Should be all fixed now. Sorry about that - we're launching a new index, and there seems to be some hardware issues. We're trying to reverse engineer the source of the problem. On the plus side, a new index should be out soon.

Hi Stephen - certainly! There's actually a bunch of detail in the blog post, and Dr. Pete will be writing another post next week that includes more depth on how we calculate each metric and why we chose the algorithms/formulas that we did.

These metrics are somewhat new - Difficulty we obviously had before, but it's been upgraded and improved to be more accurate and have a better range. Opportunity is based off Dr. Pete's prototype tool from Mozcon last year. Importance is a user-modifiable score that we saw in almost everyone's Excel spreadsheets and thus, wanted to re-create in the app, and Potential is a wholly new combination of all the metrics to help you prioritize.

Hi - it certainly looks like there's a number of issues around basic SEO friendliness and accessibility that need addressing on that site, but I'm surprised that SquareSpace's CMS doesn't allow for/enable that. Can you edit the source code on the pages? Or contact their support to look into it?

BTW - I'd also suggest making the homepage title more friendly. Currently, it looks like SEO spam - just keywords jammed together without spaces and without the name of the business. All the page titles have inherited this problem throughout the site.

I might suggest reading https://moz.com/blog/visual-guide-to-keyword-targeting-onpage-optimization and https://moz.com/blog/on-page-seo-8-principles-whiteboard-friday which contain a lot more detailed information on how to think about keyword targeting and on-page SEO.

If my schedule allows it, I'd be happy to present. I typically fill up ~1 year in advance these days (crazy, I know), but if you have 2017 plans, hit me up! rand@moz.com.

Thanks for the heads up Mirabile! Sad to see -- hopefully Squarespace fixes this soon and re-enables fully customizable Title & Meta Descriptions to the other page types.

Totally agree. We're looking at making it more integrated with OSE very soon. Thanks Gavo!

Hi Kev - yeah, totally agree that we need to make that more clear. We'll get to work on that asap.

And yes - Potential takes into account whatever metrics it can; when those are absent (like volume), it uses a low volume bucket (I think 0-10) so as not to overstate. Often when we don't have volume, it's either a very new keyword or a very uncommon one.

And yeah - we don't cover the UK yet, but hope to in the future.

Thanks Dmytro! If there's any features or functionality you'd love to see added, let us know

Hi Mark - yes! If you're using the New Zealand select in the drop down for engines, those other scores should be accurate.

Cheers!

Thanks so much for sharing Mark! Examples like these are a gold mine for the rest of us (and good luck on moving from gray hat to white hat)

Hi ATP - we're working on getting the UK volume data (along with other countries) into KW Explorer, hopefully before we shut off KW Difficulty. I believe we may be extending that June 2nd deadline.

In the meantime, I'd recommend using AdWords' KW Tool and selecting "United Kingdom" in their country dropdown. KW Difficulty's data comes from there as well (via GrepWords).

Lee - I believe the best way to think about this is to ask whether, if you worked on Google's search quality team, you'd want those guest post links to help the site rank better. Nothing you're describing sounds awful (although posting on sites that don't have much editorial filtering/discretion could be more dangerous), but it also doesn't strike me as the type of practice that I'd want to reward if I were Google.

I liked what Patrick McKenzie said:

Google will eventually define any tactic which scalably allows ranking for arbitrary keywords as "black hat."

That strikes me as being correct. If there's a singular tactic you're using to get rankings (like link building through repeated guest blogging) that is exclusively or primarily for that purpose (manipulating the rankings), then it's probably in the danger zone, if not today, then at some point in the future.

This begs the question - what tactics should you be doing for clients to help move the needle on their SEO? I'm going to try to tackle that in an upcoming Whiteboard Friday, but for now, I'd think about things that help build their brand, get publicity, drive traffic, and show value that also happen to earn links. For example, hosting events, creating viral content, becoming a resource for data that others cite in their work, creating partnerships with others in your field or geography, earning press, etc. http://moz.com/blog/category/link-building has tons more good stuff, but all of them take serious elbow grease and are bigger than just "getting a link" (which is the whole point).

Hi Dan - yeah, I think what you're describing makes good sense. You can use the non-geo-specific term to get an idea of broad popularity and in most cases, you'll be able to rank well in your local geography (assuming Google thinks there's local intent) for the broader term with a page targeting the regional one.

e.g. If I search for Patent Attorneys from my office (which is in Seattle), Google biases to show me patent attorneys who are in Seattle. Very similar to the results I get if I search Seattle Patent Attorneys (though some variation is always present).