Why am I seeing this in ahrefs?
-
I'm working on diagnosing the reason for a traffic drop for a site. When I look at the referring domains report in ahrefs I see a huge drop in the number of referring domains that happens exactly on the day of the traffic drop. However, when I look at the new/lost backlinks report there is no coinciding loss in links.
How is this possible?
-
I'm happy to help Marie. Yes, when I first saw it I was looking at a competitor and I yelled "yes!!!" and then I looked up my own sites and I yelled "nooo!!!" And then I realized something else was going on, LOL. Have a great weekend!
-
You are very welcome!
-
Well, I'll be darned! I put in a bunch of other websites and every one has a huge drop on November 27th. You're right...it's an ahrefs thing and not related to the site I am working on.
How weird that the ahref's drop across the board happened on the exact same day as this site's traffic drop!
I can explain most of what is going on with the site but could not explain a loss of several hundred domains linking to them. Dana...you saved my sanity tonight!
-
Thanks for sharing Dana!
-
Hi Marie,
I saw the same thing yesterday and it seemed odd that the drop was consistent across three totally unrelated websites. I dug a little deaper and discovered in the Ahrefs blog that they have recently updated their algorithm. They did put the text "Old Index" in the background of the chart, but that really didn't mean anything to me until I read their blog post here: http://ahrefs.com/news/
Hope that helps! I hope their new index is really better and not just different
Dana
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
When "pruning" old content, is it normal to see an drop in Domain Authority on Moz crawl report?
After reading several posts about the benefits of pruning old, irrelevant content, I went through a content audit exercise to kick off the year. The biggest category of changes so far has been to noindex + remove from sitemap a number of blog posts from 2015/2016 (which were very time-specific, i.e. software release details). I assigned many of the old posts a new canonical URL pointing to the parent category. I realize it'd be ideal to point to a more relevant/current blog post, but could this be where I've gone wrong? Another big change was to hide the old posts from the archive pages on the blog. Any advice/experience from anyone doing something similar much appreciated! Would be good to be reassured I'm on the right track and a slight drop is nothing to worry about. 🙂 If anyone is interested in having a look: https://vivaldi.com https://vivaldi.com/blog/snapshots [this is the category where changes have been made, primarily] https://vivaldi.com/blog/snapshots/keyboard-shortcut-editing/ [example of a pruned post]
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jonmc1 -
Is Google able to see child pages in our AJAX pagination?
We upgraded our site to a new platform the first week of August. The product listing pages have a canonical issue. Page 2 of the paginated series has a canonical pointing to page 1 of the series. Google lists this as a "mistake" and we're planning on implementing best practice (https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2013/04/5-common-mistakes-with-relcanonical.html) We want to implement rel=next,prev. The URLs are constructed using a hashtag and a string of query parameters. You'll notice that these parameters are ¶meter:value vs ¶meter=value. /products#facet:&productBeginIndex:0&orderBy:&pageView:grid&minPrice:&maxPrice:&pageSize:& None of the URLs are included in any indexed URLs because the canonical is the page URL without the AJAX parameters. So these results are expected. Screamingfrog only finds the product links on page 1 and doesn't move to page 2. The link to page 2 is AJAX. ScreamingFrog only crawls AJAX if its in Google's deprecated recommendations as far as I know. The "facet" parameter is noted in search console, but the example URLs are for an unrelated URL that uses the "?facet=" format. None of the other parameters have been added by Google to the console. Other unrelated parameters from the new site are in the console. When using the fetch as Google tool, Google ignores everything after the "#" and shows only the main URL. I tested to see if it was just pulling the canonical of the page for the test, but that was not the case. None of the "#facet" strings appear in the Moz crawl I don't think Google is reading the "productBeginIndex" to specify the start of a page 2 and so on. One thought is to add the parameter in search console, remove the canonical, and test one category to see how Google treats the pages. Making the URLs SEO friendly (/page2.../page3) is a heavy lift. Any ideas how to diagnose/solve this issue?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Jason.Capshaw0 -
I was wondering, do you know when you see updated results for a sporting event in the google search.
I was wondering, do you know when you see updated results for a sporting event in the google search. Are those the result of structured data?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mycujoo0 -
Weird title tag in SERps (see attachment)
Hi Mozzers Does anyone know why my clients title tag appears like it does in the image attached? It seems as though Google is pulling the parent page url and putting that at the front. All other title tags are normal. Anyone any ideas and is it anything to be worried about? Thanks Anthony @Anthony_Mac85 9KhTgk5
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Tone_Agency0 -
How can I see all the pages google has indexed for my site?
Hi mozers, In WMT google says total indexed pages = 5080. If I do a site:domain.com commard it says 6080 results. But I've only got 2000 pages in my site that should be indexed. So I would like to see all the pages they have indexed so I can consider noindexing them or 404ing them. Many thanks, Julian.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | julianhearn0 -
Why does SEOmoz bot see duplicate pages despite I am using the canonical tag?
Hello here, today SEOmoz bot found and marked as "duplicate content" the following pages on my website: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html?tab=mp3 http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html?tab=pdf And I am wondering why considering the fact I am using on both those pages a canonical tag pointing to the main product page below: http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html Shouldn't SEOmoz bot follow the canonical directive and not report those two pages as duplicate? Thank you for any insights I am probably missing here!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Anybody else seeing Penguin corrections?
Hi,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rayvensoft
Over the past few days, I have noticed that a few of my pages that were hit by the Google Penguin update come back from the dead and return to the #1 spot for the main keywords. I still don't see any change for secondary keywords I used to rank for, but hey at least there is something. Has anybody else noticed this? NOTE: I did not make any changes to my pages. I had never done any black-hat (just greyish) so I took the advice of many and just waited.1 -
Google sees redirect when there isn't any?
I've posted a question previously regarding the very strange changes in our search positions here http://www.seomoz.org/q/different-pages-ranking-for-search-terms-often-irrelevant New strange thing I've noticed - and very disturbing thing - seems like Google has somehow glued two pages together. Or, in other words, looks like Google sees a 301 redirect from one page to another. This, actually, happened to several pages, I'll illustrate it with our Flash templates page. URL: http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | templatemonster
Has been #3 for 'Flash templates' in Google. Reasons why it looks like redirect:
Reason #1
Now this http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php page is ranking instead of http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Also, http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php is not in the index.
That what would typically happen if you had 301 from Flash templates to logo templates page. Reason #2
If you search for cache:http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php Google will give the cahced version of http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php!!!
If you search for info:www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php you again get info on http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php instead! Reason #3
In Google Webmaster Tools when I look for the external links to http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php I see all the links from different sites, which actually point to http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php listed as "Via this intermediate link: http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php" As I understand Google makes this "via intermediate link" when there's a redirect? That way, currently Google thinks that all the external links we have for Flash templates are actually pointing to Logo templates? The point is we NEVER had any kind of redirect from http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php to http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php I've seen several similar situations on Google Help forums but they were never resolved. So, I wonder if anybody can explain how that could have happened, and what can be done to solve that problem?0