Welcome to the Q&A Forum

thanks, good to know we were on the right tracks

Google keyword planner is good though I liked their previous version

How we can change my SQL database upload setting. To migrate our site from one host to another host. if you have any tips and trick please share with us.

Hey Derek, I would stick with the recommendation from Google to have desktop version rel alternate point to the mobile version and mobile version point to the desktop version using the canonical tag. Also, take a look at this documentation from Google: https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-first-indexing#best-practices The last line says "Make sure you have the correct rel=canonical and rel=alternate link elements between your mobile and desktop versions." Which mean they suggest you follow their guidelines which you can find on: https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/separate-urls I don't really think it's a good idea to risk the site by doing something opposite to the guidelines. Personally, I would consider updating to a responsive website because it's easier to manage, cost less in long run, less prone to error, able to get the most out of your SEO effort and Responsive design is Google’s recommended design pattern: https://developers.google.com/search/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/#choose_your_mobile_configuration I hope this answered your question. Cheers, Joseph Yap

Perhaps others have had more ideal experiences  having Google running their campaigns for them, me personally, not so much. The first and the only time I had them run a campaign it was when I first started a business online. Of coarse I had no idea what organic ranking/SEO was at all so I very briefly let them run a shoe campaign for pole dancing shoes, which in short order they were targeting Victoria's secret type shoes which was a ridiculously higher PPC than my target audience and obviously wasn't going to monetize but rather tank money. Once I took it over  and watched several videos on using the Adwords platform they called me a day or so later attempting to take it over again rofl. It's quite possible maybe someone has had a GREAT experience where they just handed Google the reigns and it was like a automated money machine and it's still currently a smashing success... But I'm gonna say no haha! I would go through the SEO services that MoZ suggests and find one with the Google Partners certification badge on their page. That's probably your best bet.

Yes in this Magento application, each part number, (example part number 12345-10) opens up to a page on the website. So, I can take two part numbers the 12345-10 and a second part number 67891-01. I can run both pages through MOZ page grader and they each score 89. MOZ page grader shows both are visible to search engines. But one part number will pull up on page 1 of Google. The second part number can't be found in any of the 2 or 3 pages that pull up. I can look at page source for both pages and see that the H1 is the correct part number and the title includes the part number in it. Something is odd here and it doesn't seem to be related to the diffculty of the keyword (part number) or in being outranked. There are a couple of competitors that will pull up in position 1 or 2 on page 1 and I am OK with some of mine pulling up on the bottom of page 1. My gut tells me there is a setting in Magento that we don't have correct. Any ideas on how to work this from the Magento side? We are running magento without any after market SEO tools.

My next question is that we are planning to have different price points in each location, how would you recommend I handle that? If you look on our site now advancedbodyscan.com you'll see we have pricing for scans and these will be higher in the Texas market. I can do content based on IP address as well, but that seems like a lot of work and possibly not necessary... Should I keep everything generic and then put pricing only on the landing pages? I just don't want someone from TX to accidentally buy at an Oklahoma price online and vice versa.

Hi Brad, As others have indicated, there's no reason a 301 redirect on a missing image shouldn't work - it's all based on the URL request (not the actual resource served, since the server intercepts the request and forwards it to another URL along with the 301 status code). I'd second Yaroslav's recommendation on a good WP plug-in for this (Redirection). You should be able to just use the URL string here to set the redirect where you want to point it. I would also suggest double-checking that these are actual links pointing to the image URL, not embeds of that image on these pages (some tools will pick that up as a link).  Finally, you may want to create a new page that includes a suitable replacement image if one is available, rather than redirecting to the replacement image file URL (bc this way the reclaimed PageRank will flow through to the rest of your site via your navigation). Best, Mike

Hey, Dave here from the Help Team! Can you send us an email to help@moz.com so we can investigate? thanks!

Hi there, I'm facing the same issue now, Did you receive you money back?! and How?

Hi Steve, The problem with case sensitive URLs is that while most of ASP.net servers (based on MS technology) treat them as one URL referring to the same page; on the other hand Google for Indexing purpose treats case-sensitive URLs as different ones. I would recommend implementing a solution to convert all URLs to lower case, something like mentioned here: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/878578/how-can-i-have-lowercase-routes-in-asp-net-mvc I hope this helps, let me know if you have further queries. Regards, Vijay

Hello, For example, the venue owners might search for something like "Restroom Trailers for event organizer" or "Portable toilet for event organizer". Of course, this is just an example maybe people search differently or they don't even search like this, that is why I still think you can just offer a special offer or partnership for venue owners in your page. Here's an example as a CRM software company HubSpot is offer partnership program for agencies, https://www.hubspot.com/partners Hope this helps. Joseph Yap

Hi everyone, Thanks for your responses. We are still seeing the negative difficulty and priority scores so have emailed the address provided!

Hi there, The general rule of thumb for URLs is that if the structure and layout makes sense from a user perspective then I wouldn't worry about losing any sleep over this. A good guide to this can be found here (done by Mr Fishkin himself!) - https://moz.com/blog/15-seo-best-practices-for-structuring-urls I hope this helps!

Hi Simon It is best practice to ensure that all Titles, Descriptions, H1, content and ALT tags are filled in correctly. The problem you may have (and I have experienced this with one of my clients recently - so it isn't theory!) is that Google may distrust the canonical if it sees that those two pages are not in fact similar. The essence of the canonical is that both pages fulfil the same intent for the user. If that is not the case then they should be separate pages. If it is the case then it stands to reason that they are the same or markedly similar content. If you miss out any of the elements that there is a strong argument to treat them as two different pages. If Google then re-indexes a canonicalised page then two 'similar' pages end up in search which will drop both pages! So contrary to what Joseph says - it is actually very important to do this I hope that helps. Kind Regards Nigel

It's actually for this reason that SEOs will consistently tell you not to buy links–link farms are still considered malicious, and won't pass any valuable authority to your site, and can in fact negatively impact your domain. Your site might be fine. If I were in your shoes however, I would review the trust and authority scores of these linking domains. Here are some articles I recommend you read: https://moz.com/blog/bad-backlink-analysis-using-moz-link-explorer https://ahrefs.com/blog/bad-links/ https://moz.com/blog/after-penalty-removed-will-traffic-increase (already shared above)

Well, you might have me on that. Back in the day of the original SEO Rockstars podcast with (ALL HAIL) Greg Boser (webguerrilla) and Todd Friesen (Oilman)  (circa 2005/6), I recall the order was believed/assumed to be by importance. I know that was a long time ago but I'd never seen anything subsequent to challenge that belief. But here's content from webmasterworld that counters that information. Personally, I was never a big JW fan or a big believer in her technical knowledge so take the information in that article as you may. Maybe someone here at Moz can chime in on this. Anyway, you may try the site:domain search operator in conjunction with a search term and that may give you the ordered list you're looking for. I'll leave it to you to determine whether that's true or not.