Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You can put more than one domain into an account, but this is more work than what is necessary. According to AdWords TOS, if you want to advertise with more than one site you own, these sites need to not be offering the same user experience and need to have different brands (the presented company brand, not the brands you might be selling). I think you should start out with one adwords account for the site you feel is most complete, see what the landscape is like for bidding, ctr, etc, if you can turn a profit with adwords. Then see if you need additional accounts.

Hi Everyone, I got this question answered by google and thought I'd share. Hello Anthony, Thank you for the clarification, You have creative control of the information displayed. The bulk spreadsheet allows you to enter in a blanket description. However on a personal note I prefer custom when I read a page, (and it does no harm to customize) to me it makes it feel more "friendly". Customizing a description should have no effect on ranking, any changes can take a day or 2 to be seen. In that time the page may act strange, but it should be back to normal within the week. Ultimately the choice to personalize or use a standard description is up to you. Here it will have no effect on verification or ranking. To be concise, I suppose the answers are as follows: 1) Should I copy and paste each location's current unique description into the spreadsheet, or just write one very good description and copy it for all 20 locations?This is 100% your personal preference.   2) Does Google like/dislike "duplicate content" as it applies to business descriptions?  Google does not care.3) Is changing a location's description likely to temporarily harm the "ranking" of my business location in search results?No. It has no effect.  Hope this helps!

Yes, I have been having an issue in the Campaigns screen for months now. When I go to Acquisition > Campaigns the results display rows 1-10 by default and my total sessions is 421. However, when I change the rows to 25, the total number of sessions changes to 210. Also, each campaign line has a number and it changes as well. You can see my screen shots here: ROWS 1-10 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B06xisveKSCoamw3NktSaEpNTGc/edit?usp=drivesdk ROWS 1-12 https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B06xisveKSCoUE5oMUlMLUFQUzQ/edit?usp=drivesdk Just wondering if anyone else is see this as well? You can view the help thread here: https://groups.google.com/a/googleproductforums.com/d/msgid/analytics/dea4e899-7384-4b0f-a4e0-a380e9b40c6d%40googleproductforums.com

This is now fixed, thank you Moz team. It works perfectly now.

Erin, thank you very much for your effort. I already contacted my host on this problem, but they say is that they are only blocking Yandex and that every other crawler is allowed. In the past my client did have similair errors (website not reachable) but that was solved i understood. I will contact you via in private for additional information. Also I will contact the host again and ask them to investigate the matter. Best regards, Jos

"Matt Cutts of Google responded to this thread on Hacker News to imply +1s aren't used directly in Google's algorithm. While I take Matt at his word that Google doesn't use raw +1s to rank webpages, the evidence seems to suggest Google+ posts do pass other SEO benefits not found easily in other social platforms. If this is not the case, I'm hoping Google will clarify. Mark Traphagen said it best in this comment: It is not the +1's themselves that are causing the high rankings of posts but the fact that most +1's on a site result in a shared post on Google+, which creates a followed link back to the post. It's instant organic link building. The point is not to go out and accumulate a bunch of +1s.The point is, and the evidence seems to suggest, that_earning a link on Google+ is like earning any other type of editorial link_, and these links have actual value with real benefits." I would try and use Google Plus but not put a lot of effort in getting the actual +1s. If you do any sort of content marketing on your website Google Plus is a really quick way to get it indexed.

Hi Kingalan - definitely a frustrating experience. Let me see if I can provide some thoughts on each of your questions: #1 - Yes, it's certainly possible that links from bad sources could have propping up your rankings, and by disavowing these, you've lost rankings/traffic in the short term. However, I'd agree with your SEO consultants that pain now from this action is better than the potential penalty/banning you might experience in the future. Google has been very aggressive with penalties, but they haven't been wholly consistent. This makes bad links something that can provide short-term opportunity and long-term cataclysms. If removing these links is what hurt you, I'd argue it was the right choice to make, and getting some new, editorial, high-quality link sources is the next step. #2 - My guess would be that extra indexation of a few hundred pages has nothing to do with the rankings/traffic changes. I've seen Google index thousands or even tens of thousands of extra pages without much problem - a few hundred are very unlikely to be the cause of the problem. That said, I'm not sure removal would be my first step - I might think about how to canonicalize these back to pages you do want indexed (if you do want that content discoverable). If you really don't want the content findable in Google, then meta robots noindex might be worthwhile. #3 - It is possible that thin content is to blame here. I agree it's hard to scale quality content, but keeping a few hundred pages up to date and incredibly useful for visitors/searchers is exactly what Google wants to see. I'd be constantly asking the question - is my page the most valuable one in the search results? Does it provide a better, more useful experience than anything else in the top 10? If the answer is no, then you don't really deserve to rank (don't worry, many sites don't), and extra effort here may go a long way. One way to do this might be to ask those who submit listings to give you more content (or to get agents/interns/writers/contractors to bolster each listing). p.s. You may wish to check out http://moz.com/blog/why-you-might-be-losing-rankings-to-pages-with-fewer-links-worse-targeting-and-poor-content Wish you all the best, Rand

It seems that its still not showing sitelinks, even though the site gets somewhat significant traffic... I know the timeline for getting sitelinks can vary widely, but the site has been live for almost 6 months and no sitelinks.. is this unusual?

Few things you can try: Google the URL if it doesn't come up strong possibility it was de-indexed and has a penalty. Use a service like link detox which will roughly shows you what it thinks to be nasty. Majestic seo has a neat tool for finding out what it thinks of sites - https://www.majesticseo.com/reports/neighbourhood-checker Similar to above http://spyonweb.com/ can be handy for working out link wheels Look into the stats of the site e.g trust flow, authority etc.  recommend tools like Open site explorer, majestic seo or Hrefs. Research is the key and you could dig pretty deep Hope some of those help. but as to what Google thinks you're still going to have to figure that out on your own. Good luck

Thank you guys for the feedback, and I apologize it took so long for me to reply.  Every bit helps

Have you sent us a note at help@moz.com so we can look into it? That's the best thing to do at this point if it's still not working for you.

This really depends on the context and how well the title flows. Would a title like "Real Estate in Santa Monica, LA, Santa Barbara and San Diego" accurately target the phrase [real estate san diego]? Not particularly well but a high quality website with great links could still rank for that query with such a title tag (although it would be far better for said imaginary website to structure its website differently to target each location, but this is just an example). "Example Location" is probably the better choice, but again - it depends on the readability and relevancy to the page's content.

Hi there, The answer here is always very subjective. It is perfectly natural for businesses to link their sites together. Why would you not do that? Google understands this; the relationship between businesses owned by the same entity can and should be partially represented by links. Moz links to Open Site Explorer's website. Amazon.co.uk can link to Amazon.fr. If I link my blog to a website promoting consulting services, this is natural and fine. What Google and other search engines want to figure out and discount is if you create a huge network of websites, attempt to obscure the fact that they are all owned by you, and link them together in some pattern that attempts to increase the SEO value or all or some of them. That's manipulative and you can't expect such a tactic to work in the long term. Effectively hiding a network like this is usually costly and time-consuming and barely worth the effort in the end (although some folks still do it very well). Google likely doesn't pass the highest amount of authority between links where the linking sites are clearly owned by the same person or company, but there is nothing "wrong" with interlinking the sites you own. Your competitor is likely ranking well due to a number of factors, not just because their websites are linked together.

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.

Thanks! I had mistaken the branding page for our HQ page, so I really feel like I messed up. Oh welp, time to research how to do it and get started! Many thanks.

No problem Derrick, my pleasure. Tom