Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Seems like Google is leaning toward favoring YouTube content with the removal of Rich Snippets. If you can get the same SEO benefit using a video site map and embedding YouTube videos instead, why not have your website visitors increase your YouTube video view counts and possibly add subscribers while you're at it.

The least expensive way to start would be to use the Moz Local service.  That will take care of updating much of the local databases with your new information. A quicker (and much more expensive) way is Yext.com. It gives you more control and updates quicker but when you leave their service, listings may revert back pre-yext info.  In the middle of the two is UBL.org. It's hands-on and a bit confusing but they have a couple levels of service that will get the job done for you.

Linkedin sponsored updates can be geo-targeted, but they can also be expensive. It's worth investigating.

This is very helpful Chris.Menke (and SamWebber)!  Thank you for the feedback and insights.  What we have been frustrated with is that we know we are building quality links on high-ranking, authority domains, yet it seemed to us that Moz was not learning of these links.  What we've tried to understand is how Moz discovers and adds these URLs to its index.  Working on theory alone, that not all of them will be discovered or accepted for index, we just want to be able to tell Moz about these relationships we are building out there - hoping that it does move our metrics from where they seem to have sat for a while.  Again, the key issue is that we want to be able to use the Moz tools, but if we don't [get] the demanded "get results", the subscription isn't going to get approved!  Needless to say, we are working double-time to build quality links from great content, but - not being social media experts - we are sort of throwing stuff against the wall hoping something will stick.  Not the greatest strategy in the world, we know!  But faint heart never won fair lady.

Thanks everyone for you giving me your viewpoint. I was particularly interested with MorganNw answer, but I have not found any data to support this (as much as it would have been great if it was like that!)

Here's the official info on review snippets, if you don't have them set up: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/146645?hl=en Keep in mind that setting up the microdata is not always sufficient. Google is still going to look at the authority/quality/etc., of the page, and rich snippets are often query-dependent (you don't get them on every search just because you got them on one search). For most sites, though, the microdata is a good start.

It would be ideal to have the first paragraph of the press release as the meta description, as this is usually a summary or outline of the news being announced. You'd then have to truncate that to approx 140 characters to fit inside a Google result. How that is implemented depends on the type of site you have, what you are running on etc. Ash

While I do not know how Google treats HTTPS in regards to site speed, WebPageTest.org uses the following to score a site's Time To First Byte: "The target time is the time needed for the DNS, socket and SSL negotiations + 100ms. A single letter grade will be deducted for every 100ms beyond the target." Which means WebPageTest does not penalize a site for being secured. Edit: For redirections, 301 everything and change previously added redirects to point to the HTTPS so you don't end up with chained redirections. As far as GWT is concerned, I would add both sites (http://site.com and https://site.com) and use the Change of Address feature on the HTTP one to the HTTPS one. Hope this helps.

Maybe, it's more likely that they've simply moved to an updated, more sophisticated version. Generally speaking, PageRank above 4 is good. Also, try installing the MozBar and judging by Domain Authority or MozRank. For the metrics out of 10, look for 4 or above. Out of 100, 30 or above.

I would always nofollow any affiliate links. You can send them through an internal redirect first, which can be blocked in the robots.txt file. That's mainly if you just don't want them to know it's an affilaite link at all, and helps with internal tracking. Either way, don't give Amazon.com followable affiliate links.

Sorry to hear about that. If the problem is spammy back links, using disavow is a good start, but you need to wait for Google to recrawl them all. Also, make sure you use multiple tools to identify the back links, different back link checkers behave differently, and using several will make sure you identify the maximum number to disavow. Also, even disavow isn't going to address all the losses (SEO ranking is somewhat of a king of the hill game, getting knocked down will mean you still have to climb back up once you address the penalties). You'll want to reach out to as many of the spammy links and see if you can get them removed (frustrating, and many simply won't respond, but actually removing the links is the most effective version of disavowing them). You can also ask for a reconsideration if you feel the penalty was unfounded (see: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35843?hl=en). Finally, while it doesn't directly address the drop in rankings, you should consider investing in improving SEO signals. As mentioned by other searchbuzz, adding a blog that updates your page content regularly will help your SEO, as will updating your sitemap so that Googlebot doesn't think you are misleading it about the freshness of your content. You could also consider periodically going through your site and updating parts of it outside the blog to keep page freshness up a bit. Adding structured data will help search engines find the right content on your site, and right now you haven't added any (http://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/richsnippets?q=http%3A%2F%2Fapplianceassistant.com%2F). Google PageSpeed Insights have a lot of suggestions for increasing page speed (https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/?url=applianceassistant.com). You may also want to consider moving to HTTPS, since you're dealing with a penalty and should be trying to maximize all the other SEO signals to compensate. Unfortunately, getting hit with a penalty for algorithm changes not meant to specifically address your site (but to address those being extraordinarily abusive) doesn't have a quick fix. You just need to start practicing more sustainable SEO and mitigate the damage as best as possible.

Hello Jim,   Great to see you!

how i check spam  score of my site assignment help

Remember to focus on your meta descriptions as well. They have a huge impact on ctr and can work with your page titles to drive ctr.

Happy to help! We crawled roughly 49k pages because there were that many links on the site that we could find. 50k is also the new standard crawl limit for campaigns in Standard and Medium subscriptions. Adding a rel=canonical to a page doesn't mean it won't get crawled by our campaign crawler, only that the crawler is to refer to the canonicalized link for reporting purposes. Without going into too specific of URL details, these pages are considered duplicates because their canonical tags point to different URLs. For example, DOMAIN.COM/charters/search/mx/QR?booking_date=&booking_days=&booking_persons=search_location%25252525253Dcabo-san-lucasbooking_date=&booking_days=&booking_persons=search_location%25252525253Dcabo-san-lucas&limit=20&offset=20 is considered a duplicate of DOMAIN.COM/charters/search/mx/QR?booking_date=&booking_days=&booking_persons=limit%252525253D20 because the canonical tag for the first page is DOMAIN.COM/charters/search/mx/QR?offset=20 while the canonical for the second URL is DOMAIN.COM/charters/search/mx/QR Since the canonical tags point to different pages it is assumed that DOMAIN.COM/charters/search/mx/QR?offset=20 and DOMAIN.COM/charters/search/mx/QR are likely to be duplicates themselves. Here is how our system interprets duplicate content vs. rel=canonical: Assuming A, B, C, and D are all duplicates, If A references B as the canonical, then they are not considered duplicates If A and B both reference C as canonical, A and B are not considered duplicates of each other If A references C as a canonical, A and B are considered duplicated If A references C as canonical, B references D, then A and B are considered duplicates The above example from your campaign actually falls into the fourth example I've listed above. Hope this helps clear things up

Of course, your conclusion can't actually occur until you see the outcome in Google.  Everything else is just speculation. I'll take a crack at it though, and say that your local result is not necessarily an indication that your organic is soon to return to previous levels. If, for example, your strong organic results were due to a great link on a strong site and your reduction in rank was due to the disappearance of that link, not to a penalty of any sort, you may still show up well in the local results but organically, you just don't have the umph, any more. Only time may tell. In the mean time, make it even more difficult to tell by building new linking relationships and reaching out to your social media audience as much as possible.