Welcome to the Q&A Forum

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.

Yes, this can happen but you can ask Google not to use the description from a directory such as DMOZ by using the "noodp" meta robot tag:

You could use a user-agent switcher plugin to see what Google (and other search engines) can see. If all they can see is the log-in page it wouldn't be worth it for SEO purposes, but it might still be beneficial if this is an active website with many members who may be more likely to visit your client's website because of this link.

Yep, the biggest drop we have seen is from 10 to 1 on a small website we haven't worked on in months. Mostly smaller drops but bigger than other months. I monitor some competitors as well and out of 24, 2 have stayed the same, 1 has improved, all others have dropped. Our websites have all dropped except for one (which has stayed the same).

Glad to know we're not the only ones!

As far as I am aware, there is nothing wrong with using both canonicals and pagination on the same page. Google says this as well here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663744?hl=en

We have pagination and canonicals set up as suggested in the Google article and also have some issues with Moz saying we have duplicate content, which the pagination should "fix" as far as I understand it.

From the article:

rel="next" and rel="prev" are orthogonal concepts to rel="canonical". You can include both declarations. For example, http://www.example.com/article?story=abc&page=2&sessionid=123 may contain:

I would suggest prioritising the products and creating unique descriptions for the most important ones first.

Outsourcing them ... I would not generally say that's a bad idea as long as you ensure the work produced will be of high quality, meaning don't outsource them to India or something but maybe if the budget allows you could find a freelancer to help with the workload.

We have this issue too and some products from a previous mass upload still don't have good descriptions, but when it is a small update, we create them as required.

I'd suggest adding a noindex robots meta tag to the affected pages (see how to do this here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93710?hl=en) and until Google recrawls use the remove URLs tool (see how to use this here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663419?hl=en).

If you use the noindex robots meta tag, don't disallow the pages through your robots.txt or Google won't even see the tag. Disallowing Google from crawling a page doesn't mean it won't be indexed (or removed from the index), it just means Google won't crawl the page.

If you export your Keyword Rankings to Excel, you can sort them by the Ranking URL so all the keywords that one URL ranks for will be grouped together.

You can also use labels to organise keywords into different groups but this might have been easier to do when you first uploaded them.

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.

I saw a response from someone at Moz to someone with this same issue - they had a .cc domain. The response was that Moz currently don't support custom TLDs. Most likely .kitchen is also affected by this. See here for the discussion.

In your case it may be worth it to do this: Keep the pages accessible, show that the product is no longer in stock and then show similar products the user may be interested in instead.

If this is not possible (too complicated, site too big), I would 301 redirect to the closest category page, maybe with a notification at the top that the product is no longer available and that is why the user was redirected to the category page.

Have a look at this blog post: https://econsultancy.com/blog/65562-seo-considerations-for-discontinued-products-in-ecommerce/

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://mza.bundledseo.com/help/guides/keyword-explorer#frequently-asked-questions

For pages like T&C etc. I wouldn't use canonicals. It is perfectly normal that all websites have pages like T&C, privacy policy and so on, and even when the websites aren't owned by the same company, they are usually quite similar. I would simply leave them as they are. You will not be penalised for duplicate content, but Google may choose to show only one of the results in organic search results.

If someone was to google "website 1 terms and conditions", Google should still choose to show the T&C of website 1 as an organic result. If you used canonicals, where website 5 is used as the canonical, you would probably have website 5 shown no matter which T&C a person is trying to find.

For product pages, you should be using different content (product descriptions) to avoid this issue. However, we have the same situation, where we have some products sold across more than one website, but we actually only want one of them to rank, so we have used cross-domain canonicals for those products. It has worked really well for us.

It clears the item from the list permanently (until you choose to un-ignore it). I only use it for things that Moz finds but that we are not planning or unable to fix (or that are supposed to be this way). So if you have fixed the issues, don't ignore them, they will just be removed from the list when the next crawl is done.

I haven't, this only happens to me when there has been an issue with the website at the time it was crawled and that usually resolves itself the following week.

Sometimes it can also be related to the number of pages Moz has crawled. I.e. when it crawls more pages, it also finds more issues.

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://mza.bundledseo.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.

Hi, I can see a few more. 6 in the text main body + 2 in the menu in the main body + 2 in the sidebar menu + 1 breadcrumb + 1 in the top level navigation + 6 in the opened top level navigation. That's 18.

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

Your organic landing pages report from Google Analytics and search analytics report from Search Console might be helpful for that.

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.

You can still see it on the link you originally posted - the box with the text about the current index mentions it.

This sounds exactly like the problem many have seen after the recent API update. I would suggest reading this topic: https://mza.bundledseo.com/community/q/is-everybody-seeing-da-pa-drops-after-last-moz-api-update You'll find a few more in the Q&A section but this one has a really helpful reply from Rand Fishkin.

We also saw one domain drop from 10 to 1 and I have seen someone else here mention a drop from 12 to 1. I for one am not going to worry about it for now, fairly certain it will get fixed with the next update which is expected in a little over two weeks.

I think the problem is that in theory any page that is indexed will rank for some keyword or other, especially long-tail keywords, so there will be too many possibilities. The only way to link them up for sure (as far as I am aware) is to track the keywords.

But you may be able to make some connections by checking your top organic landing pages and top organic keywords. I.e. if you are getting a lot of visits to your landing page "/thekeyword" and a lot of visits (or impressions) from "keywordz", then it might be worth checking whether it is that page that ranks well for the keyword "keywordz". The avg. position in the Search Console might be helpful as well to give you an idea for how well a page on your website ranks for the keywords you are getting traffic from.

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.

Thanks, that's a great tip! I've bookmarked that page, very handy to have that link. I'll bring it up with the team. I agree, it might be easiest for the sales team to share the link.

Hi, no don't add the crawler exclusion as this will not prevent Google from indexing them, but it will prevent Google from seeing the no-index and canonicals tags (seeing as it won't crawl the pages anymore).

If you click on the spam score it will tell you which spam flags the domain has. There are quite a few which are unrelated to links.

Your DA only updates when there is a new Mozscape index available. There should have been an update on 28/2 but they have been having issues with deploying this index so the index from 26/1 is still the most current one. I.e. there shouldn't have been a change in your DA since then (unless the new index was briefly available, but I haven't seen any changes in DA on our websites yet).

There was also no change in the Mozscape index on 7/2 so your DA wouldn't have had any changes then. The most recent one would be the 26/1 one.

You can check for updates to the Mozscape index here: https://mza.bundledseo.com/products/api/updates

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

We had this issue with products which we sell on two different websites, that Google would rank one or the other, randomly swapping them out for each other in the rankings. We used cross-domain canonicals to solve this and it has fixed the issue for us, i.e. the website we want to rank now ranks for these products, the other one doesn't.

If you use canonicals, it will most likely mean that only the main page will rank (the canonical URL).

Hi. I track 32 websites and many of them saw a drop of 1-2 in DA this month. 7 dropped by 2, 7 dropped by 1, 15 stayed the same, one dropped by 3, one by 7 and one by 8. I didn't have a single one improve.

DA is not related to Google updates as it is a score given by Moz and as I already said, it only updates when a new Mozscape index is available. The drop you noticed in February must have happened with the 26/1 update.

If you did see a change in it today, it was likely because they were trying to roll out the new index (and failed).

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 recently updated a Wordpress website from noindex to wanting it indexed and I still had a warning in Search Console for a day or two and the homepage was initially indexed with the meta description saying "A description for this website ...", even though the actual Fetch and Render and also Robots.txt test was just fine. If you are absolutely sure there isn't anything wrong, I would maybe give it a couple of days. In our case, I resubmitted the homepage to Google to speed up the process and that fixed it.

I should add that not all of these websites are ours, but many are competitors'.

Yes, they do. If you want to keep 301 redirects in place, you need to stay the owner of the domain and ensure it continues to 301 redirect to your new domain.

I was going to suggest Sprout but if you don't want to use that, maybe have a look at Raven: https://raventools.com/ I've used it previously for reporting although not specifically for social media reporting but they do have the ability to do social media reporting.

Have you already verified the website with http? When verifying https websites you need to add and verify the website with just http first: http://www.nookie.com.au/

Hi Christina. It is generally recommended for all pages to have a canonical. In most cases, these will be self-referential canonicals. I.e. for a product at http://www.website.com/product the canonical should be http://www.website.com/product.

Have a look at this recent article: http://www.thesempost.com/google-recommends-self-referencing-canonicals/