Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi all - here's a question for everyone running Google Ads through the Ad Grant. How much of the $10,000 available to your account per month do you actually end up spending? I'm trying to see if I am in line with others in the industry. Would you mind sharing with me the type of nonprofit and the amount you're able to spend of the grant per month, on average? Thank you!

[Insert word "hack" if you prefer that, but it's so overused that I'm using "trick" instead] I've been doing SEO for ten years, and I'm pretty good at covering my bases. For the client I'm seeking help with, here's what we're doing: strong and regular onsite keyword optimized content (both long tail and competitive keyphrases), good local SEO, high-quality guest posting on relevant local news sites and blogs, heavy community involvement and support, scholarships and sponsorships, lots of videos, all the social media, tons of competitive research and link building, ongoing website architecture analysis and tweaking, a systematized process for getting reviews, onsite chat, Google Search Ads, etc. This client has been around for years  in a very competitive industry in a medium-sized American city. We do alright in the local pack for certain search terms, but overall his rankings are not good. For anyone who works in a super competitive industry, do you have any tricks you'd be willing to share? I don't want to steal your secrets, but I could use some advice. Thank you!

I'd like to use Moz Local for two of my clients who share a space. The first one is an independent tattoo artist, who operates inside a larger tattoo shop. Both the tattoo shop and this individual artist have websites, and they'd both like me to optimize for local search. Will this be a problem using Moz Local to add both businesses? I will buy two different Moz Local subscriptions for them, but I don't want one business to override the other since they're inside the same address. Thanks!

A client of mine lost their domain when an ex business partner sold it out from under them. They've filed with WIPO, but in the meantime we're trying to figure out how to help them out. They had two really excellent links - one from the NY Times and one from a .edu website. I'm going to reach out to the authors of those articles (the articles are pretty old, so I doubt they'll change the links), but does anyone have any advice on how to let search engines know the new domain replaces the old without having the ability to do redirects? The content on the site is exactly the same - we were able to get the files over, happily. I've re-submitted the site for indexing, changed the domain links in Moz Local, changed in Analytics, and on all their social sites. Is there anything I'm not thinking of that can be done to let Google know that this new domain replaces the old? Thank you!

Often my Google Scholar alerts result in exactly what I think they will: scholarly articles published in academic journals. However, today I got this completely non-scholarly article https://www.t-nation.com/training/the-exact-reps-that-make-you-grow and I have no idea why Google Scholar is indexing this site. I've read up on how to get indexed by Google Scholar, and this website doesn't seem to have the necessary requirements. I'm curious for anyone whose clients or industry need to get indexed by Google Scholar, what has worked for you?

Hi guys, I do marketing for many nonprofits, and one of my clients is a Jewish women's organization. In the past week or so, Google has started disapproving ads and keywords that have the word "Jewish" in them. I know Facebook got called out recently for allowing people to target based on anti-Semitic sentiments, so I'm wondering if this is just Google's terrible execution of caution. It's telling me that keywords with the word "jewish" in them (like "jewish women's organization in boston" is derogatory or dangerous). I've asked for Google's help, and they've been incredibly slow to respond. Is anyone else facing this with other religions or content? Natalie

Hi all, For one of my clients it seems that we're not seeing conversions for one particular source (an online banner). I've been recommending that they do away with that paid advertising since it hasn't been converting. However, my client recently made a purchase from the ad to test it, and it's not showing up in conversion data. All other conversion data seems right on, so I have no idea what could be going on with this one referral source. It's showing accurate page views, accurate time on site, but no e-commerce data. Any ideas what would cause this source to not show up in conversions? The campaign info is also showing accurately in Analytics. I've attached what the redirect looks like, from the banner to the actual URL. Thank you! N6eUjT1GJv

I'm doing a site audit for an organization that has a bunch of really messy old Drupal sites. In looking at their traffic, I see that a majority of it is coming to landing pages that look like this: http://clientsdomain.com/rss_feed173.8.208.97 plus other IP addresses. The bounce rate is 100% and time on site is less than a second. It looks like something that an RSS feed tool might use, but I've never seen something like it before. It creates its own landing page, hits the site, then appears to bounce. This is making their Analytics data look a whole lot worse than the site is actually doing, since the bounce rate is 100% on all that fake traffic. I have some experience with Drupal, but I've never seen anything like this in Drupal or any other CMS. Has anyone out there ever experienced something like this, where direct traffic comes to an rss feed landing page and bounces immediately?

Hi everybody. I've recently discovered that I have a problem with the ecommerce tracking on a client's website. The client sells concert tickets at an average price of $10 per ticket. The custom ecommerce platform they use is kind of unusual; the same product often has different SKUs, but not always. This isn't associated with different seats, etc. In fact, I don't yet know why they've set it up that way. The problem that I'm facing is this: the data in Analytics is calculating the "average price" of a SKU item as the total price. If, for example, the actual average price for a SKU item is $10 and four of those SKU items were sold, Analytics will tell me the average price is $40. This means that the total revenue for that SKU shows up as $40 x 4 = $160. Needless to say, this is enormously skewing the data. Here's a screenshot. Note, it's the same product: http://screencast.com/t/JyLQkb3jzz6s The total revenue for ticket sales is way off because of this, and I'm not sure if it's a problem with the ecommerce tracking code in Analytics, or something that the ecomm platform is doing. Have any of you experienced anything like this, and if so is it a fix in Analytics? Thank you!

Hi all! Do you have any great resources on Google Tag Manager Version 2? I'm looking for some help and I keep seeing info on V1, which looks pretty different. I'm having quite a bit of trouble implementing it correctly. Thanks!

Hi again! We're set to launch a new inventory-based site for a chain of car dealers with various locations across the midwest. Here's our issue: The different branches have overlap in the products that they sell, and each branch is adamant that their inventory comes up uniquely in site search. We don't want the site to get penalized for duplicate content; however, we don't want to implement a link rel=canonical because each product should carry the same weight in search. We've talked about having a basic URL for these product descriptions, and each instance of the inventory would be canonicalized to this main product, but it doesn't really make sense for the site structure to do this. Do you have any tips on how to ensure that these products (same description, new product from manufacturer) won't be penalized as duplicate content?

We just took over SEO for a new client who is being penalized for a bad link profile. They've asked Google to reconsider multiple times, and Google still claims that the links are bad. Because of this, and because I don't have direct access (logins, etc.) to what the former SEO did, I am considering using the disavow links tool. The most obvious links to disavow are a group of almost 1000 links that come from the same forum. However, when viewing the links on this forum they actually seem natural. People are reviewing the product (ipod cases), both negatively and positively. While this could have been an SEO tactic for link building, I don't want to disavow these links if they're not the problem, even though this domain is the source of almost all the low-quality links. Another site that has more than 200 links is Askives. Do any of you have experience with links from Askives, or removing these links? Thanks again!

This week I've been diving into competitive research again for several clients in different industries, and unless the data in Open Site Explorer is wrong, it really does appear that Google continues to reward sites with unnatural links in certain industries, especially industries that are less tech-savvy (agriculture, finance, manual labor). I've combed through all the links carefully, to ensure there aren't some secret high-quality links lurking, and for some of these sites that are showing up in the top ten for search they do not even one real, high-quality link. Also, their onsite optimization is often way over the top and the user experience is nothing less than nauseating. Could it be a MozScape issue, or does Google continue to reward terrible sites and link structures in certain industries? I'd love to hear your thoughts.

We have had this problem a couple times now! A corporate client will not sign off on any new landing page development. Instead, we need a creative content strategy that we can use to target their keyphrases AND maintain a corporate/professional veneer. I'd love to hear your ideas and things that have worked for you for onsite optimization, when creating landing pages is out of the question.