could be considered as bad practice.

As usual - Screaming Frog is your best friend for this. Crawl the sites, check the pages with outgoing links to the other versions. If the link is accidental - correct it.

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Off course internal links would help. It would also help if you could enrich your content with data/content that Zillow is not providing. Video's could be indeed a good idea, floor plan, more info on the neighbourhood, schools, ...etc would be great.

As most people are not searching for individual homes, but rather for homes in a certain neighbourhood) - you could try to focus on enriching the content on these pages (if you check http://www.zillow.com/oxford-oh/ - it's not really rich in content - you could use your knowledge of this specific region to enrich your homepage. You already do this on your homepage - but it's very long, with few images and trying to tackle all kind of questions. Consider splitting this page in smaller chunks. You regional pages are better - but could still be enriched with more images, put links to other useful sources (schools,...), statistics about people who live there (average age, income,...). The video's you put are very static - and the one I checked had no sound. On your homepage you mention that Esplanade Ridge is the preferred area for alumni, parents of students - however on the detail page you mention nothing about this but rather a dry, almost technical description of the area.

Dirk

Hi Rick,

Don't fully agree on that - having almost identical content on different TLD's isn't necessary considered duplicate content - as indicated in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=BE&v=Ets7nHOV1Yo. The sites also use the hreflang tag to indicate that they are related & which version should be shown to which user.

I do agree that it would be better to take into account country specifics like currency & spelling

rgds,

Dirk

Your robots.txt renders in a browser - but from technical perspective it generates a 403: Forbidden (check http://www.cartronix.com/robots.txt with web-sniffer.net)

Moz will not crawl if your robots.txt is returning a 403 (see answer from Chiaryn Miranda / Moz on https://moz.com/community/q/without-robots-txt-no-crawling

Quote: "The only commands from the http responses that we consider to block our crawler from accessing a site would be a 403: Forbidden error or a 5xx error."

Dirk

Hi

I would not do it. Main Google bot is using a California IP address - so depending on the languages you are targeting you risk that the bot is only crawling one version of the site.  There are bots that use foreign IP addresses - but they don't guarantee that these bots crawl 100% of your site. Apart from that, it can be annoying for your visitors if you get it wrong. Check also this article on international SEO https://moz.com/blog/5-dos-and-donts-of-international-seo

Better to allow the user to make the choice of language on first visit and store the preference in a cookie. Set hreflang to indicate the alternative versions in other languages. Here is a tool that helps you to generate the Hreflang tags: http://moz.com/blog/using-the-correct-hreflang-tag-a-new-generator-tool and here you can test if the implementation was correct flang.dejanseo.com.au

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Could you share an actual url? Can you see in the crawl which pages are linking to these strange url's? You could try to replicate the crawl locally (with Screaming Frog) to see if the problem is replicated

Did you check your url rewriting? Maybe you're trying to clean your url structure & the parameter is translated the wrong way?

Dirk

Hi,

I would personally use domain.com/language for all the sites and use the root to propose the choice of language like this example http://www.volvocars.com/ (which to me seems to be a more future proof solution) if you want to extend your website to other languages or specifically target other regions (example Mexico- which is also Spanish speaking).

1: fully agree - it's much better to translate the url's

2: hreflang - seems ok. You can always check the implementation on http://flang.dejanseo.com.au/ to see if the implementation is ok and/or use this hreflang generator http://www.internationalseomap.com/hreflang-tags-generator/ to create the code.

For the default version - up to you but I would rather go for English as it's more a universal language than Spanish.

3. Geotargeting is not in contradiction to the hreflang tag for the exemple you give - it would have been if you would have set the language to Chinese & geotargeting to France.

4. The language tag you mention doesn't seem to be correct - see also http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4417923/html-meta-tag-for-content-language - rather use  for Spanish,  for French,.. (you could check the specs on this as well: http://www.w3.org/International/questions/qa-html-language-declarations

5. You can use self-referencing canonicals - it's however not necessary to use the canonical to set your preferred version (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2011/12/new-markup-for-multilingual-content.html)

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Normally in cases like your site Google is showing a message that the remaining results are similar to the ones.

Some reasons why Google is not displaying all results:

• You have a lot of semi-duplicate pages like http://www.blackbowchauffeur.com.au/theme-park/aussie-world-to-cedar-creek-from-cedar-creek-to-aussie-world/947583845769996550
• Some of your url's have a backslash / others not - in your internal linking you use both. The backslash version have non-back slash as canonical (not sure if this is always the case)
• You redirect url's with capitals to the non-capital version - but you use the version with capitals in your navigation
• pages like http://www.blackbowchauffeur.com.au/airport-transfer-connection-to-and-from-suburb-starting-with-h/ don't really add value for the index either
• you might also want to check your 404 pages - they look like a 404 - but non existing pages are redirected with 302 to 404 page with http status 200 - example http://www.blackbowchauffeur.com.au/price/lismore-airport-to-highfields-from-highfields-to-lismore-airport/faq -> 302 to http://www.blackbowchauffeur.com.au/404-page-not-found which unlike the page is stating has a http 200 status

Summary - after crawling 1892 url's of your site - my crawler found 1215 redirected url's (quite possible that these count as url in the results when you do site:mysite.com) as you continue to use them in your site's navigation. From the url's that are actually working a lot of them are near duplicates.

Use a tool like screaming frog to clean your internal links - point internal links directly to the final destination. Check if you really need all these detailed pages - they are just adding weight to your site and I am not sure if Google will index them properly + show them in the search results. Also correct the 4xx page - it should show 404 as http status.

Apart from all of the above - the site:mysite.com is not the most reliable way to check which pages are in the index. Check your search console (and the landing page report in Analytics) & combine this info with a log analysis to see which pages Googlebot is actually visiting. You will learn much more about issues with your site than using the site: command.

Dirk

The solution you propose is not going to work. Hreflang is used to identify different language versions of the same page (with minor variations). This implies that each page has a one to one relation with it's equivalent in the other languages.

This isn't the case on your site - the category pages on your US site do not correspond with the category pages on the en-gb site - you can't use the hreflang here (1 page US = 3 pages in en-gb).

You could do this on homepage, product pages and all pages that are more or less equivalent in all languages.

Please also note that hreflang is reciprocal - if you have following hreflang's

you have to put this code on both pages - on http://www.brandname.com/en-gb/product-a & https://www.BRANDNAMEUSA.com/product-a  - it's no use to only put it on the en-gb version as you currently do.

I also have doubts about "es-mx" for a site which is in entirely in English.

Dirk

As the widget is on each page of your site, it is generating a lot of internal links to these articles. If these articles have value for search, it could help them to get better positions.

On the other side, widgets like these are very ofter positioned in the same column as advertising, newsletter subscriptionboxes, ...etc - so I am not sure if Google attributes the same value to these links as to the links which are really embedded/integrated in your content.

If you can replace it by higher value content I would do it - but you'll have to make sure that the new content has indeed a higher value for your visits (try some A/B testing and check vitals stats like bouncerate, avg time on site, pageviews/visit, clickrates,..)

Hope this helps,

Dirk

You can't track this. You can only track the outgoing links. If they just enter google.com (or any other site) in the browser you are unable to track them.

rgds

Dirk

If you have the list of url's you want to check  in csv you could use Screaming Frog: put the string in a  custom filter & crawl the urls based on the list. Applying the filter will only include the url's that contain the string in the source code.

rgds,

Dirk

Unless you're selling pizza's yourself, these links are not going to help you much

This strategy is not really going to work - most sites make links on testimonials and comments nofollow (just to avoid that other webmasters are just going to post comments to create links). Not that nofollow links are necessarily a bad thing (check https://moz.com/blog/the-hidden-power-of-nofollow-links) - but these kind of nofollow links normally add no value.

You might want to check this link https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-link-building and all the resources you can find here: https://moz.com/blog/category/link-building

A lot of reading & studying to do - it might be a relief for you that even experts sometimes get it completely wrong http://pointblankseo.com/link-building-failures

Good luck,

Dirk

Hi,

If the Moz crawler is finding duplicate content it implies that there is duplicate content on your site, not duplicate content on social media.

You can download the csv in the crawl report (or click the + icon) to see which pages Moz considers to be duplicates. Comparing the pages can help you find a solution (like a canonical url, or a 301 redirect, ...)

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi,

The example I quoted in my reply about Paul's pizza (it's not exactly the same - but quit close)

For the newspaper: if it's just an ad random links (e.g. in the footer) it doesn't look really natural. If the newspaper is featuring an article about a legal issue and it's quoting your law firm in the article, than the link would be quite natural.

For the retirement homes: Google is quite aware that if you're in a retirement home you have entered the last phase of your life; so it's not really unnatural for a retirement home to feature some articles on your final "bucket list" - which could include content on how to make a will. If on these articles they quote your law firm, or if the content is entirely written by your law firm, it would be quite logical to mention the original source (or even better - put a canonical url pointing to your site).

Basically - natural links are quite easy to detect. Just ask yourself: if no link building for SEO purposes existed, would the publisher include this link? If he would, it's almost certain that it's a good link. If he wouldn't, it's not really a good one.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

If you read this article (https://www.mattcutts.com/blog/search-results-in-search-results/) - the official guideline is "Use robots.txt to prevent crawling of search results pages or other auto-generated pages **that don’t add much value for users coming from search engines". **(added the bold)

The question is: what is a search result page.  if you're selling LCD tv's - the page which is showing only Panasonic tv's could be considered a search result from a query on the site, but it could also be considered as a page which offers value for users searching for a Panasonic LCD tv. Idem if you look for 'jobs in Montreal' - one of the first results is http://ca.indeed.com/jobs-in-Montréal,-QC - which is the same result that you would get if you would search Montreal on http://ca.indeed.com/

If these sites didn't index these "search results pages" they would almost never show up in the SERP's. I think the important part is "adding value for the users".

On dynamic search pages (or facetted navigation) Google even made best practices (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.nl/2014/02/faceted-navigation-best-and-5-of-worst.html) - even though you could consider all these kind of pages as search results.

Hope this clarifies,

Dirk

To quote Google: "Duplicate content on a site is not grounds for action on that site unless it appears that the intent of the duplicate content is to be deceptive and manipulate search engine results. If your site suffers from duplicate content issues, and you don't follow the advice listed above, we do a good job of choosing a version of the content to show in our search results."

Having a backlink from the copied page to your site can help Google to determine that your page is the original source - however it's no guarantee (if his site has a better link profile it could well be that Google prefers the copied site). It would be better if the copy site would put a canonical url pointing to your page.

Dirk

Hi

Did you check the http response of domain.com/old-boring-url/ with a tool like web-sniffer.net? It could very well be that you are being redirected when you try to access the url in your browser but that the header is giving a 404 reply.

If Moz only sees a 404 on that url - the backlinks of domain.com/old-boring-url/  will not be counted as backlinks for domain.com/awesome-url/

Dirk

Hi Alan,

The redesign has a more 'modern' look, but content is more difficult to access. As it still in draft, it's difficult to assess what the final result are going to be, but here my first impressions

On the old site, it's quite obvious where to click to get more detail on one of the properties. On the new site, you need to click on the 'details' before you get to the additional info. The additional info is opening in an overlayer - given the fact that Google doesn't really like content which is hidden, it's may be better to make a seperate page for each rental property. As the format for the images is fixed, it seems that some of the images are stretched to fit.

The home of the original page contained a lot more info than the current one.

Not sure what you're going to put into the navigation - the left bar / right bar puzzles me.

If I resize my screen - the content is not always resizing in a smooth manner, it seems you have optimised the site for very specific screen sizes, sizes which are in-between need horizontal scrolling to see the full content (example screensize 768x1024 => only 60% of content is visible)

I would say - looks better than the old site, but take care that you don't try to do everything on one page, and make sure that content remains visible, regardless of the size of the screen.

Rgds,

Dirk

Could be that the problem is only occurring in Moz and that in the "real" world there is no issue. Did you see these 404 errors as well in Google Search Console? You could try to visit the "old" url with js disabled & with the Moz user agent ( rogerbot/1.0 (http://moz.com/help/pro/what-is-rogerbot-, rogerbot-wherecat@moz.com) ) to try to simulate what's happening.

Other way of checking could be to check your server log files for rogerbot & try to check there where the 404 response is coming from. A basic guide on how to do that can be found here: https://moz.com/blog/technical-seo-log-analysis)

Without actual url it's difficult to figure out what the problem could be - if you don't want to publish it here you could send it in private message.

Dirk

Hi

You should check screaming frog - http://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/#download - which can do most of the tasks you list. It's free to try (crawling up to 500 url's) - 99 pound for annual licence . Not sure about the local stuff - all the other points you mention can be done.

To check Google Analytics you will have to add 2 custom filters (contains/does not contain ua-xxxxxxx) to see which pages have/have not the tag on it.

Idem for Schema.org markup - add the markup you want to check as custom filter and check the pages that do not have the markup in the HTML

rgds,

Dirk

I would give the choice to the user rather than forcing him to a certain page. You could use the IP detection to trigger a message like "We noticed that you are from New York. Would you like to visit the <new york="" page="">or rather view the <generic page="">?". You could consider to store the choice in a cookie, so that on subsequent visits the visitor always goes to the New York pages rather than the generic ones.</generic></new>

This solution is both user friendly and doesn't have impact on SEO. If you use IP detection to force users to a certain page, there is always a risk (depending on the implementation) that Google is only indexing the Californian pages (as main Googlebot IP is Californian)

Dirk

I don't think Google provides you with this info. You could use a tool like Screaming Frog to crawl the sites & to check their external links - depending on the size of the sites this could take quite some time & you would need the pro version of the tool.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

If the campaign is archived it doesn't count as active campaign. Suppose you have a campaign limit of 5 in your subscription - with 5 active campaigns, archiving one of them liberates one "slot" that you can use for a new campaign.

You're not really charged on campaign basis but are charged a fixed fee (with 5/10/25/100 allowed campaigns depending on your subscription)- so archiving one campaign wouldn't really change the monthly charge.

Dirk

Hi Chris

you can optimize a subdomain-  although it's always better to use the main domain. In your case it depends a bit on the flexibility you have to create unique content  within the provided template.

i assume that the second question is about accessing the same content using a different url - it's not necessarily a problem & can even help from SEO point of view if you are able to define the canonical url on the template site

Situation would then be: template site mysubdomain.bigsite.com - all urls have canonical to mypersonalsite.com -> all the urls of the template site will be indexed on mypersonalsite.com

if you cannot define the canonical url it's duplicate content and should then be avoided.

rgds

Dirk