Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Like Tim said, you're trying to add a non-secure item to a secure page. If Moz aren't able to create a HTTPS version of the widget, I'd recommend viewing the source code of the widget and re-creating it on your page.
Also - I remember attending some AdWords and Analytics training classes with HBP with yourself some years ago Liam!
Our business has 26 stores throughout the UK and the website has a page for each of these that includes contact information, a Google map, a form etc.
I was going to add some LD-JSON Schema to all of my pages so that Google would display my social profiles in the SERPS:
My problem with this is that I'm worrying my store pages may have a conflict with the data that it is pulling from the individual Google Business Pages that each store has set up.
Should I only include the social profile Schema on the home page of my website or could I include this on every page except my store pages - and on these, display "LocalBusiness" Schema? I just don't want to do anything that will confuse Google!
I'm trying to reduce the amount of spam flags our website has using the Open Site Explorer tool. Currently, we have 2/17 flags based on:
The "few links" can be ignored, we're working on this.
We don't have a visible email address on the website and we don't particularly want one. We prefer customers to fill out our online form or to call us. Moz say "none of the pages crawled contain an email address OR links to a social profile" - we do have social buttons on every page of the website, but these are official Facebook and Twitter buttons that are rendered with Javascript, so don't actually appear in the page source on load. If we replace these with actual links to our pages using Facebook and Twitter icons, will this flag be removed since Moz are saying "or links to a social profile" - making it sound optional.
Thanks!
That's exactly how we feel. We don't want to get hammered on the next update with it being against their terms. The example of "Holiday Inn Salem" is an interesting one. If I search for "Holiday Inn" around my location, I get various results including "Holiday Inn York" and "Holiday Inn Lincoln".
Acceptable: "Starbucks", "Macy’s", "Holiday Inn Salem", "U.S. Bank ATM", "University of California Berkeley"
It looks to me that they're essentially trying to achieve the same thing we are.
A while back, I changed 26 of our business listings on Google so that the business name included the city, for example: "Business Name Sheffield", "Business Name York", "Business Name Doncaster".
It looked consistent, it was easier to read in Google Maps when searching for Eden Mobility and even better - it may have been the cause of positive impacts in our local rankings. Using the Moz Local tool, I'm now looking at rolling out this change out throughout ALL of our business listings on the web, including Factual, Yelp etc etc... Does anybody have thoughts on this? At the back of my mind I can't help but think that I should be consistently using ONLY the business name throughout all of my online business listings. Will Google consider each of these locations as separate business entities? Here's something I found in Google's guidelines:
Adding unnecessary information to your name (e.g. "Google Inc. – Mountain View Corporate Headquarters" instead of "Google") by including marketing taglines, shop codes, special characters, hours or closed/open status, phone numbers, website URLs, service/product information, location/address or directions or containment information (e.g. "Chase ATM in Duane Reade") is not permitted.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I've seen some big businesses such as ASDA doing the same thing I'm doing - but I'm undecided!
At first I assumed that by manually setting the crawl rate to the maximum, Google would crawl my website faster and more frequently. Our website has tens of thousands of pages so I didn't want Google missing any of it or taking a long time to index new content. We have new products added to the website daily and others that come off or change.
I'll let Google decide 
Is selecting "Limit Google's maximum crawl rate" and then manually moving the rate to the highest (0.2 requests per second / 5 seconds between requests) a higher rate than selecting "Let Google optimize for my site (recommended)"? Google don't really expand on this! I want them to crawl at the very maximum but they don't tell us how many requests per second and seconds between requests are involved when selecting the optimized option.
I suppose that's the problem. We've spent hours redirecting hundreds of 404 pages to new/relevant locations - but these pages don't receive organic traffic. It's mostly just BingBot, MSNBot and GoogleBot crawling them because they're still indexed.
I think I'm going to leave them as 404 rather than trying to keep on top of 301 redirecting them and I'll leave it in Google's hands to eventually drop them off!
Thanks!
Liam
Our new website has been live for around 3 months and the URL structure has completely changed. We weren't able to dynamically create 301 redirects for over 5,000 of our products because of how different the URL's were so we've been redirecting them as and when.
3 months on and we're still getting hundreds of 404 errors daily in our Webmaster Tools account. I've checked the server logs and it looks like Bing Bot still seems to want to crawl our old /product/ URL's. Also, if I perform a "site:example.co.uk/product" on Google or Bing - lots of results are still returned, indicating the both still haven't dropped them from their index.
Should I ignore the 404 errors and continue to wait for them to drop off or should I just block /product/ in my robots.txt? After 3 months I'd have thought they'd have naturally dropped off by now!
I'm half-debating this:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /some-directory-for-all/*User-agent: Bingbot
User-agent: MSNBot
Disallow: /product/Sitemap: http://www.example.co.uk/sitemap.xml
We have a website with around 5,000 pages and for the past few months we've had our crawl rate set to maximum (we'd just started paying for a top of the range dedicated server at the time, so performance wasn't an issue).
Google Webmaster Tools has alerted me this morning that the crawl rate has expired so I'd have to manually set the rate again. In terms of SEO, is having a max rate a good thing?
I found this post on Moz, but it's dated from 2008. Any thoughts on this?
Thanks for this! I didn't think to check the server logs. I'll have them checked and make sure that it's not blocking Moz out from the crawl. We have thousands of URL's on our website and quite a strict security policy on the server - so I imagine Moz has probably been blocked out.
Thanks,
Liam
A crawl of my websites has indicated that there are some 5XX server errors on my website:
Error Code 608: Page not Decodable as Specified Content Encoding
Error Code 803: Incomplete HTTP Response Received
Error Code 803: Incomplete HTTP Response Received
Error Code 608: Page not Decodable as Specified Content Encoding
Error Code 902: Network Errors Prevented Crawler from Contacting Server
The five pages in question are all in fact perfectly working pages and are returning HTTP 200 codes. Is this a problem with the Moz crawler?
I completely agree with all of the above - I've taken her point more like my own. Where receiving thousands of annoying 404 errors from pages that haven't existed for many months just gets annoying!
Hi Lana,
I've been having the same problem on one of our websites. I've been 301 redirecting over 5,000 URL's but still receive a lot of 404 errors. One of the main reasons for these 404 errors still appearing is other bots such as Bing Bot that is still crawling the old URL's.
To resolve this, I would just block them in your robots.txt file. We blocked our old product URL's that were under a "product directory like this:
User-agent: *
Disallow: /product/
I didn't want to force the removal or the append of a forward slash site-wide because "most" URL's (around 5,000 of them) don't use forward slash (products, categories, pages etc) - but there's a few pages that are part of the CMS such as account, billing, shopping cart etc that do use an appending forward slash. I think I'm going to give the canonical tag a shot for now - I can't see there being any negatives of using it on the home page to point to itself - it's just I've not heard of many people have to use it on the home page!
EDIT: Interesting. I viewed the source of http://www.moz.com/? - to see if they were using a home page canonical tag, and they were!
Hello all!
I've just downloaded my first Moz crawl CSV and I noticed that the home page appears twice - one with an appending forward slash at the end:
http://www.example.com
http://www.example.com/
For any of my product and category pages that encounter this problem - it's automatically resolved with a canonical tag. Should I create the same canonical tag for my home page?
rel="canonical" href="http://www.example.com" />
Okay - we have around 200 natural links pointing to our domain, some good, some not so good; today I've spent some time removing any bad, spammy links pointing to our business domain and we're just about there.
Now I'd like to start a link building strategy. To be fair, I've assumed for the past year or so that link building is dead, unless you can get natural, really good links - which in the mobility and elderly products industry can be quite difficult. I have recently created a blog on our website - could RSS feeds be a benefit too?
Thanks Andy! Agreed - Google shouldn't drop the map listing, but instead merge the organic listings into one I suppose. I'll give it a shot!
Hello All,
It's my first day using a Moz Pro account and it all seems really good so far!
Our business has 26 stores throughout the UK so I created a store locator page that has a page for each store. Inside here, I've created unique content for the same products for each store and it's really working wonders. The problem here though is one of my locations (Rotherham) contains two stores - so I feel that they'll both be fighting for the position all of the time. Would a canonical tag be suitable for this? I do need both pages to appear in Google's map results but as for organic rankings of keywords - it shouldn't matter too much if just one page appears.
Thanks!
Liam