Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Glad someone else asked this question, thanks for clarification.

This. In the world of ecom SEO, do all you can to point people at just one page. Works better for users, and for search engine ranking. The only edit I would have is be very careful when configuring your URL's in the parameter tool. If done incorrectly it could harm your site. If you are having issues with multiple URL's getting indexed, then use htaccess to send bots and users to the correct pages. Same warning as above though.

After peeking at your account, it looks like the Campaign settings for that second campaign do not have the Twitter and Google+ data stored. If you can enter those again into the settings, we should be able to track that data. The social data for the first campaign seems to be working well. If you are still having trouble, make sure to let us know by emailing help@Moz.com so we can dig into the issue with you. I hope we can help!

+1 for Screaming Frog, that will give you a great crawl for your site and meta info. Screaming frog complements Moz and other SEO tools. Screaming Frog is a very popular and common industry tool - and for the price it is well worth getting a license.

Hi there, Thanks for reaching out! I just logged into your account and reviewed both crawl tests in there. They opened fine for me in Excel, Google Sheets and Numbers. This leads me to believe the issue is actually with your spreadsheet program itself. I recommend reaching out to the support for this program to try and troubleshoot the issue with them. Sorry I can't be of more help here

Actually, canonical tags are the absolute last-ditch way of dealing with this issue. The correct solution is to use 301-redirects to force all version of the URL except the primary to redirect to the primary (also called canonical) URL. Canonical in this instance just means the primary or most authoritative version of something. Nothing to do with the tags of the same name. The only reason to use the rel=canonical tag for this is if you have absolutely no way to do it through 301-redirects. (For instance your host doesn't allow access to the .htaccess file and your DNS system doesn't allow it either.) Use Travis's info below for exactly how to do this in .htaccess. There are also many other posts here in Q&A that address this if you want more reference points. Paul

Amway, Your question needs quite a bit of clarification. Google's geo preference works a bit differently than just .com vs. .us for the same /similar content.  So, if you use a .US outside of the US you are stating you want to target US customers. A .com is not country specific so it won't necessarily exclude any region, but if you are outside the US, with server outside the US and with no geo targeting input, and your customer is in the US, I would use a .US.  A .com is generally better for the US than a .us for the US customer, but for a different reason than Google.  If a US customer sees .US for one result and a similar result (different site) with .com, I believe that 8 times out of 10 they will take the .com because they are more comfortable with it. I hope that helps.  Remember, if you are using the same or very similar content, be very careful with canonicalization, etc. when trying to use both. Best, Robert

If the links are nofollowed automatically by the sites' content management systems, they should effectively be ignored by search engines. That said, search engines most likely at least take into account where your nofollowed links come from, and it won't look good to have a large number of nofollowed links from spammy sources. Of course, these aren't spammy sources. If the links are followed, they pass PageRank, but can also attract low-quality commenters (who don't care if a post is 48 hours or 48 weeks old). You might leave a good, constructive comment as the 4th comment on a post with a followed link through to your relevant site. Comments one, two and three might also be high quality. However, if the links are not automatically nofollowed by the CMS, spammers can and will end up adding endless comments to the thread with their spam links in the future. This isn't great for your site, as it means you're linked to alongside spam and thus part of a bad link neighbourhood of sorts, despite that not being your intention. Having a selection of comment links should not hurt the site, but do be wary and very selective about where you post these links. Because comment-based link development was such a heavily-spammed tactic (and still is for some people), you need to be very careful about how you link in this manner, even if it is not for SEO purposes.

http://moz.com/users/subscription This link should work. If not, go to https://moz.com/help/contact and click on billing. Thanks!

Directories are unlikely to get you better rankings, many directories have been devalued in recent months. Given that many of them are freemium, you are better spending your time writing a great piece of content and reaching out to bloggers/websites to help you spread the word about your brand. 1. Always start with the onpage optimisation, without it your backlinks will mean little. Think more about site speed, URL structure and user benefit because this is what will give you a better conversion rate. 2. It is possible but as Gavo said below, it depends on how competitive the keywords are. Look at interacting with people on social media, follow them, look at how they would like to be connected with and do so. For example, if some influential in your industry is talking about a particular topic, put your spin on things and get a conversation going. This will help make you an authority in this industry.

Hi Fred, Sorry to hear about your problems, you're not the first and certainly won't be the last. In my opinion, your backlinks are looking quite spammy. When I look at your profile using Open Site Explorer there are quite a few directories in there and press release websites, both of which have been hit recently, devaluing the links from them. It does sound like you've been hit with a algorithm penalty (because Google will tell you about any manual penalties in Webmaster Tools). Your anchor text isn't too bad as you've got the brand in almost all of them the websites that you have links on have very little authority and won't be helping you to rank at all. You need a content strategy implementing and to find some bloggers/website with real connections to talk to, that way you will get some brand exposure, put your service in front of real people who may actually use Martha's and in turn, help you rank better.

Thanks for the response Mark! I'll check it out and see if it's still a working solution, definitely looks promising.

Hi Carson-Ward, That's a nice and clean solution. Thanks for that! I actually did something similar without realizing it by creating an actual canonical file to start with for my latest guide Google My Business which in Dutch is Google Mijn Bedrijf handleiding google-plus-marketing.nl/google-mijn-bedrijf-handleiding/ I have had the nr 1 position ever since it launched a week (or has it been 2 already? Dont know:) or so ago. I made it in to one large file not linking out to anything for the first week accept one strategic link to the google.com help file. This was mend as the canon indeed. Instead here I chose to optimize the category page for Google My Business and not a bulky paginated file or something like that. This category page now ranks 3 to 5th places since Google My Business is released so it's working I guess. The category page which I consider a basic keyword theme landing page -> google-plus-marketing.nl/category/google-mijn-bedrijf/ me really happy with traffic I get from it:) I think I prefer the patter approach for now above a nicely paginated multi page posts. I experimented with this one first last few months and although it looks better it does not rank better to start with google-plus-marketing.nl/google-plus-handleiding-inhoudsopgave/ although it's ranked 1-3 for months I think simple version is best?

This is one of those constantly recurring questions and you will find lots of posts which cover the subject on loads of sites as well as here on Moz (eg, http://moz.com/community/q/how-to-detect-a-bad-link-and-remove or http://moz.com/community/q/how-can-i-find-this-bad-link). There are several tools out there that can help, such as LinkResearchTools Detox mentioned by Prestashop, but while they are useful in crunching large amounts of links down to manageable levels they can also often give you false positives, and in the end you don't want to be disavowing too many non-harmful links either. You can enter a sites domain name into Google to see if it appears and then if it doesn't it means it is likely to have been penalised, check to see if the site is part of a network, and you at the sites PR, Domain Authority or similar metrics but these often catch new domains which can be genuine but have simply not had a chance to establish themselves. In the end it really boils down to having to look at the links manually and answer a couple of simple subjective questions: "Does the link look natural and genuine?" and "Does the link provide any benefit to real people?". If a link fails these questions, then there is no real reason for it to exist and it may be seen as suspect.

Whois.net is listed in the Moz Toolbar.  Click the wrench button, hover over domain tools and click whois.net

Matt Cutts has a November 2013 video that provides greater clarity. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHG6BkmzDEM#t=58

Well, the H1 is 'normally' towards the top of the page, but as there is an image towards the top, there is no reason why not. Just try and keep to H1 then H2, etc., and keep it ordered. That said, its not as much of an issue these days as it once was - Google has bigger factors that help with ranking. -Andy

Domain Authority is logarithmic and compares your site against all of the other sites in the Moz index. Sites can be compared against one another within a specific crawl, but you can't reasonably compare your own site crawl to crawl - since each crawl may end up pulling in information for different sites which therefore adjusts your placement within the overall scheme of authority. Fluctuations between a few points (like 10 and 13) is therefore completely normal. In short - your authority probably hasn't "decreased", it's just that the index from the latest crawl has a higher median number of LRDs than the previous index. I hope that makes sense.

I wouldn't get too hung up on the Moz timeline, since that's only correlated with what Google does, to build a broader model. If Google has crawled/cached the 404 and the page actually is no longer in the index, then that page should stop inheriting and passing link equity. It can get complicated, because sometimes 404s have inbound links and other issues tied to them that can confuse the crawlers. So, I'd say it's situational. Moz (specifically, OSE) can help you determine what links still exist to those URLs, which really should guide whether you let them stay 404s or 301-redirect them to something relevant. The other aspect of the decision is just whether something relevant exists. If you clearly have built a page to replace the old one then 301-redirect it. If the old page is something that ceased to exist for a reason, then a 404 is probably fine unless that old page had a ton of inbound links. In that case, the 404 has essentially cut off those links. The problem is that those inbound links are still out there, so it's not that the authority has ceased to exist. It's that you've basically cut the pipe through which the authority flows.

Hey Devanur, Thank you so much!  I really appreciate you taking the time to help out.  I'm going to look at it now and figure it out! Best, -Arash