Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks everybody for your response. I have set up bing webmaster account four days back and I am waiting it to get updated with my website data. I hope it will be able to provide me some insight. Thanks again.

Hi Denise, You should be safe to redirect back to the original domain - two months is long enough for Google to have completely indexed the new site and assigned it rankings, but a 301 redirect generally takes care of this and reverses the situation back to its original state. It's not optimal - optimal would have been never doing this in the first place unfortunately - but you do need to complete the redirect back again because the original site is now thought of as the new site, as far as Google is concerned. You need the 301 to say "hey Google, we're not on pmd.com anymore, we're over on brand.com!" just as you did the first time, when you changed the pmd.com two months ago. Again, it's not optimal because they fewer redirects a domain / site can go through the better, but I'd class this sort of redirect for keywords as damaging and not something you want to keep around. I hope this helps! Best, Jane

Thanks Miriam Agreed on all of the above.

Hi there, Basically, "www." is a subdomain like any other - it's just a subdomain named "www."  and happens to be extremely common due largely to tradition and the set-up of most content management systems. Instead of being named "uk." or "en." (like at Wikipedia), "help.", "analytics." (in analytics.moz.com), etc., it's called www. The screenshot example would be easier to make sense of if you were comparing the domain http://yoursite.com/ and a subdomain like http://blog.yoursite.com/ - the first shows the authority pointing to your domain's root. The second shows only the blog subdomain's authority. This is the same thing, but with "blog" replacing "www". It looks here like there is a split between how many incoming links you have to the root and the www. That is, links point to both "versions". If you try to load http://www.yoursite.com and http://yoursite.com/, do both pages load with the same content? If so, one either needs to 301 redirect to the other, or you need to place the canonical tag on the version you do not wish to be indexed and well-ranked, pointing to the other. If you do not do this, Google finds two versions of the same page (or entire site, if ALL your pages load twice, once with www and once without). Both versions have inbound links, so Google doesn't know which one is meant to be the boss. Worst case scenario is that it ranks both versions poorly as a result, so either redirection from the non-preferred version to the preferred version, or canonicalisation, are the way to go. You can also set your preferred domain in Webmaster Tools under Settings (see screenshot): http://i.imgur.com/sgrvPKo.png This may be all basic to you, but hopefully it helps explain why there are two sets of numbers between the "root" and the "same" URL with www. attached. Let me know if this isn't clear. Best, Jane

Hi, Page authority is a metric largely derived from inbound links (internal and external), so very low page authority is mostly associated with very few, or very bad, links pointing to those pages. If you run an OSE report, do you see any external links pointing to those articles? Are the articles well linked-to from relevant sources within the same website? Unless the articles are meant to serve as important landing pages, it's worth noting that they do not need extremely high PA, and it's normal for otherwise strong sites to have a lot of low-PA pages.

Hi, If you are having issues seeing some of your reports, please submit a ticket to us at help@moz.com. That way we can take a look at your account and see what's going on with it. Cheers, Steffany

If it is an exact copy of your article then it is possible that it could cause a problem with Google. If you decide to contact them find out in advance if they are a real Benjamin Moore company.  If they are then your chances of success are greater, in my opinion.  If they are not I think it would be hard to get cooperation. Decide what you want to accomplish.  Do you want it removed, do you want a link, do you want an rel=canonical? I would want the rel=canonical AND have my company name listed as the author and copyright holder in the article. I would offer them a choice.... A) remove the article..... B) display it with attribution and rel=canonical (and give instructions for how that should be done) If they choose B then their web dev could get in touch if there are questions about how to do what you want.

Thank you for this good discussion. We have a town website we developed and recently I removed our footer link. Instead, at the bottom of the homepage I put a quick line of text that says Designed By "Company Name". Now only the homepage links to us so it is ok to utilize this highest PR ranking page of their site to boost one of our keywords. We have no official tests but we have made tremendous leaps for that keyword recently. In summary, rather than not being able to use keywords in anchor text and gaining a ton of links all at one time (if its a large site) doesn't it make more sense to make a link in the body at the bottom of the highest PR page of the site or even homepage that says Designed By "Company Name"? Granted placing this on only a handful of pages will reduce your overall brand exposure.

The sources are too numerous to list. You can find tons of posts on Moz though. Of note is we are handling the link cleanup on a rather large client and I decided to try out removeem. Based on weighing all we have seen so far with the software, I like it. Like with any there have been a glitch or two but their support has been very excellent. But, as I am talking with a team member she says, "Our link to our client shows up as Toxic." So, I am like "Get outta here!?" Sure enough we were. Note about software: You have to look at what they are utilizing to call something toxic or not. In this case it had more to do with the anchor text that had been used in linking to this client. So, not all that are toxic are and not all that are clean are clean. That is where you have to be somewhat nuanced in your approach. I suggest that if it looks like a paid directory (Other than dmoz or Yahoo) or if it is one that is just a perpetual listing of firms with no real content or context, I would remove it. If it is comment spam on posts, etc. Those are the types of things that stand out readily. Best,

Ah, yes, the product will need reviews before it shows up. In my experience, specifically with rich snippet ratings, they don't usually show up immediately. A couple things can help to get them to appear quicker. Sometimes it seemed that products that had more reviews appeared first. Also, once your markup is correct you can go into Google WMT and resubmit the pages to the index using the 'Fetch As Google' tool. You can also check to see what pages the structured data markup is being found on with the 'Search Appearance > Structured Data' section in Google WMT.

You can honestly go with either, in my opinion. But how are you going to differentiate yourself from all of the other services? What if you partner with a food delivery service.. pizza... kebabs... whatever, and have something ready at or near the time of arrival. I'm thinking about the bar crowd. What do you think? That's a bit of differentiation in my book.

Hey there, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately the On-Page report does sometimes have troubles counting the keyword usage for non-latin characters. This seems to be one of those situations. This is something we're working on but I'm afraid I don't have a time frame for this yet. Thanks for understanding. Joel.

Hi Alexander, Check out Who Is Hosting This - it's a large community with a lot of reviews, comparisons, etc. Commercially it refers visitors to hosts, but is otherwise impartial (there are links to hosts with good and bad reviews). The "compare" feature might be useful for you: http://i.imgur.com/wyyITPL.png I hope this helps! Jane

Yeah thanks a lot for clearing that up for me

If you're actively link building to those pages from external sites using that sort of optimised anchor text.  You'd want to stop that immediately. Internally, there's not a pressing need to do this, but I would stick to a rule of natural flow: is the anchor naturally integrated into the sentence, and would the text be there if you didn't want the link to be there? In general, I'd definitely stay away from doing this in every post you write. Only do it sporadically and only if it truly makes sense to the flow of the text. If it looks in any way unnatural, don't link like that. You can pass just as much authority around a site using "click here" as you do with "voucher codes" and you avoid looking like your internal optimisation is too search-engine focused if this sort of linking is not too common.

Hi Dana, The problem when it comes to passing authority internally is that properly paginated and crawled listing pages can be one of the primary routes via which Google finds and assigns authority to internal pages. Unless those products are linked to elsewhere, they're not going to be found if they cannot be found on a URL like http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/audio-technica?page=2, ?page=3 etc. The lack of a unique URL with content changed dynamically also means that there never could be a good flow of authority through the site as Google does not have new pages to crawl and new outbound links to index / follow on those pages. Your diagram is correct - the second option (Page 1 ---authority---> page 2 ----authority---> page 3... ) is what you're looking for with pagination.

Update on this issue........ I ended up restoring a few of the links I removed but none of the truly crappy ones. It seems though I was just needing to be a little patient. This latest algo update shot be back up to 8th after I had dropped to 30th (after removing a ton of links). So it seems those links were still passing pagerank even though they were total garbage and didn't offer any value whatsoever. I think this is evidence that Google's quality standard when it comes to links definitely went up. Which I guess goes without saying but it's good to have proof. I also hadn't done anything else to the site for the last couple months other than remove those links so there shouldn't have been any other variables at play.