Welcome to the Q&A Forum

To be honest, I don't think that it's the duplicate pages which are the biggest problem, but at this point rather the on-page. Most of your potential users will search for "<> for sale in <<location>" so you should try to make sure that these kind of pages exist, with on-page elements. It will also help to make your site more flat - currently 46% of your pages are >=5 clicks from the home page. </location>

A part from that, personal ads sites tend to get a lot of traffic from long tail keywords, so the more ads you have, the more potential you have to attract traffic. Unfortunately, if you don't have a lot of traffic, you won't get a lot of ads, so it's a bit of a vicious circle you're in. When I crawled your site, I found about 450 HTML pages (unique), which remains quite small.

Not sure how the competition is in Spain, but normally it's a quite competitive market you're in, with a lot of players which are well established since quite a few years. So even if you do everything right, they will still beat you because they have a better link profile & reputation. It could be a better to focus on one specific niche (cars, motorcycles, boats,... ) and be really great on that niche, and expand to other niches once the first one gains momentum.

Social factors have some importance, but remember that these links are no follow, and that Google is not indexing all of Facebook.

rgds,

Dirk

You could check with your hosting company. When I do a reverse IP lookup - it seems the other site is hosted on the same ip address as your site (http://reverseip.domaintools.com/search/?q=radiokilimanjaro.org.uk). Maybe something got mixed up with the configuration at the hosting side.

Dirk

Strange, it's probably a bug in their subscription system. The free trial is free, they don't charge for it. I'm not sure if support is working during the weekend, so probably you will need to wait till Monday for a reply.

I just checked in my account - upgrading once you have a paid subscription is pretty straightforward, and the calculation of the remaining credit for the current subscription / amount to be paid for the new plan seems correct.

Rgds

Dirk

Hi,

I did a test crawl of your site with Screaming Frog & didn't find anything special. Sampling a few pages of your site didn't reveal anything really specific regarding to the SSL certificate. I would try to contact Moz support directly (http://moz.com/about/contact).  They should be able to give you some more info on the error you encounter.

Sorry that I can't offer more help

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

Did you check the page in your webmastertools - https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/structured-data?hl=en&siteUrl=http://www.travelleaders.com/travel_agent/Agent-Details.aspx?id=6982 ?

When I checked the page with another tool there seem to be some syntax errors: https://webmaster.yandex.com/microtest.xml

rgds,

Dirk

It depends a bit on the topics you're discussing. For most sites, it's very difficult to get ranked on your homepage apart when people are looking for your brandname. If your site is mainly covering one topic - and all the blog post on your site are giving additional info on that specific topic or closely related topic it might work.

I would only add additional content on the homepage if it's adding value for the users - it's not really something which is needed for Google (example; when I search for "sports car" on google.co.uk - one of the top results is http://www.classicandsportscar.com/ - which has more or less the same setup as you describe = slider +links to other articles - no specific 'homepage' content)

To quote Moz (https://moz.com/learn/seo/domain-authority)

"Unlike other SEO metrics, Domain Authority is difficult to influence directly. It is made up of an aggregate of metrics (MozRank, MozTrust, link profile, and more) that each have an impact on this score. This was done intentionally; this metric is meant to approximate how competitive a given site is in Google.com. Since Google takes a lot of factors into account, a metric that tries to calculate it must incorporate a lot of factors, as well.

The best way to influence this metric is to improve your overall SEO. In particular, you should focus on your link profile—which influences MozRank and MozTrust—by getting more links from other well-linked-to pages."

=> basically build links : check https://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-link-building to get you started; having top quality content will certainly help. More usefull resources can be found here: https://moz.com/blog/category/link-building 

Dirk

I checked your site with a plugin - and it seems to have more than 1800 links - don't forget that the links in the navigation - even if not visible still count as link.

There could be many reasons why this sitemap is not indexed.

Are there any duplicates between the different sitemaps (if there are duplicates, they are not listed as indexed in the 2nd sitemap)

It could also be that the pages are too light in terms of content to get indexed - example - if you only list the event name, date, and place, without additional content it will probably not get indexed.

Are you sure that all the url's in these sitemap can be indexed (not blocked by robots.txt or noindex tag)- you could try a few url's of the sitemap in Fetch like google and see if they are fetched properly.

rgds

Dirk

Hi,

There is an interesting post on this subject on Moz - with all the different strategies you can follow. You can find it here: http://moz.com/blog/how-should-you-handle-expired-content

Hope this helps,

Dirk

This is the Q&A - if you want a refund you have to contact support. There is an online form here: https://moz.com/help/contact/pro - alternative you can use help@moz.com.

Some advice - next time you start a free trial of a tool please read the conditions. The Moz trial page clearly states

"I agree to the Moz Terms of Use and understand that this is a recurring subscription. I will be billed automatically on a recurring basis unless I cancel." (bold added)

It's not really hidden & you have to check the box before you can start the trial.

You can't see it directly - however if you click on the detail for each keyword you can see based the top 10 url's. Normally based on the site titles you can see which language has been used (the French version will return French page titles, the German the german titles...etc). Agree that it would be useful to see this in the overview report as well.

Guess one of the disadvantages when tools are developed in countries with one dominant language

rgds,

Dirk

Update - if your site is identical to your username - the cause is almost certain related to the lack of indexable content on these pages. The event pages, while very userfriendly & valuable for end users, are too light for Google in terms of content. Apart from the title, most of this pages are quite identical (the maps, dates & prices are different) if you look at the source code.

Length of url & number of folders have some importance (see also http://moz.com/blog/15-seo-best-practices-for-structuring-urls - point 6 & 11) but I don't think they are major ranking factors.

What is important however is the depth of the site (how many clicks needed to reach the content you are integrating) - As you are integrating a old site on in another domain - I would try to make sure that you have sufficient crosslinks between the part you are integrating & the existing content. If you only have 1 link from the home to the "integrated" site, you'll be moving the old content one step deeper in the structure, which might have a considerable impact on your ranking (I was unfortunate enough to experience it on one of my sites)

Moz is only indexing pages it's crawler is able to find. This implies that on your production site you have links to your development site.

Don't really agree with what your dev is saying - he should correct these links first; put a noindex on these pages. Alternative - put a password on the dev site so it's only accessible with a password. If a lot of users are putting links to your dev site it could become more important than your main site. Google will try to choose the most appropriate site - but you have no guarantee that it will choose the right version. In any case - that's not the type of risk you should be willing to take.

Once this is done - you can request a removal of these pages via the search console.

If all pages are removed from the index you can adapt the robots.txt to prevent access to the Google & other bots. Do this only after all pages are removed - if not Google will never find the noindex directive.

Dirk

From the definition of Page Authority:

"Unlike other SEO metrics, Page Authority is difficult to influence directly. It is made up of an aggregate of metrics (MozRank,MozTrust, link profile, and more) that each have an impact on this score. This was done intentionally; this metric is meant to approximate how competitive a given site is in Google.com. Since Google takes a lot of factors into account, a metric that tries to calculate it must incorporate a lot of factors, as well."

In the case of Zillow - given the fact that this is a extremely strong domain - it's quite easy to guess where the strong Page Authority is coming from - lots of (internal) links from a very strong domain.

In your case, probably the best way to increase page authority is increase the strength of your domain: getting useful links), work on user engagement, having great content, ... and so on - with the knowledge that it will almost impossible to beat sites like Zillow (much like your local bookstore is facing the almost impossible task to beat Amazon).

Dirk

If I do a site:yoursite.com/minneapolis-tickets in Google I get results - so these pages seem to be in the index, even if this is not shown on the sitemap level in WMT.

I notice you use noindex on a substantial number of pages (for expired events) - maybe it would be better to use the unavailable after meta tag. See also: http://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2334932/ecommerce-seo-tips-for-unavailable-products-from-googles-matt-cutts

Strange case - you do rank for the full title (Formosan Odyssey: Taiwan, Past and Present - position 3) - and number 1 for the first phrase of your description. Google works in mysterious ways...

Two remarks on the page - the image of the cover is incredibly heavy (https://camphorpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Formosan-Odyssey-cover.jpg) - you might to optimise that & there is an issue with the review markup (check https://developers.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/  - reviewed item is missing)

However - the heavy covers equally apply to the other pages on your site, and I imagine the review markup problem as well so it's not an explanation of why this specific page doesn't rank for the book title.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Sarah,

Googlebot will follow these links as well and discover these "useless" pages (the are off course not useless from human perspective but they don't add value for bots - and they will be considered as duplicates). Duplicates are no reason for "punishment" - so you could just let them be. Personally I would put a nofollow on these links or add a "noindex" tag to the login page. Normally you shouldn't use nofollow on internal links - but login pages are an exemption on this (check also https://searchenginewatch.com/sew/news/2298312/matt-cutts-you-dont-have-to-nofollow-internal-links : "Of course, there are always exceptions to the rule, and things like login pages can be the exception. He said it doesn’t hurt to put the nofollow link for a link pointing to a login page, or things like terms and conditions or other “useless” pages. However, it doesn’t hurt at all for those pages to be crawled by Google."

For the practical part - if you add an additional question to a question which has been marked as answered - only the ones who have already answered will see the additional question. To be on the safe side  - it's better open a new question if you want other people to have a look at it.

Hope this helps,

Dirk

If you check your page with external tools you'll see that the general status of the page is 200- however there are different elements which generate a 4xx error (your logo generates a 408 error - same for the shopping cart) - for more details you could check this http://www.webpagetest.org/result/151019_29_14E6/1/details/.

Remember that Moz bot is quite sensitive for errors -while browsers, Googlebot & Screaming Frog will accept errors on page, Moz bot stops in case of doubt.

You might want to check the 4xx errors & correct them - normally Moz bot should be able to crawl your site once these errors are corrected. More info on 406 errors can be found here. If you have access to your log files you could check in detail which elements are causing the problems when Mozbot is visiting your site.

Dirk

Fully agree - would definitely ask for nofollow links.

You can use a relative canonical but the example you give is wrong, it should be href="/page1.html" The example you give looks like mis take 2 on this page http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html

rgds

Dirk

If you want to know how much traffic this domain is getting you could easily put a filter in Analytics which allows you to see the domain name when checking the pageviews.

Create a new view in Analytics and apply a filter with following settings:
Filter Type: Custom
Select: Advanced
Field A -> Extract A: Select: Hostname value: (.)
Field B -> Extract B: Select: Request URI value: (.)
Output To -> Constructor Select: Request URI value: /$A1$B1
Mark Field A: required & Mark "Override Output Field

You could also combine all the different copies in one set in the Search Console - which would make it easier to check if there is an impact when activating the 301's.

Regardless of the traffic, the 301 remains the best option - some people say it does dilute pagerank - Google says it doesn't

As both Search Console & Analytics are not retroactive you could already make them active, wait a few weeks in order to collect sufficient data and then activate the redirects.

Dirk

Follow the advice from Jordan below and try to check your log files to see what the server response is when Rogerbot is trying to visit the site.

I noticed some DNS issues with your site - check http://dnscheck.pingdom.com/?domain=unplag.com - Nameservers don't seem to be ok. Also noticed that you have a 302 redirect from http -> https - while this should be 301. Probably not related to your main issue but worth checking.

That's exactly what I am saying - your index page with all the definitions is from Google perspective completely different from the detailed definition page (the first one being much richer in content than the 2nd one). If getting these pages ranked is the least of concerns - you can keep it as it is. If you want to play on the safe side, you can put a noindex on the index page.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

On the desktop version you have to put:

href="http://m.example.com/page-1" >

On your mobile page you put:

Source: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/configurations/separate-urls - check also https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/common-mistakes/?hl=en

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

I did a quick crawl of your site with Screamingfrog - basic site structure seems to be ok - most of the pages are within 1/2 clicks from the homepage. The url's are pretty long - but that is not necessarily a sign that they are far from the root.

I noticed that you are using a lot of (very) heayv images on the site and that these images are pushing the content to the bottom, invisible without scrolling. Example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/fattransfertobutt2.jpg -> 1.150 KB for one image. This has an impact on the loadtime of your pages - see: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150110_FW_KEY/1/details/ . Some of the images are put on the non-www version, so needing an additional redirect.

If I look at your page titles, H1, meta descriptions - it seems that they are very specific, but not really answering the questions a potential user of this site may have. Example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/services/non-invasive-treatments/skin-rejuvenation/matrix-ir-laser-treatment/ => page title: Matrix IR Laser Treatment - New Radiance Palm Beach H1: Matrix IR - Metadescription: Matrix is an amazing wrinkle reduction procedure that uses ...etc -> few people will be looking for Matrix, so probably you need to do some keyword research and see what are the keywords which by your target audience.

Language used on the different pages is very commercial and not very informative.While most of the images are quite good in terms of quality, the images of staff are not sharp, and certainly do not look professional (example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/about-new-radiance/neil-c-goodman/- the profile picture looks like a scan from a picture taken in the 80ties)

Dirk

There is a similar question here - https://moz.com/community/q/why-rogerbot-can-t-crawl-site-https-unplag-com. The advice is similar - check your logfiles for Rogerbot / Moz and see what the response is.

When I checked the other question I noticed that there was an issue with the configuration of the name servers - it is possible that it's a coincidence but you seem to have issues with your name servers as well: http://dnscheck.pingdom.com/?domain=www.practo.com×tamp=1445520589&view=1
You might want to correct that.

Dirk

Hi,

Did you see an increase in the load time of your pages in Analytics (pre/post launch). For a site which is not very complex in terms of structure, your load times are not really great. See http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150330_ZF_X41/1/details/ & http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150330_A8_WR6/1/details/

Page speed analysis by Google gives pretty low scores as well - for mobile 47/100 - desktop 63/100

In pagespeed - you can see the content breakdown - on your homepage 66% of the downloaded content is css/js - most of it is not used on page: https://unused-css.com/detect-unused-css?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.perfectdental.eu.com%2F (a disadvantage of most frameworks like bootstrap / foundation)

I would try to work on improving the speed -a similar case with low page speed scores noticed immediate improvement after reducing load times: http://moz.com/community/q/problem-with-getting-a-site-to-rank-at-all

rgds,

Dirk

Hi

Not sure if the indexing problem is solved now, but I did a few other checks. Most of the tools I used where able to capture the problem url without much issues even from California ip's & simulating Google bot.

I noticed that some of the pages (example http://www.gazetaexpress.com/fun/) are quite empty if you browse them without Javascript active. Navigating through the site with Javascript is extremely slow, and a lot of links don't seem to respond. When trying to go from /fun/ to /sport/ without Javascript - I got a 504 Gateway Time-out

Normally Google is now capable of indexing content by executing the javascript, but it's always better to have a non-javascript fallback that can always be indexed (http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2014/05/understanding-web-pages-better.html) - the article states explicitly

• If your web server is unable to handle the volume of crawl requests for resources, it may have a negative impact on our capability to render your pages. If you’d like to ensure that your pages can be rendered by Google, make sure your servers are able to handle crawl requests for resources.

This could be the reason for the strange errors when trying to fetch like Google.

Hope this helps,

Dirk

Hi,

it's not really necessary to do it, but can be useful to make sure that the right url is being indexed and to avoid duplicate content issues.. Example - using canonical avoids that pages like site.com/index.htm&trackingid=xyz are indexed - only the correct site.com/index.htm will be indexed. Another example could be articles which could published in two sections, but only may be indexed in one section. Be carefuI, I sometimes see examples where the canonical is always identical to the url - even for the examples  as given before, which basically renders the canonical useles.

If you are sure that each page of your site has one unique url than you don't need the canonical url.

rgds

Dirk

The trouble is not with your robot.txt - in the server config you block rogerbot completely and serve a 400 for each request it makes..

If you have a user agent switcher plugin in your browser & change the user agent to rogerbot (rogerbot/1.1 (http://moz.com/help/guides/search-overview/crawl-diagnostics#more-help, rogerbot-crawler+pr2-crawler-101@moz.com) - the server returns a 400 Bad Request.

Dirk

It's not really necessary to 301 these pages - a 403 status code informs Google that the access is denied (Literally: The server understood the request, but is refusing to fulfill it. Authorization will not help and the request SHOULD NOT be repeated.)

Normally these pages will disappear from WMT after a while. If you find these 403 annoying in your WMT reports, you can always 301 them - but this isn't strictly necessary.

Removal tool - Google's advice is not to use the tool "to clean up cruft, like old pages that 404" (source: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1269119?hl=en).

rgds

Dirk

If the pdf's are in a separate folder on your site - you could mark that folder as noindex in robots.txt

As far as I know, it's not possible to add a noindex to a link.

rgds

Dirk

It's probably an error in the code - best way to solve it is to check the code where the link originates & correct it.

Alternative would be to put a canonical on www.xyz.com/person/name pointing to itself (www.xyz.com/person/name) - normally the www.xyz.com/person/name?alinks should then have the canonical as well pointing to www.xyz.com/person/name

Without have the site itself it's difficult to tell which the error is.

rgds,

Dirk

Great - just checked the robots.txt with web-sniffer & shows a 200 status now so crawl shouldn't be an issue.

Dirk

The main reason why errors are listed is that you can solve them (if necessary). If these are old pages that don't have existing links on your pages - you can just forget about these warnings. However, if these warnings appear because actual pages are linking to non-existing pages this will lead to a degraded user experience and user experience is a factor which counts for SEO.

If you look at the 403 errors - normally WMT lists how the bot got to these pages. If the pages that are linking to this 403 pages are still on your site, you have to remove these links.

If you have dropped in traffic, you could try to do a full crawl of your site using screaming frog of Xenu, to do a quick check-up of the technical health of your site.

If you still have an old sitemap, or the most popular pages in Google Analytics from the period before migration, you could also use these url's as input for Screamingfrog - and check if all pages were properly redirected. If errors pop-up, these would be the ones I would redirect. I understood from your initial question that the 403's where coming from very old pages which were never meant to be accessible.

rgds

Dirk

You could try this solution and then do the mobile check https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/mobile-friendly/ with the desktop url - if it passes the solution is ok, if not - you'll just have to put more pressure on your supplier.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

I am not saying that schema is bad or that you shouldn't do it - it just seems that some big players only use schema on detail pages of an individual product & not on the overview pages. I found an example of site using it - but in the serp's it's only the average rating which appears (example http://www.goodreads.com/author/list/7779.Arthur_C_Clarke). The first result

You can always test what the impact will be - as mentioned before - I guess even for 50 elements fully tagged with Schema the impact on page speed will be minimal. Check your curent pages with webpagetest.org - see the repartition of load time. Probably the html will only account for 10-20% of the load time - rest being images, javascript & css files. Adding a few hundred lines of HTML will not fundamentally change this (text can be compressed quite well)

rgds

Dirk

Apparently there is an issue with squarepace - blocking access for mozbot.

Check also this link https://moz.com/community/q/on-page-grader-not-working-with-squarespace - Moz is working on it but are not sure if/when this will be solved:

"We are working with them to find a resolution to this block, but I am afraid that I am not certain if or when this will be resolved."

Dirk

Hi Thomas,

I don't think that technically there is a problem with adding url's to a sitemap & then blocking part of them with robots.txt.

I wouldn't do it however - and I would give the same advice as you did: regenerate the sitemap without this content. Main reason would be that it goes against the main goals of a sitemap: helping bots to crawl your site and to provide valuable metadata (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/156184?hl=en). Another advantage is that Google indicates the % of url's of each sitemap which is index. From that perspective, url's which are blocked for indexing have no use in a sitemap. Normally webmaster tools will generate errors, to let you know that there are issues with the sitemap.

If you take it one step further, Google could consider you a bit of a lousy webmaster, if you keep these url's in the sitemap. Not sure if this is the case, but for something which can easily be corrected, not sure if I would take this risk (even if it's a very minor one).

There are crawlers (like screamingfrog) which can generate sitemaps, while respecting the directives of the robots.txt - this would in my opinion be a better option.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi Donna,

Will check with them (hope that they didn't program everything from scratch) - will be for beginning of next week, weekend already started in Europe...

rgds,

Dirk

Hi,

I am not sure I adding schema.org on a result page is adding a lot of value. If you send 50 different blocks of structured data how should search engines understand which piece would be relevant to be shown in SERPS. I just did a check on 2 different sites (allrecipes.com & monster.com) - they only seem to use the schema markup on the detail pages - not on the result pages.

If you would like to go ahead - you could always try to measure the impact on the page by creating two (static) versions of a search result page - one with & one without markup and test both versions with webpagetest.org & Google page speed analyser. An alternative would be to using "lazy loading" - you first load the first x results (visible part on screen), when the user scrolls you load the next batch ...and so on. This way, the impact on loading times would remain minimal.

In each case, I would not try to show different pages to users & bots.

rgds,

Dirk

Hi

Just did the check with the on page grader - and for the combi keyword url you mentioned you get an A grade - without mention of any errors.

Also did a quick crawl with Screaming Frog and all these items are found by their crawler so it's certainly not a configuration error on your site.

May be a temporary glitch on Moz side - you could try again and see if you see still see the issue

Dirk

Hi Amelia,

Don't know the mortgage business well, but I imagine that people are looking for keywords like "best fixed rate mortgage" or "10 year fixed rate mortgage" etc.

For these queries, the canonical url you use  doesn't make much sense. I would try to have url's that correspond to each of these queries - this could be done by rewriting the url's - or by using parameters.

In your case the url

https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/tracker-rates/?PrevTab=fixed-rates&PVal=250000&Amt=100000&Tme=5&SearchId=5523

could have this canonical:

https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/tracker-rates/?Tme=5
(in case you decide to keep the parameters - it's probably better to replace 'tme' by 'duration' - see also link below)
or
https://www.commercialtrust.co.uk/compare-products/tracker-rates/5-years
(of course, you must make sure that these canonical pages exist)

To be very honest, I think the "/compare-products/" in the url doesn't add much value - I would rather replace it by /mortgage-comparison/ or /buy-to-let-mortgage-comparison/

I would also update the H1 for each of these url's - currently it's a bit generic (Compare buy to let mortgages) - for the example above  I would change it to something like : "Mortgage comparison: Best tracker rates - 5 years" (according to Semrush 'mortgage comparison' is more popular as search term than 'compare mortgage'

There is a interesting post of webmastercentral on facetted navigation which would be worth reading: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2014/02/faceted-navigation-best-and-5-of-worst.html

Hope this helps

Dirk

Unrelated to the original question - you might want to invest in a tool like Screaming Frog - there are several other issues with your site

• about 50 5xx errors
• a lot of 301 in your internal links.
• most meta descriptions / H1 titles seem to be missing
• load time issues
• mixed www/non-www urls - better to stick with one & redirect the other to the chosen version (duplicate content issue as content exists on 2 url's)

rgds,

Dirk

Probably the easiest way to deal with this is to chose one of these pages as the main page & use canonicals on the other versions to the main one.

So - suppose you would chose _/?show_products=all _as the main page - than page /?show_products=48 would have /?show_products=all as canonical.
As you also use pagination - the option of the canonical offers the advantage that you can put the /?show_products_all as canonical url on all the pages  (check also this page: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en)

Another option would be to put a nofollow on the other display options. So by default people would arrive on /?show_products=24 - the links on show 48 - all would be of type "nofollow'

You might want to check this article: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.be/2014/02/faceted-navigation-best-and-5-of-worst.html - the scope of the article is a bit larger than the question you as here but some of the points are applicable.

Hope this helps;

Dirk

You might want to check this: https://moz.com/community/q/moz-pro-our-web-crawler-and-sites-that-use-sni (if this would be the cause of the 804 error)

Hi,

Most of the sites reuse stock photo's on different pages - as long as you make sure that the rest of the content on the pages is unique & interesting this shouldn't be a problem. Just don't use the same image over & over again, as it's looks pretty bad & is degrading the user experience.

Dirk

Hi,

Did you properly set-up the configuration of both sites (see https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/configurations/separate-urls?hl=en)?

Unless the links are specifically made to the mobile version, they will not appear in Webmastertools. The links from the desktop version will however count as well for the mobile version as Google considers both url's as the same entity (if set-up is done as described above)

rgds,

Dirk