Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Great. Thanks Sean. I wasn't sure. Will send an email to help@moz.com

In the old version of Moz, it was possible to export a historical link report for entire duration of the campaign. Now it only shows 3 months worth of data.

Is it possible to export the data for more than 3 months and if so, how is that done?

Yes, we've had it set up since March 2013. We do have Google UK data and competitor data for the whole period. Just not Google US for some reason.

Hi. I've pulled a historical ranking report but there is missing data for my site for Google US pre 22nd April 2013. Google UK ranking data is available and so is competitor data.

Any ideas?

Hi David,

Thanks for your response. That makes perfect sense.

I assumed that to be the case but thought it was worth checking before making any changes.

I suppose by adding appropriate hreflang="x" mark-up combined with the geo-targeting of root domain and subfolders - that should be enough to inform search engines of our intended geographical targets.

Strangely there wasn't a lot of information out there about this specific question - so thanks again.

Yusuf

I understand that it's possible to target both domains/subdomains and subfolders to different geographical regions in GWT.

However, I was wondering about the effect of targeting the domain to a single country, say the UK. Then targeting subfolders to other regions (say the US and France).

e.g.

www.domain.com -> UK
www.domain.com/us -> US
www.domain.com/fr -> France

etc

Would it be better to leave the main domain without a geographical target but set geo-targeting for the subfolders? Or would it be best to set geo-targeting for both the domain and subfolders.

Hi Everett,

Thanks for your response.

I also believed that the rel=canonical merge the link profiles but so far all the evidence I've seen suggests that it doesn't.

Firstly - Jon Mueller from Google stated that the rel=canonical tag doesn't merge the link profile. That's talked about here.

http://moz.com/community/q/quick-rel-canonical-link-juice-question

Secondly, if I look at some examples, you'd expect pages with rel=canonical tags to have zero authority etc. reported for page alternatives in Open Site Explorer.

e.g. on the ASOS website there is a link to the men's section which uses a query string parameter.

http://www.asos.com/men/?via=top

The canonical url is

http://www.asos.com/men/

Both report different levels of authority. If the link profiles were merged, would you not expect either the same levels of authority reported or the non-canonical version to report no authority?

I understand that Moz tools don't work like Google so I'd like to hear from someone who can explain this.

Thanks,

Yusuf

Hi

I've often wondered about this - whether to use a 301 or leave pages as they are and use the rel=canonical tag.

I would think that a 301 from the duplicate to preferred page would be best. This would mean that any inbound links will pass juice to the preferred page (i.e. site.com/category2/subcategory1/product1). The rel=canonical tag, as far as I know, does not merge the link profile of the duplicate pages.

However, depending on the skill of your developers, other rewrite/redirect rules on your site and your CMS - the rel=canonical might be the only feasible method.

This page explains it very nicely.

http://moz.com/blog/301-redirect-or-relcanonical-which-one-should-you-use

I agree with Jane. Unless there are reasons why the whole site needs to be secure, it makes more sense for just the areas where sensitive information is being submitted to be SSL encrypted.

http: requests are processed more quickly than https: ones due to the SSL handshake required to produce the cryptographic parameters for the user's session - so your site would be a little quicker if you weren't using SSL.

However, if you do decide to use http: rather than https: for the product & category pages like Jane has suggested - you'd need to ensure that the https: versions of these pages redirect to http:... again to avoid duplicate content.

Hi Jason,

It's fine to 301 redirect from http: to https: and it's quite common for sites that use SSL. It's exactly the same principle as redirecting from a non-www to www (e.g. http://example.com to http://www.example.com) - which is considered to be good practice. But there should only be a single redirect. So you should ensure that http://example.com redirects to https://www.example.com without first redirecting to http://www.example.com.

I would also make sure that all pages (not just the homepage) redirect from http: to https: too to ensure there are no duplicate content issues on the rest of the site.

Disqus doesn't use iframes. The content is displayed on page as HTML within a div tag.

We use Disqus for comments on the TranslateMedia blog.

http://www.translatemedia.com/400-million-chinese-cant-speak-mandarin.html/

If you view the source code you can see the comments in there.

My company has various offices around the world and we're in local search for most of them. This was done by submitting the site to Google Places for each location, including pages on the site for each office with a map, telephone number etc - all using structured data (http://schema.org/PostalAddress).

Google Places verifies your physical address by sending a postcard in the mail with a PIN which allows you to verify the existence of your business at that address so it's difficult to abuse.

Hi Raj

Chris is right. You'll be fine as long as you show the same content to both users and search engines. Presenting different content to users and search engines is what is commonly referred to as cloaking.

What you're referring to here is essentially a rewrite of the URL to make it search friendly. This is a common technique on sites using, for example, Apache's mod rewrite extension (http://httpd.apache.org/docs/current/mod/mod_rewrite.html).

The only issue is if search engines index both the search friendly and non-search-friendly URLs so I'd recommend placing a rel="canonical" tag on that page referencing the search friendly URL.

My understanding is that it's a factor but not a big one if you're already using a ccTLD and/or geotargeting.

I had an experience where we moved a site hosted in the UK to Amazon Web Services' data centre located in Ireland. The site was on a .com domain but used geotargeting for the UK. As far as we could tell, the server move did not have any effect on rankings on google.co.uk or google.ie.

I had another experience with a .co.uk domain - which was moved to 1&1 in Germany. This site did not use geotargeting. Again, we didn't notice any significant changes in UK rankings as a result of the move.

Hi Ilcho,

If you want to keep the link juice, you should definitely 301 all the URLs to relevant pages on your site.

However, I wouldn't redirect all of these to the homepage. Apparently internal 301s to the homepage are treated as 404s by Google

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WsDeu5PUx2A

Yusuf

Hi

I was curious about this too. And then I found this

https://seomoz.zendesk.com/entries/20770156-Open-Site-Explorer-to-crawl-HTTPS

Looks like it was in development but had some issues. Hopefully it'll be available soon.

Hi Bob,

This effect is done using a background image.

The image being used is this one:

http://www.3dcart.com/images/5/main-panorama3.jpg

It has a width of 2500 and height of 444. This ensures that it takes up the whole screen on devices less than 2500px wide (which is most of them). The image has feathering on the left and right - which allows it to fade to the same as the black background on devices largest than 2500px.

The site specifies the image, width and background colour in their CSS file:

.panel0 {
     height: 444px;
     background: #18100d url(../images/5/main-panorama3.jpg) no-repeat center top;
}

and to display the background image - they use HTML similar to this:

[SOME STUFF]

I hope that helps.

I have a feeling this might be because Open Site Explorer reports on the number of Facebook likes on a given URL (e.g. your homepage) rather than the site as a whole - which is the 4k figure you're referring to.

Hi Asif

That page is being indexed

https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=cr&ei=rpEdU6OzHcOUhQfkjIDwAQ#q=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mycity4kids.com%2FDelhi-NCR%2Fsearch%2Fguitar-classes

It's just not ranking that well.

Probably worth trying to obtain relevant, high quality links to that page. Also, does appear to have a lot of keyword stuffing (guitar classes appears over 20 times on the page). The listings could probably benefit from short descriptions rather than key phrase based tags.

Hi Mario,

I agree with Jeff. You need to move your site up a folder.

You could write rules that remove the '/coastal/' from the canonical URL for the Yoast plugin, 301 redirect /coastal/* to /* etc - but this is really messy.

It's fine to have your site on the root domain....it's no less secure.