Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Well I'm glad to hear you've had a traffic increase at least! We're seeing different things at Majestic. I'm seeing 124 different domains with deleted links. Examples include: <colgroup><col width="470"></colgroup> | http://blog.sellingpower[dot]com/ | | http://www.honeywellaidc[dot]com/en-US/partners/Pages/find-a-partner.aspx | | http://www.sellingpower.typepad[dot]com/ | | http://www.dcvelocity[dot]com/whitepapers/ | | http://spectrumsuppliermarketplace[dot]com/Listing/Index/Printing__Surface_Treatment/Bar_Coding/3497/681 | | http://www.thomasnet[dot]com/products/barcode-labels-42422006-1.html | | http://www.business[dot]com/technology/electronics/ | | http://www.supplychain247[dot]com/company/supply_chain_services | | http://fc.webmasterpro.de/stat.php?name=hotelab&source=referer | I agree the purchasingandsupplysourcingguide link is active. I see that as well. "A_nd I run my report against the same competitors every month but theirs actually increased_."  Sorry, here I don't know what report you're referencing. Are you saying you run Moz reports each month that tells you the number of links you and your competitors have? I thought Moz used Open Site Explorer data for that - the same data we're talking about so can't speak to that. Lastly, yes - none of the tools are 100% accurate. They're all based on sampling and projections. Yes, I agree Moz estimates tend to be lower than other sources of link data.  I really think the reason you're seeing such a huge variation in link counts is because of the small number of sources you have for incoming links and the relatively small sample size Moz uses to make it's projections. I agree 80% is huge, but from what I can see in Majestic, you've lost 60% (124 of 198) of your link sources recently so that would explain it, at least partially. That's the best I can come up with Ken.

Joe put in some really good resources, so is Matt's I put together something as well https://www.leapfroggr.com/seo-checklist/ you might like it. Good luck!

Hi Mark, I took a look just now - and the co.nz site shows PA: 21 and DA: 10 with 1438 backlinks the .com shows DA: 1 and PA:1 with 1563 backlinks the com.au show DA: 1 and PA:1 with 252 backlinks Does this make any sense?

Thank you, it helps

Hi Greg! Keep in mind that the On-Page Grader won't really tell you how likely a page is to rank; it'll only tell you how well the page follows best practices when targeting a particular keyword. On-page optimization is only so strong as a ranking signal, and is _really _unlikely to be the factor that determines rankings. It can definitely provide an extra push though! There are a couple Moz tools I'd recommend checking out to help figure this out. The first is Landing Pages, which intended to help workaround Google's (not provided) keyword data. It'll let you know which tracked keywords are most likely to be sending traffic to which pages, as well as whether keywords you're not tracking are also sending traffic (though it can't tell you which ones). The second is the Keyword Difficulty Tool, which can run a report called a Full SERP Analysis that can tell you which factors are likely helping the top 10 results for any given keyword to rank. It might provide some insight. Cyrus Shepard made a pretty great video on it here. Lastly, we've got an article here on Page Authority and how to raise it, but it pretty much comes down to "work on your link profile." I hope that helps!

As for a list of fields, the LocalBusiness page on schema.org is a good place to start.

First of all, I agree with everyone else but let me answer the question you asked. Dofollow blogs often set themselves as dofollow to get links from being listed on dofollow blog lists, like the one you must've found. Once they get listed, they change back to nofollow so they don't leak their juice. So after they were added to the list they simply changed their blog back. That would be my guess (without looking at the actual link.) And no, there's no real benefit to doing blog comments simply for the sake of SEO. There are LOTS of reasons to leave comments though, so just do it naturally.

Hi Peter, If Moz is uncertain about the value of image alt-tags in SEO, then may I recommend this blog. http://moz.com/blog/how-to-perform-the-worlds-greatest-seo-audit Its by those people over at Moz Is there a reason why image alt tags are not crawled still after all this time? Paul

thanks for answer

Sean It's not really necessary to use canonical url's. If you are sure that every piece of content on your site is available on a unique url you don't need to implement them. It doesn't hurt having them either. Using canonical url's (if implemented properly) can help to avoid duplicate content issues. Like Patrick mentioned, having canonicals doesn't imply that no duplicate content issues exist (I've seen sites where the canonical url is always equal to the url - which renders them completely useless) Crawl tools like Screaming Frog are the best option to check if you need canonicals, and if you have them, to check if they are properly implemented. rgds, Dirk

Thanks Thomas for your clear instructions, this definately helped alot! A question - with regards to the **Taxonomies **I checked all that you referred to, however I seem to have an extra one for ad groups? Under XML sitemaps - I see tags and categories under this section do should I un-check this area also?

Interesting. Downloading the latest links from Webmaster tools pulls down over 800 links where as Open Site Explorer only shows 123?

I used Moz Page grade and it picked up your meta description. Also used an SEO Spider... all looks good from here... only thing I noticed is that the end of the description tag was "/> and not " /> with the space between the description... that really shouldn't matter though. I did a w3c compliance scan and there are a few items there that you may want to look at. http://validator.w3.org/ NfZpXmc

Hi there, Unfortunately, this isn't something that anyone can tell you without at least a few hours of research - Google has a pretty complicated algorithm! I can tell you some more things to take into account, in addition to Bob's list: **Keyword relevance: **For the search queries that you want to rank for, does Sea Dwellers look the most relevant? Do you use the phrase that you want to rank for in your page title, the h1 of the page, and on the page itself? Be careful not to sound like you're writing for robots rather than humans, but using the exact same phrase as you want to rank for definitely helps with rankings. **Inbound link relevance: **Where did you get the links to your site? More links from relevant sites (for example, unsponsored posts about the best company to dive with) are going to help with local queries like "dive Key Largo." **Potential spam / paid links: **If you've paid for links or have spammy links coming to your site, Moz may have an inflated version of your PA or DA metrics, since it isn't as good at recognizing that as Google is (though they're working on it with their spam score). Good luck! If you're feeling especially frustrated about this, I'd recommend hiring an SEO to give you some definite answers. Best, Kristina

Hi Dave There's a few things you can do: First, when uploading the image, under "Attachment Display Settings" don't choose "link to attachment page" - this is what links the image to the URL. Choose "none" "media file" or "custom URL". Next, if you're using the Yoast SEO plugin you can redirect all of these unique URLs back to the post page. Under your "Permalink" settings, choose "Redirect attachment URLs to parent post URLs" I don't think you will have to end up uploading with FTP, so let me know if that helps. -Dan

I've noticied that the website ranking in the first position has a huge quantity of content about the theme: it could be possibile that the website ranks in that way (despite the DA and PA lower metrics) for some LSI / LDA factor? I mean, Google considers the website the one that talks in deep way about the theme, with correlate arguments. In addition, unlike the other websites, the first result is a website with that only theme (starting from the url), instead, some other websites has only one page about the theme of the SERP. What do you think about it?

Hi Kingalan - first off, I'd recommend checking out http://moz.com/blog/understanding-and-applying-mozs-spam-score-metric-whiteboard-friday which will give you a pretty good overview of what Spam Score is and how it works. I wouldn't worry about firing two flags - Moz triggers a few, and many good sites do as well. If they're things you want to fix anyway, go for it, but Spam Score flags aren't about saying "this is necessarily bad" or "this definitely needs fixing." It's merely identifying features that, when added together, show correlations with sites we saw Google penalize/ban. As far as your links go - that distribution seems fine to me, too. If you want, you could look at the highest flag count links and if you believe they're problematic after manually reviewing, go ahead and give them the boot (via disavow or getting the site to remove them). The flag count is merely to help you order your manual review - it should never replace the process of actually looking at those links and determining which should be kept/removed.

Two's company, three's a crowd. Getting third-party connections to always play nice can be aggravating from time to time. Hopefully it gets cleaned up for you soon Ruben. Cheers!

Hi Alex! I was wondering if the answer Andy gave you was helpful or not. If it was, I kindly ask you to change the status of this question to "answered". Ciao, and happy searching G.

Thank you I will check them out!