It might just be Google being Google, using too many off-page signals (e.g: links, local citations / accepted directory listings). I wonder if there are inbound signals contradicting on-page factors
![effectdigital effectdigital](/community/q/assets/uploads/profile/73052-profileavatar-1619583206115.png)
Posts made by effectdigital
-
RE: Google Adding Incorrect Location to the end of Title Tags in SERPs
-
RE: Need help understanding this Moz Chart comparing link metrics against competitors...
From the looks of it that just means that 60% of your external backlinks are 'followed', meaning they contribute to Google's rankings. External links are the links which your site has gained from other domains (which link to you) thus they are probably not under your control anyway
-
RE: URL Parameters
Just so you know, if a URL results in a 5XX server error then it usually won't render your canonical tag to begin with! You might want to check your sitemap XML, to check that it's not 'undoing' your canonical tags by feeding these URLs to Google. Indexation tags must be perfectly aligned with your sitemap XML, or you are sending Google mixed messages (e.g: a URL is in sitemap XML so Google should index it, but when it is crawled it contains a canonical tag citing itself as non-canonical, which is the opposite signal)
Everything which Gaston said is right on the money
-
RE: No index for http version of website
No you don't need to change anything. In-fact, you actively DON'T want the HTTP sitemap to be feeding Google a list of HTTP URLs, which I am sure you are trying to steer Google away from. Only feed Google the HTTPS URLs, delete the HTTP sitemap from search console if you can so that it doesn't keep flagging false positives, and feeding Google bad (insecure) URLs
-
RE: How can I optimise my key pages for new (related) key phrases as they arise, without compromising the original optimised keywords?
Expand the content with new sections thematically bound to the new keywords. If you dilute your page by making it about too many things, your original ranking could suffer. Be careful how you proceed! As long as the new keywords are highly related to the old one it shouldn't cause too many problems. Another concern would be, expanding the content to the point where the page's performance (loading speed) suffers. If you embed too much non-optimised rich media, that could be a problem. Check your before and after URLs using Google Page-Speed Insights, and learn how to properly optimise images /videos (and other media) before you upload them into your content. Don't 100% rely on CMS plugins to do this for you
-
RE: Google Adding Incorrect Location to the end of Title Tags in SERPs
Are there references to the London address on the non-London URLs? For example, on the Scotland store page look for references to the London address, e.g: in the footer of the page. You may need to alter some on-page instances to correct this, but the structured data should help
-
RE: Does &pws=0 still work?
This post from Jan 2020 seems to assume that you can still use &pws=0
... but I don't know how reliable it is!
-
RE: Moz bot not discovering important links (high DA sites link)
Rogerbot will take time to crawl links on the web. Lots of those big sites, where the links are very valuable, have thousands or hundreds of thousands of pages. One thing that I do think would be nice, if Moz Pro users could have some crawl allowance devoted to them - and could ask rogerbot to ping URLs (and update Moz's index). It would obviously have to be limited so as not to skew Moz's regular crawling operations, but it could be really helpful for some users
-
RE: Inbound Links - Redirect, Leave Alone, etc
If you want to disavow and redirect at the same time, you probably wouldn't want to use a 301 which passes SEO authority (and negative equity) along to the resultant page. I'd probably use a 302 or a 307, and then disavow the linking domain (or page) in Google's disavow tool which is here. I might also try to no-index the redirecting URL, though with a redirect in place this could not be done within the HTML / source code. You'd have to deploy the no-index directive via the HTTP header instead, using X-Robots
-
RE: Entities and SEO
You're thinking along the right lines, especially focusing on corpus-based co-occurrences between words. The corpus isn't the keyword though, it's the body of text which you check the keyword against (and it has to be substantial to be accurate, in the Gigabyte range). I don't know of any pre-built software to assist you. You would have to develop scripting knowledge
-
RE: Is there a way to view the top 100 highest priority keywords?
If you gain access to the site's Search Console (Google product) then you can view all the search queries connecting with the site over time. The ones driving the most clicks would be the priority ones to 'look after' in a take-over scenario. Use the search-query data from Search Console, do not use the "keyword" data from Google Analytics (as at this point, years after Not Provided, it provides a virtually worthless sample)
-
RE: Keyword rich domain names -> Point to sales funnel sites or to landing pages on primary domain?
To me this depends upon the traffic build of your old domains. If they mostly receive direct and referral traffic, then the redirect idea could work very well. If they gain most of their traffic from Google, redirecting them will eventually make them stop ranking as Google don't like to rank (in the long-term) redirecting URLs
Once that occurs, your main site may gain ranking features from your old sites, but even with perfect redirects (using the mighty 301) you would still stand to lose rankings. Google will basically check how similar the last active cache of the redirecting URL is to your new page (the redirect destination). Even with a 301; if the content (in machine / Boolean terms) is highly 'dissimilar', then your new page will only receive a fraction of the SEO / ranking authority of the old (redirecting) URL. This is to stop webmasters buying up authoritative expired domains, redirecting them to themselves and gaining free ranking power
From Google's POV, a lot of ranking 'power' (authority) still comes from links. Which sites have the best links? Do other sites in the same area of the web (same theme) have more quality links? How fresh are those links? Are there any positive / negative trust signals to refract along that axiom?
When a page ranks well on Google, it is because it has recently (or historically) 'impressed the web' (thus gaining backlinks and un-linked citations). If you replace a page which has 'earned' links with another page (like a sales funnel) or redirect it to a completely different page, why should that new page benefit from the same links? The webmasters who linked to the old URL, may not have chosen to link to the new page (be it a replacement or redirect destination) so it shouldn't see loads of SEO authority coming from a past legacy
Obviously if you just change domain and the pages are essentially the same, then it's fair that those pages retain their former Google rankings. This is why Google has to validate the 'similarity' of old vs new pages (whether they replace the current content, or exist at the end of a redirect)
Be careful with your path forwards. You could have a 'great idea' only to lose most of the traffic which those domains were supplying
Obviously if the old domains which you are sweeping up, don't see much traffic from Ads or Google (SEO / organic), then you can do pretty much whatever you want with them. But if the traffic came mostly from Google (organic) then it may be tricky. It may also be tricky to redirect the domains if paid ads are served to them, as ads will often be 'disapproved' if they point to a redirecting URL (true of FaceBook and Google ads). So at the very least there would be a major overhaul of your ads campaign(s) which would be required
-
RE: Why not just use an alias if the only change is a different domain Name?
It depends what you mean by 'alias'. If you means configuring the old domain to properly 301 redirect all URLs from the old site to the new site (so the old site becomes inaccessible, due to serving as a redirect platform) then yes. If you mean doing something else, like pointing the old domain to your new site - other than by 301 redirects, it's probably not a good idea for SEO!
-
RE: Google says Geolocation Redirects Are Okay - is this really ok ?
Yes it will cause a problem if you just do it in such a basic way. Google crawl from numerous data-centres, based in different countries. As such, Googlebot will crawl from different places and will keep thinking different areas of your site are going up and down all the time. The remedy of course, is to exempt Googlebot (user-agent) from your redirects
-
RE: How can I secure my website?
Well, to prevent information / data leakage you should certainly disable directory browsing
For example, on your homepage I can right-click your logo image and copy the image URL: https://www.myqurantutor.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/MY-QURAN-TUTOR-LOGO-400x56.png
But I can edit the link to the directory level, for example:
https://www.myqurantutor.com/wp-content/uploads/
Now I can see all your uploads, ever:
- https://d.pr/i/C7DTY4.png (screenshot)
I can browse all your folders, even some backup files. There's also some info I can use to fingerprint your site build if I want to. To patch this, usually all you have to do its add "Options -Indexes" to your .htaccess file
I didn't detect a firewall shielding your site, which would make it way easier to DDoS if someone wanted to do that. Some kind of firewall or traffic offloading facility might be useful
Your site isn't using an HSTS entry ("Strict-Transport-Security") in the header so browsers can attempt to connect via HTTP without being intercepted (though you may handle that via redirects instead, an HSTS policy helps). You don't seem to be using "X-Frame-Options" in your header which helps browsers to know, whether content from your site can be rendered inside of frames (on other domains). If you allow frame embeds, that can lead to clickjacking and stuff (though for some webmasters there's no real way around it as allowing their site's content to be embedded, may be a requirement)
I can't really find any fields which seem as if they would be vulnerable to SQL injection, but I'm not really an expert at scanning for that kind of thing. I'd assuredly lock down the site from an SQL-I perspective, if you haven't done so already
-
RE: What are best SEO plugins for wordpress?
I'm still watching RankMath like a hawk. It really does look very good
-
RE: Which SEO tactic should I concentrate on first?
In SEO, most of the ranking factors are weighted relatively equally. It's less about cherry picking the easy-wins, and more about putting in volumes and volumes of effort (overall)
Moz does have some notes on top ranking factors: https://moz.com/learn/seo/on-page-factors - but they're not numbered, or in a particular order (as far as I know)
You can search Google for "top Google ranking factors" but you'll just get loads of different answers, ordered differently.
This list isn't awful: https://optinmonster.com/seo-ranking-factors/ - but I'm sure many people here will take issue with it, as they would with any list that was posted
I actually think a number of Moz's Whiteboard Friday videos are pretty spot-on:
- https://moz.com/blog/how-to-create-10x-content-whiteboard-friday
- https://moz.com/blog/does-seo-boil-down-to-site-crawlability-and-content-quality-whiteboard-friday
- https://moz.com/blog/why-good-unique-content-needs-to-die-whiteboard-friday
^ These are my three go-to videos in terms of beginning to learn about (or teach) SEO
-
RE: Does google penalize you if you post content in french and english on a website
No - translations don't count as duplicate content, but you should ensure that your site has a proper multiregional build-out (e.g: site.com/press-releases/artice (EN) vs site.com/fr/press-releases/artice (FR)
You should properly 'build out' the site in an international way, don't use low quality auto-translate plugins or live-translation features. You will need all your hreflang tags set up properly, so Google knows they are alternate language page variants (see: https://yoast.com/hreflang-ultimate-guide/)
See this from 2011: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=UDg2AGRGjLQ&feature=emb_logo where Matt talks about whether translations are duplicate content. AFAIK Google's stance hasn't changed loads. The translation must add value and you must use human-translated content (written by someone competent enough, that it doesn't read as if it was written by a machine)
More recently John Mu (from Google) has said that auto-translated content won't gain penalties but the rankings will suck so basically still get humans to write stuff: https://www.seroundtable.com/google-auto-translating-content-penalty-28413.html
Interestingly Google recently said that they think there may come a time in the future where auto / machine-translated content is acceptable: https://www.seroundtable.com/machine-written-content-google-guidelines-28338.html
... but as of now, it's still considered poor and against guidelines!
-
RE: How many topics per H2
Ah I get what you are saying! You are wondering whether to write about those pass-through points in your current article (under H2s) or whether to have a completely new article (e.g: "Strasbourg bike tour" as a sub-heading under "Alsace bike tour" vs making it another separate article / post)
IMO you could do both, but only once you get enough experience and content. Let's say you had done one bike tour 'from' Alsace and discovered Strasbourg, and then later you had done another separate bike tour 'from' Strasbourg. In that instance, both locations should have a post. In the Alsace post you would mention Strasbourg, but link it over to the 'main' Strasbourg bike tour article
If on the other hand you have done a bike tour from Alsace (where you discovered Strasbourg) but you have not yet completed a separate bike tour 'from' Strasbourg, in that case I would H2 it as a sub-topic under your Alsace article
Hope that helps
-
RE: Links Not Detected by MOZ, AHREFS, GSC-ARE THESE QUALITY LINKS?
Hi there
I am guessing you are the owner of Metro Manhattan judging by the pattern of the web-pages, in terms of where they are linking to! I think we may have chatted before actually (correct me if I am wrong)
https://patch.com/new-york/bayside/bayside-queens-priciest-area-retail-office-space-study
This post is indexable on Google. It has really good authority (90/100 domain rating on Ahrefs) and would be a great link, but the link has been no-followed. It doesn't influence Google's rankings at all. Your link shares the URL with other links which also point to other external sources
SEO rating: 0/10, as it's no-followed
This post is indexable on Google. Solid domain rating on Ahrefs (73/100). You don't share the post with too many other link destinations. The link is followed, so it should count for Google
SEO rating: 7.5/10
https://patch.com/new-york/brooklyn/flatbush-ave-priciest-retail-spot-outside-manhattan-study
You only posted five links, you'd think your supplier would manage to get five links on different domains, the more links you have from one domain (in a short space of time) the less they matter. Regardless, this link won't count for SEO at all as it's no-followed
SEO rating: 0/10, as it's no-followed
An average domain rating on Ahrefs of 53, not bad at all. Sadly, your link supplier (not the site owner) 'lied' to you when they said this was one of your backlinks. There are no links from this page to your page. If there's no link at all, how good could the link be?
SEO rating: -5/10, as they (your link suppliers, not the owners of Thejewishvoice.com) fibbed to you. Naughty naughty!
Evidence screenshot of failing to find link: https://d.pr/i/WfUUgV.png
https://atalyst.com/investment-banking-interview-metro-manhattan/
The Ahrefs domain rating for "atalyst.com" is only 16/100, that's not something where you could consider it a 'quality' link in my opinion. The link to Metro Manhattan on this URL is followed, so it does count towards rankings - but load the page and look at it! It's very thin content, I'd go so far as to say it's 'not content' at all. It's an image and a strapline and a link. If you think Google cares about this, you are wrong
SEO rating: 2/10, might help a little, but barely at all
So now, I have looked at each link and graded it out of 10. The scores were 0, 7.5, 0, -5 and 2. Each link could have scored 10/10, which means our total max possible score is 50 (10 x 5 links)
When we add the numbers up, we get 4.5/50, or a 9% rating
For something to be considered 'quality', I think it should have to be "50% decent or higher". 9% isn't good enough (IMO)
-
RE: Random important product pages dropped out of index week ending Dec 22: why???
That very much sounds like, for some reason Google has gone from viewing that particular page template as "decent, worthy of rankings" to "ok, will rank if I can't find something better". One thing I am wondering, if you have been hit by this: https://moz.com/blog/google-review-stars-drop-by-14-percent
... which is also related to this:
https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2019/09/making-review-rich-results-more-helpful.html
Specifically where they say "Self-serving reviews aren't allowed for LocalBusiness and Organization. Reviews that can be perceived as “self-serving” aren't in the best interest of users. We call reviews “self-serving” when a review about entity A is placed on the website of entity A - either directly in their markup or via an embedded 3rd party widget. That’s why, with this change, we’re not going to display review rich results anymore for the schema types LocalBusiness and Organization"
It seems as if 'something' existed on your product detail pages which Google was valuing highly, which they no longer value at all. Thus you aren't seeing complete drop-off, but a high correlation between declining (or removed) results and pages utilising that feature
Basically self-hosted reviews and some embedded reviews 'no longer count' towards Google rankings (at all). The news broke in September 2019, but I wouldn't be surprised if the roll-out was more recent. Moz posted that they noticed movements on Sept 24, which is very nearly November. As we know, these types of updates tend to slowly crawl across Google's query-spaces, it's not often true that everyone gets hit at once
Maybe your site is just in the late batch
-
RE: How can I increase my website speed?
PageSpeed insights is cool but I find GTMetrix often gives more useful info. If you sign up for a free account you get access to a cool waterfall tab
Here's the complete waterfall for your homepage:
- https://d.pr/i/a6OUZb.png (screenshot)
In blue I highlighted some images which are over 50KB which could be compressed a little more. In red I highlighted all the calls which your site / page makes to YouTube.com. As Greg Painter specifically said, all of these calls to YT do seem to be slowing things down and causing you problems! Any chance you can embed those resources (which your page is calling for) natively on your site? It would be faster than keep calling out to YT which has to satisfy enormous amounts of traffic as it is
-
RE: High Competitive Keyword
You're not competitive enough. For very difficult keywords, sometimes it takes whole teams of digital professionals (SEO people, Digital PR people, creatives and devs to execute design concept of 10x content, R&I dept) to secure such keywords. Trying to solo such a thing sounds like madness to me
Your best bet is to be honest with yourself. Google the keyword and see what comes up in positions 1, 2 and 3. What do they have that you don't? For example if the keyword was "car insurance" you'd see sites like Money Supermarket, Go Compare and Confused.com at the top. If you were a single car insurance company, you might say "but my page looks so much nicer! It has better design and SEO!" - newsflash, Google isn't looking to rank the pages with the best SEO
Sites like Money Supermarket and Confused.com are bound to rank at the top. By using them, a user can compare deals from hundreds or thousands of insurance companies and brokers. Sometimes the technology is the content, and no matter what words you write or what images you use you'll never ever beat it without significant investment
If you're struggling away alone, you might have to rethink what keywords you are going for. In 2020 SEO isn't just about links and bits of writing. It's about coming up with a unique product that no one else has, which users would prefer to the current industry norms. If you can't do that, you can't win
-
RE: How many topics per H2
I mean really, your whole article should be 'about' one topic (thematically speaking). H2s (sub-headings) should be used to explore different facets of the same topic. Are you confusing topics with keywords?
-
RE: Removing indexed internal search pages from Google when it's driving lots of traffic?
Just a note. If you robots.txt block Google from crawling the pages, how do you expect them to find the no-index tag? They can only find the tag if they can crawl the pages! You only apply the robots.txt block (which you should do, at the end) **after **Google have removed the offending URLs from their index
If Google are robots.txt blocked, they can't crawl the pages' coding. If they can't crawl the coding, they can't find the noindex. Simple
-
RE: Local SEO for E-commerce
https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177
"Make sure that your page is created at your actual, real-world location.
- Suite numbers, floors, building numbers and so on may also be included"
"Don’t create more than one page for each location of your business, either in a single account or multiple accounts"
"If your business rents a temporary, 'virtual' office at a different address from your primary business, don’t create a page for that location"
Sounds like you are ok to create multiple GMB pages. Your pages will be assigned to physical (non-virtual / temporary) real-world locations. You won't be creating 'more than one page' for each location, you will only be creating one page for each location. If you stick to Google's guidelines, you should be ok
This post from Bounteous also seems quite helpful: https://www.bounteous.com/insights/2016/04/07/managing-multiple-locations-google-my-business/
-
RE: Random important product pages dropped out of index week ending Dec 22: why???
According to Moz there haven't been any significant algorithm updates since October 2019 - https://moz.com/google-algorithm-change. If you check Algoroo (https://algoroo.com/) there's some noise on Dec 20th but it's not 'out of this world' or crazy. Looking at SERPMetrics Flux it doesn't look like a time of major changes on Google: https://serpmetrics.com/flux/
It must be something specifically related to your website or your website's presence (backlinks etc). It could also be a factor of operating in a competitive query-space. Maybe your results didn't go down, maybe the rankings of other sites went 'up'
I wouldn't expect the problem to 'just go away on its own', that almost never happens
-
RE: Organic Landing Page Changes Repeatedly
Usually this happens when Google genuinely can't work out, which page is best to rank. Usually it happens on pages which have similar themes and SEO authority levels. You could use a canonical tag on the pages which you don't want to rank, and point them to the page you want to see in Google's results. Be aware though, that this won't necessarily make the canonical URL rank all the time (in place of the 'bad' URLs)
If Google decides one of your other URLs is better, but you de-index it via canonicalisation, you may just end up with no ranking at all - instead of the correct ranking URL. Google's algorithm wants to be free to decide which page it thinks is best, when you give it directives they often don't work out as intended. It can seem 'messy' to have a ranking URL which jumps around a lot, the best you can do is put prominent CTAs (Call to Action) in the ranking URL, leading people to the 'true' landing page (the one you wanted). It's not perfect but it puts rankings less at risk
-
RE: Invalid Access ID or Secret Key
You need to pay for Moz to bulk fetch Moz-created metrics. If you have an active Moz subscription with API access, I believe you just have to visit this URL: https://moz.com/products/mozscape/access to get your "Access ID" and "Secret Key". Without these most tools will fail all Moz-related bulk metric fetches. Such tools just provide automation, they don't provide 'free' access to Moz's data
-
RE: Huge fluctuation reported by GSC for US Desktop for one keyword
Basically, if you identify a data anomaly you shouldn't trust any of the stats (as a group). Generally GSC (Google Search Console) can be trusted, but if you have identified an issue you should question the whole dataset
-
RE: What do You Think the Biggest Search Trends will Be in 2020?
Thanks for your response EGOL, I always really value your comments. I think this makes a lot of sense. How many times have people tried to game the SERPs with minor tactical deployments, only to see Google drop it all within 6 months? Focusing on delivering that which Google's algorithms attempt to seek (high quality content), can only be positive
-
RE: If concepts are too similar when grouping keywords what do I do ?
I think there's a lot to be said for this approach, in general for content production. If you yourself can't 'get out there', there's always the option of temporarily hiring the services of someone who has been out that way
-
RE: If concepts are too similar when grouping keywords what do I do ?
Ah I see what you are saying, sorry! Maybe try a different tool like this one: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/u/0/d/1n03BfU2iS7eanuRwKWUDGrncRHOx7nkZpLSCB0V_F6E/copy (Google Sheets)
There are various tools you can use for keyword grouping, this is one which I sometimes make use of. It won't do a perfect job, but if you use it you can fix the 'noisy' data manually. It's still faster than doing everything manually from scratch, even though it will require some manual actions
-
RE: Huge fluctuation reported by GSC for US Desktop for one keyword
Actually I think that GSC still reports on granular keywords. The reason I think this is that, some keywords which Google's keyword planner merges (as they are similar) still show as distinct in Search Console. What you are saying is possible, but I don't think there's enough evidence to conclusively state such an opinion at this juncture. If your rank tracker starts to mirror what GSC is seeing, I would be more concerned. GSC is known to regularly experience bugs for its performance-related metrics, e.g: https://searchengineland.com/bug-in-google-search-console-performance-reports-impact-google-discover-reporting-326487
You can also check here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/6211453?hl=en#search_analytics
-
RE: HTTPs to HTTP Links
Basically, don't link to the insecure web (HTTP) from HTTPS. I'm uncertain as to how external links will be evaluated, but it does seems as if Google are taking a hard stance on this. I'm expecting the main issue to be stuff like, embedding images on HTTP when they should be embedded using HTTPS
-
RE: What do You Think the Biggest Search Trends will Be in 2020?
Thanks Gaston
I especially agree with your first point, as I believe that infrastructure (structured data) will be critical to the 'voice-web' which may replace large swathes of 'visual' search. Not all of it, but large chunks of it
-
RE: What do You Think the Biggest Search Trends will Be in 2020?
Thanks for your answers Tom I think I agree with most, especially the increasing utility of BERT and the increasing focus on E-A-T. I don't know about you, but I feel that E-A-T was significantly tightened in 2019, and that's set to continue
-
RE: Is it a good idea to optimize for keywords that have no search volume if they're ranked?
Check if you have clicks (Search Console) associated with these search queries. Google's search volumes are rounded up and down in 10s, so 0 really just means less than 5. You may be surprised to find that some of these keywords bring impressions or clicks to your site, despite the fact that Google says they have no searches
-
RE: If concepts are too similar when grouping keywords what do I do ?
I think you just have to wait for Google to catch up, basically. If terms are basically synonyms, then it wouldn't make sense to consider them as separate concepts. I don't think Google, or users, would like to see more long pages where the author is trying to make very similar terms seem like different entities (when they are not)
By the way, Google have more data than the tools let on. Especially regarding their keyword data, where the search volumes are rounded up and down in 10s. So in reality, when Google says a keyword has zero search volume, it actually just means "less than five" - so it gets rounded down to 0
There have been many times where I have decided to build out along such keywords which 'seemingly' have no search volume, only to find that Search Console tells me I am getting clicks from keywords which (according to Keyword Planner / Keyword Explorer) have no search volume. I am pretty sure that Google's ranking algorithms, interact with non-averaged non-rounded searches, not the data which we see
In the end, sometimes you just have to say, "no! I don't believe this is a zero, I think people are searching for this question and others. I need to create content before search volumes show up in Google's tools, so that when search volume increases I am already on top and ahead of other marketers who are using a more basic approach". Sometimes this will work for you, sometimes your instincts will be wrong and you won't get as many searches as you think
Over time you will develop better instincts with regard to 'false-zero' keywords and it will become second nature
-
RE: Huge fluctuation reported by GSC for US Desktop for one keyword
I would personally be more willing to trust in your rank tracker as it's independent data and you know how it works. With GSC in particular, you can have things like a knowledge graph image being hot-linked (by Google) counting as a ranking when actually no one can visit your site through it. For ranking data GSC can be very 'iffy' indeed
-
RE: Missing/Duplicate Content but it's definitely all right!
Even if you disable JS the cited elements are there, so it must be a Moz crawler bug!
-
RE: Why No Goal is recorded in Google Analytics
To be honest, I always do everything custom and it has been years since I touched the templates
but yeah by default I create such goals as a custom destination based goal
-
RE: Schema LocalBusiness for multiple store locations
That's what I would do! I'd also keep scanning implementation with Google's schema tool to check for errors
-
What do You Think the Biggest Search Trends will Be in 2020?
Just interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Personally I think that, even though voice search is already pretty big - it's about to get much, much larger and this may even entirely change the infrastructure of the web. What are your thoughts for changes in search 2020?
-
RE: Why No Goal is recorded in Google Analytics
This is kind of a dirty band-aid / hacky fix, but I'll try to help you out
For some reason your GA is writing your landing pages wrong e.g:
/resources/x-y.com instead of /resources/
So surely this means, that if you put in the destination URL into your GA of:
/thank-you-2/x-y.com
... then GA will be able to track that URL
I mean, ideally you'd want to fix the fact that GA is writing the URLs wrong. In the short term; if you can't do that, go with it instead of fighting against it. It might just work (for now)
-
RE: Googlebot crawl error Javascript method is not defined
I think with this being such a niche query, we'd really need to see an example of a page which is triggering the error - to even attempt to help!
-
RE: Should our rebranded company update our existing Instagram profile or delete it and start from scratch?
I would not advise starting from scratch, unless you want to lose all your followers and all the progress which has been made so far! If you possibly can redesign and alter the name / URL of the profile, doing that would be a much better idea. The only exception to this is if, your profile has never previously performed well for you and has seen a lot of bot traffic (which may be perceived as negative by IG). If your profile has anything remotely positive going for it, keep it.