Hi,

This kind of link is pretty common, especially in the travel/tourism industry where lots of foreign language sites discussing holiday destinations etc give links out to relevant sites that are not necessarily in the language of the original article. If it is a freely given link from a somewhat relevant page then it certainly would not hurt, if it is a link that you are outreaching for then I would personally concentrate on other options that are in the same language as your website, Hope that makes sense

@graceflack-0
Hi!
Check out this article which runs down a lot of the common reasons for traffic being labeled direct when it is not really and details steps to take:

https://www.analyticsmania.com/post/how-to-reduce-direct-traffic-in-google-analytics/

Hope it helps!

Hi, have you tried setting the Minimum Percent Visible to 0?

Hi!

A bit late but perhaps the following links help. Generally it seems the People Also Ask feature is often closely connected to FAQ and faq schema markup content on pages (not necessarily FAQ only pages!). If the questions you are looking at are related to your own brand  then I would try implementing some FAQ type content and see how that goes, you should have a good chance of grabbing some more results.

https://moz.com/blog/new-schema-types-to-create-interactive-rich-results https://www.searchenginewatch.com/2020/02/20/how-to-make-most-of-googles-people-also-ask-results/

Hope it helps!

Is it just me or is it getting a bit silly in here??

I had another thought

If you have linked your Google Ads with the Search Console then you could check the paid and organic report (in ads -> reports -> predefined -> basic -> paid & organic) - I think this "should" actually give you the numbers you want. This assumes that the search console data is measuring GMB clicks correctly with UTM tracking AND that data is being imported as is into Google Ads)

I am going to check it now since we have accounts where the search console is linked with ads, and accounts that use UTM tracking in their GMB listing - but none that have BOTH. If you find that it works and you can verify the above really does appear to give a clear indication of total Ads + Organic + GMB clicks then please do confirm

HI,

Easiest way is to use UTM variables in the links you declare for each product and then check in google analytics.
For an overview of UTM see: https://neilpatel.com/blog/the-ultimate-guide-to-using-utm-parameters/

You could make urls for example like
https://example.com?utm_source=GMB&utm_medium=GMB&utm_campaign=Product1
https://example.com?utm_source=GMB&utm_medium=GMB&utm_campaign=Product2
https://example.com?utm_source=GMB&utm_medium=GMB&utm_campaign=Product3

Hope it helps!

Hi Davit!

It gets a bit complicated quite quickly but for what it is worth check out this post:
https://searchengineland.com/3-reasons-why-google-my-business-search-queries-dont-match-search-console-306294

I can confirm that you can see GMB links (and clicks etc) from within Search Console if you have enabled UTM tracking on your GMB link as described in the article. So yes, it looks like Search Console includes GMB data (at least to some degree).

The difference between the 'impressions' recorded  in Search Console and the 'users' recorded  in GMB probably means that you are never going to have a satisfactory answer to your absolute branded click through rate. For what it is worth we usually see similar number to yours in terms of click throughs from branded queries in search console, but I think so much depends a lot on industry, brand awareness, competitor ads etc that maybe it is not worth sweating over.

Hope it helps!

It should sort itself out if the technical setup is ok, so yes keep doing what you are doing!

I would not use the removal request tool to try to get rid of the non-www, it is not really intended for this kind of usage and might bring unexpected results. Usually your 301s should bring about the desired effect faster than most other methods. You can use a tool like this one just to 100% confirm that the non-www is 301 redirecting to the www version on all pages (you probably already have but I mention it again to be sure).

Are the www urls in your sitemap showing all (or mostly) indexed in the search console? If yes then really you should be ok and it might just need a bit of patience.

Hi,

As Chris mentions it sounds like you have done the basics and you might just need to be a bit patient. Especially with only a few incoming links it might take google a little while to fully crawl and index the site and any changes.

It is certainly worth double checking the main technical bits:

1. The dev site is fully removed from the index (slightly different ways to remove complete sub domains vs sub folders but in my experience removal via the search console is usually pretty quick. After that make sure the dev site is permanently removed from the current location and returns a 404 or that it is password protected).

2. Double check the www vs non www 301 logic and make sure it is all working as expected.

3. Submit a sitemap with the latest urls and confirm indexing of the pages in the search console (important in order to quickly identify any hidden indexing issues)

Then it is a case of waiting for google to incorporate all the updates into the index. A mixture of www and non www for a period is not unusual in such situations. As long as the 301s are working correctly the www versions should eventually be the only ones you see.

Perhaps important to note that this does not sound like a 'penalty' as such but a technical issue, so it needs a technical fix in the first instance and should not hold you back in the medium - long term as a penalty might. That being said, if your keywords are based on egg freezing of the human variety (ie IVF services etc) then I think that is a pretty competitive area usually, often with a lot of high authority information type domains floating around in the mix in addition to the commercial. So, if the technical stuff is all good then I would start looking at competition/content again - maybe your keywords are more competitive than you think (just a thought!).

Hi,

At first glance it seems you have a rel canonical issue. All of your blog posts have a rel canonical pointing to: <link <span class="webkit-html-attribute-name">rel="canonical" href="http://www.hilden.co.uk/bed-linen.html" /></link <span>

Probably not what you had in mind!

Hi,

It i probably google deciding to rewrite the titles for you, Yoast himself makes a mention of it here: http://yoast.com/google-page-title/ In short, not much you can do about it.

Hi

This should do it, you place the robots.txt in the root directory of your site.

User-agent: * Disallow: /product-category/

You can check out some more examples here: http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/robotstxt

As for the multiple urls linking to the same pages, you will just need to check all possible variants and make sure you have them covered in the robots.txt file.

Google webmaster tools has a page where you can use to check if the robots.txt file is doing what you expect it to do (under Health -> Blocked Urls).

It might be easier to block the pages with a meta tag as described in the link above if you are running a plugin allowing this, that should take care of all the different url structures also.

Hope that helps!

Hey Dan,

Its a bit confusing and has been for a while! See: https://moz.com/community/q/uk-and-gb-when-selecting-targeted-engines-in-campaign-management. Results should be the same between them anyway but Moz is saying that GB is the mistake and is due to be phased out.

Hi,

This happens quite often if redirects are not implemented with adwords in mind. You can either ask your developers to tweak the redirect code so that url parameters are passed on during the redirect or alternatively change the relevant adwords urls to go directly to the redirected url which will bypass the redirect completely and should preserve the gclid parameters. Depends a bit on how temporary or permanent the redirect is (you say you are using a 302 temporary redirect currently but this would normally be a 301 if the change is permanent).

Hi,

The new(ish) business.facebook.com is pretty much the MCC equivalent. It can be a bit difficult to figure out in the beginning but it is a lot better than the situation you describe! Check out the official faq page here.

Hi Bridget,

There is no alt attribute in css, so no you cannot add it there,

There are a couple of things you can do.

1. Optimizing your image file names will at least give an indication of what the image is about and

2. Rethink your css and the use of background images. Specifically you could get the same effect as you have now without background images using a combination of absolutely and relatively positioned divs. This way you can have the same layout as now but with the image in the html rather than the css and alt tags will be available for them.

Check the link here for some demo code: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/8708945/how-to-position-text-over-an-image-in-css

Hope that helps!

Hi,

I believe the limit on local listings per account is 100, not 10 (see here), so you will be ok for a while yet. Since you are not eligible for bulk upload/verification the only option at the moment is to input your local listings individually as usual and verify them individually also. You can then add new locations as they become available and once you are over the 10 locations limit you can initiate the bulk verification request following the instructions here.  There is no disadvantage in this process, you don't 'lose' anything starting out with less than 10 locations and then moving above that number and bulk verifying so nothing to worry about!

Hi Tim,

Did you ever get to the bottom of the issue mentioned in this question? It is almost certainly the same problem.

Have a look at this page and try either turning of the sh404SEF anti flooding feature or else boosting the max number of requests allowed. http://forum.joomla.org/viewtopic.php?p=1368937

The anti flooding part of this component is basically blocking requests for pages if it thinks someone is trying to do a dos attack on your site. The current setup seems to be too sensitive and is bloocking screaming frog after the first few requests, quite possibly blocking the google bots, maybe blocking the moz crawler also, so certainly something you should address.

Hi,

It can happen for a number of reasons, in my experience usually due to either unintentional blocking of the page from crawling or from being a JavaScript heavy/only site which doesn't allow content to be easily read by the moz crawler. Check out this dev blog post for a rundown on most issues and solutions. Hope it helps!