Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Enjoyed that WP article, EGOL. I'd be pleased to see MQ make a comeback, but it would take an ingenious idea on their part.

Hi Martin, I spent some time looking at their CSS and website code. It seems that they have UNICODED the characters from a font to get the effect. The following characters will give the same effect: %uD835%uDD4A%uD835%uDD3C%uD835%uDD46%20%uD835%uDD63%uD835%uDD56%uD835%uDD64%uD835%uDD65%uD835%uDD52%uD835%uDD63%uD835%uDD65 You can refer to this article to encode custom fonts into characters and use them as title / H1 for the website https://stackoverflow.com/questions/27247145/get-the-unicode-icon-value-from-a-custom-font I hope this helps. Regards, Vijay

You can try to copy your competitors linked domains using backlink analyzer tools like the one Moz has: https://analytics.moz.com/pro/link-explorer/home Good luck!

Hi Cyrus, You might like to check out a couple of our Whiteboard Fridays that relate to your question: https://moz.com/blog/optimizing-for-rankbrain-whiteboard-friday https://moz.com/blog/blog-post-length-frequency And also look at the discussion in the comments on this blog post post; it's a good one: https://moz.com/blog/10-things-do-not-affect-rankings Hope this helps!

Hi Kevin! What a great tool, thank you! I've bookmarked the transparency report website and will read the guide on the disavow tool. I appreciate it!

Yes, like Tawny said, it can take some weeks even months to reindex specially if your site doesn't change a lot along time. Be patient

Hey there! Thanks for reaching out to us! Would you be able to reach out to us at help@moz.com so that we can take a closer look at your Campaign? For general troubleshooting of crawler issues please check our guide https://moz.com/help/moz-pro/site-crawl/crawl-troubleshooting Thanks! Eli

Hi, I was facing the same issue an year ago. Twice Google has rejected my reconsideration request & provided similar 1 link that i disavowed. But don't worry once manually check each individual link, take some time while evaluating & once you find that everything is ok. Just disavow the list.

As Brett and Gaston said, this is not ideal, but also not the worst thing. You'll probably have both non-WWW and WWW versions rank for awhile, then Google will start ignoring your canonicals. As Gaston said, it's pretty simple to change canonicals - I would recommend doing that. Otherwise, you're showing Google that your canonicals don't match your actual site, and they may start ignoring them in the future. It's worth keeping your site structure clean! Best, Kristina

Hi Chris, To my understanding, my take is that, unless Google Image search is an important channel for your business, the improvements to page speed/UX will be a net gain for SEO. Using Base64 encoding for images may result in those images falling out of Google Image search, but the pages themselves are not likely be negatively impacted. Caveat: Google has not communicated on the impact of this specifically, and we've not tested this with Distilled clients - I've based my answer on my understanding of Google's technology, their emphasis on all things page speed and the fact that this approach is growing across the web (so it's likely Google has already solved for this or else will have soon). Best, Mike

If I understood well, your .com website has good traffic from the USA, albeit you’re targeting the UK as a market. the solution I see it to create a mirror website under .com/is/ and geotarget that subfolder to United States in Google Search Console, while geotargeting the domain to UKz Then, I’d implement the hreflang tags so to indicate to Google that it must show the UK URLs to people searching from UK (hreflang=“en-Gb”) anddto show the US ones to USA searchers. However, being the 2 versions identical, I’d canonicalize the USA versions n toward the UK one. Be aware that this is not how Google suggests to implement the hreflang, but John Mueller himself confirmed to Glenn Gabe that this is the correct thing to do for avoiding Google to consolidate the duplicated content using a version which is not the one you prefer. fianlly, if you still want to target also English speaking users not from UK or USA (I.e.: Canadians), you could add a third hreflang annotation like this: hreflang=“en“.

Hi there, I've got a few thoughts to drop about this, but I want to make sure I answer your specific question first, then answer what I think are the lead up or follow up questions that are either on your mind or that you'll land at in the end anyway. There are specific instances where you may favor one URL structure over the other. For example, our landing pages are similar to your current structure, and the rest of the website is more similar to your vendor's proposed structure. Folders are a great way to categorize your content and help both Google and users navigate and understand your content. However, you do not want to lose the hyphens. That can make it difficult for users to read in search when they're deciding on a page to view and it can be difficult for Google to read. Let's say your URL has an acronym in it - maybe you're writing about basketball and NBA is in the URL. So your URL becomes: website.com/sports/hownbaistakingcharge Or website.com/sports/baskteballnbakobe. Are either of those readable? You have two stakeholders, Google and Users and your URL structure should support both. Compare the above to website.com/sports/how-nba-is-taking-charge or /basketball-nba-kobe. That's much better for Google because they can clearly read the different words and make sense of it, and it's much better for Users who are trying to quickly scan the URL on Google. I would push back on the vendor that the hyphenation is necessary. I've listed a few other questions below that I would have for my vendor and team if we were proposing a major restructuring of the site's content. A new URL structure means a few other things will likely change. 1. Have you thought about creating a redirect map for every page that is going to move? 2. How will the new URL structure interact with breadcrumbs on your site? 3. If you move to folders are you going to need to create head pages e.g. website.com/sports/how-nba-is-taking-charge is located under a main "sports" page that maybe doesn't exist yet. You WILL have users that attempt to reach the head page whether it exists or not and they'll be sent to a 404 instead.   4. Will changing your URL structure alter your main and sub navigation elements on the site? (in almost every instance, it should) And then my final question, knowing how much work it is to take a healthy site and improve it by changing the URL structure alone is this: what is the expected value? Why are we doing this? Sometimes there's a legitimate reason and sometimes it's pure vanity. The SEO upside to a major restructuring like this isn't normally enormous, but the effort involved can be titanic. So be sure your expectations are realistic going into it and get the details fleshed out as much as possible ahead of time. Best of luck, let me know if I can answer anymore questions.

Hola & Muchos Gracias Gianluca Thanks so much for taking the time to respond its very much appreciated ! Ok that's great news thanks ! I was just worried that 'swapping' via hreflang, to the very new & non SEO'd websites immediately would be a mistake since they wouldn't swap 'exactly' due to the brand new UK websites lacking any authority etc. Yes SEO'ing them is a priority, i was just wandering if some months of authority building should be carried out before attempting to roll out the hreflang, to help them swap 'exactly', or therabouts. But will try think of a way to test anyway, at the moment, client is prioritising brand search results at the moment and the new uk site has different pages (and nowhere near as many as the .com) & different structure so the uk version is by no means a copy of the us site (does that have a bearing if not similar content & structure or should hreflang still be deployed ?)...so Home Page needs hreflang i would have thought. (Any tips here welcome Many Thanks again ! All Best Dan

Unfortunately, I haven't seen any studies of that nature. I typically look at it pragmatically -- is there a change in SERP features related to that schema (i.e. is there direct, measurable benefit)? So far, I haven't seen any. On the other hand, I don't see any evidence of harm, as long as the schema is appropriate and well-structured. It just comes down to where you want to put your time/effort.

I usually use nofollow for links that point to pages like "Privacy policy" or "Legal advice", and noindex in those pages. I don't do it for authority, I do it for duplicated content, this pages a lot of times have very similar content to the same pages in other sites.

No index & test Indexing Before You Launch The domains are intended for development use and cannot be used for production. A custom or CMS-standard will only work robots.txt on Live environments with a custom domain. Adding sub-domains (i.e., dev.example.com , ``test.example.com) for DEV or TEST will remove the header only, X-Robots-Tag: noindex but still, serve the domain. robots.txt  To support pre-launch SEO testing, we allow the following bots access to platform domains: Site Auditor by Raven SEMrush RogerBot by Moz Dotbot by Moz If you’re testing links or SEO with other tools, you may request the addition of the tool to our robots.txt Pantheon's documentation on robots.txt: http://pantheon.io/docs/articles/sites/code/bots-and-indexing/User-agent: * Disallow: / User-agent: RavenCrawler User-agent: rogerbot User-agent: dotbot User-agent: SemrushBot User-agent: SemrushBot-SA Allow: /