Hi Alick, thanks for your reply. That might be why we are seeing an improvement then as new visitors get attributed correctly, and only returning ones don't. I am just a bit concerned that this effectively means we have to wait 6 months to know for sure whether this fix is actually working 100%. But hopefully we'll see a gradual increase in the percentage of transactions getting attributed correctly, to give us an indication of whether or not it is working. Thanks!

Hi all,

We have been having a problem for a while now where most transactions are attributed to referrals from our payment gateway Sagepay. The issue started a couple of months ago, when we finally upgraded our website to https:// for logged in users and transactions. Before, when we were using http://, transactions were attributed to the correct channel. Even weirder, we upgraded 4 websites and only 2 of them have the issue now, the other two continue to attribute transactions correctly.

I added Sagepay to the referral exclusion list which made no difference. Over the weekend, we upgraded to the global site tag and it seems to have improved somewhat, but yesterday 50% of transactions were still attributed to referral/sagepay.

I am also seeing an odd issue, where for half of the transactions, the revenue and transaction are attributed to one channel, but the products (quantity) are attributed to another. One of the channels is always referral/sagepay and the other is the channel that the transaction should be attributed to.

Has anyone seen this issue before? I'd appreciate any tips that might help us fix this issue.

Thanks in advance!

Assuming you are keeping your domain, what you should do is 301 redirect your old pages and your competitor's old pages to your new pages.

You can't rename their domain to yours but you need to redirect it to yours. You will also have to continue to keep ownership of the domain (renew it when necessary) to be able to benefit from the domain authority and "link juice".

I would suggest using apostrophes where/if grammatically correct. It depends on the individual sentence whether you would use an apostrophe.

Lawyers = plural of lawyer
Lawyer's = singular of lawyer, to show possession
Lawyers' = plural of lawyer, to show possession

I use both and I don't think either is a replacement for the other. If your website is under 500 pages, you can use the free version. If not, one license is not expensive at all and valid for a whole year.

Hi, sorry for the late reply. I don't think migrating to another platform is an option, to be honest, but I appreciate the advice. Thanks.

Thanks for the links, Roman.

I know Feefo support it but was wondering whether Google are happy for this type of review as I understood Feefo, Trustpilot etc. to be third party reviews which I thought Google doesn't allow markup for anymore. But I suppose they must be ok.

I'll forward these links to our developer. Thanks!

I am a little confused about whether or not it is ok to use Schema markup with reviews collected through Feefo.

We use Feefo to collect reviews from our customers and these get displayed on our website. We get service ratings as well as product ratings through Feefo. My question is: Is it ok to use Schema markup for these?

I would have thought they would fall under 3rd party reviews, but this article from the Feefo website seems to suggest that it would be ok to use markup in the way they recommend.

Can anyone confirm how Google handles review markup like this?

Thanks in advance!

What type of TLD is it, i.e. co.uk or .com etc? There are some that aren't supported by Moz and for those you'll see a DA of 1.

Xenu's Link Sleuth is free so you may want to check that out (not sure just now whether there are any limits with regard to website size) but I also recommend Screaming Frog - it's money well-spent, such a feature rich tool!

I use Screaming Frog for this. It'a s spider that does a crawl of your website and then (among others) provides a list of pages without (and pages with multiple) H1 tags. It's a fantastic tool, really useful for all sorts of stuff (like checking for missing / too long / too short page titles and meta descriptions etc etc) and fairly inexpensive (free for crawling up to 500 URLs) at £99 per year for one license. This is their website: https://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/

I hope this helps.

Hi, someone posted about this on Moz Q&A the other day and somebody else suggested it was to do with YouTube videos embedded on the affected pages. See this link.

You can define the locale if you upload the keywords using a list format, but I am not sure, KWE already supports Austrian volume data. See here for how to upload the list using a .csv file (see option 2, you need to create a column for keywords and then one next to it for the locale - de-at): https://moz.com/help/guides/keyword-explorer#frequently-asked-questions

Hi, thanks for your reply. Both locations are actually owned by the same Google account, however, I am aware there are some issues with duplication due to the use of the same address and phone number. Think I might bring it up again internally whether we should merge the two listings.

While strictly speaking the corporate GMB listing is probably a better fit for the GMB guidelines and we get a lot more views of it, we actually get more clicks through the other one, despite only having half the views, so it'd be a shame to lose that one.

Does anyone have any advice regarding the use of shop codes? I've read the Google documentation on them but am still a bit unclear as to what they are for. My understanding is that they serve to distinguish listings when using bulk uploads but we don't use bulk uploads, so would it still make sense to use them and if so how would you format them?

Thanks!

Have a look at this blog post here: https://moz.com/blog/keyword-explorer-upgrades-new-features-more-lists-and-better-metrics It says KWE has moderate coverage for languages of western countries. So that's probably the issue. Depending on topic, I also get a lot of keywords with "No data" and I'm in the UK where coverage is significant.

I would suggest using apostrophes where/if grammatically correct. It depends on the individual sentence whether you would use an apostrophe.

Lawyers = plural of lawyer
Lawyer's = singular of lawyer, to show possession
Lawyers' = plural of lawyer, to show possession

Thanks for your reply, Yossi.

I think I should clarify that it's not just the categories that are already pre-existing but also (most of) the products. They are currently offered both through the main website and the micro site. I only recently joined the company - as far as I know they did try to reword the product descriptions to avoid duplicate content issues, however, I will need to look into how much they actually differ.

We want to retire the micro site, however, for these specific search terms related to what we sell on the micro site, the micro site does tend to rank better. So I suppose we would want to keep the copy from the microsite if possible?

In terms of DA, our main website is slightly better than the microsite, but both are very low - 18 vs. 12. I was told they never did any active link building and I cannot find a lot of links apart from our own websites through tools like OSE.

I have created a list of all existing URLs using Screaming Frog but that is a good point about using a few other tools to verify that my list is as complete as possible.

Thanks, good point to keep in mind re. brand mentions etc. I will have a little dig around GA and SC to see where exactly our organic traffic for the micro site comes from to see how much we can expect to lose due to navigational domain queries etc.

It was mentioned yesterday on SE Roundtable, seems that Google are aware of it, see here.

Xenu's Link Sleuth is free so you may want to check that out (not sure just now whether there are any limits with regard to website size) but I also recommend Screaming Frog - it's money well-spent, such a feature rich tool!