Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree with what is said above, in addition you could also add the ignore parameter in GSC. As it 's basically adjusting the page content based on that. It's a bit unclear how much information that is really sending to the crawlers but it probably can't hurt.

Hi there, Sam from Moz's Help Team here - thanks so much for reaching out! Could you please pop an email over to help@moz.com about this? We'll be happy to then let you know who is the primary account owner, as well as your subscription length. Looking forward to hearing from you!

First of all, a caveat: if your site is ranking even moderately well, I would not change the URL structure. Once search engines have indexed content, they really don't like it when you play around with the URLs later. The exception would be your language URLs - if you're not already consistent about those or you don't already have those set up, then by all means set up whatever works for you, thinking as much as possible about how you might need to expand in the future so you can solve for that now, and not be in the same boat of wanting to change URLs again later. At the very least, in your shoes, I would first dive deep into analytics and find out what the most-visited folder structure is. Then if you decide to standardize them all, at least go with that version of the structure, and make sure you're putting in one-to-one redirects so you can preserve as much link juice as possible. As to your more specific questions - these are answers more to what I would do if I were setting up a new site, and not if I were thinking about optimizing by changing a ton of the hierarchy. 1. Language URL - I lean toward #2, language in a folder, for a couple of reasons. To me it intuitively feels like everything in that language would be in that folder - in your example, .com/fr/ - and thereby grouped structurally, a signal to both search engines and humans that they are in the (insert language name here) language version of your site. Another reason is that after a certain point, parameters can get truncated, so if you're using other parameters - some that come to mind are Google Analytics' utm_source, utm_campaign, utm_medium - you may end up exceeding the max characters if you go the alternate route of language in a query string. 2. I would stick with either option 1 or option 3. While search engines are getting smarter about parsing, just like with the language folder, I think there's a lot to be said for showing some sort of structure and hierarchy by using a folder structure rather than mixing category with product name. Option 3: I'd suggest .com/toplevelcategory/product-name/ - and not include any of the subcategories as in .com/toplevelcategory/childcategory/grandchildcategory/product-name/ because it makes the URLs so long. Some of the benefits of having long URLs are that your tech-savvy users will visually recognize the hierarchy more easily and can quickly jump up a couple of levels just by chopping off a couple of folders in their address bar, and of course you can include more keywords the more folders you have. Drawbacks, though, are that in SERPs the full URL gets chopped off and looks less appealing to end users. On a related note, using Schema breadcrumbs (which are also visible to the user) is a great way to give additional signals to both search engines and users about what all those various levels are. 3. Just the fact that you used the term "keyword stuffing" would make me quite cautious. It's not about stuffing, it's about optimizing for both humans and spiders. In your shoes, I would again go to analytics and figure out what is already bringing you the most success - a combination of pages with the most organic traffic along with pages that convert really well. From there, I'd see what traits they have in common. Do all of them have longer content? Do you have some sort of special tags or something that is clearly working well? If you don't want to get into the weeds and start optimizing pages individually, look hard at your Product Detail Page template. Make sure it pulls a decent title and meta description from a template (but that you can override it later if you ever have time to do one-by-one page optimization). By far the biggest thing you can do on any of your pages, besides getting basic page structure clean and clear, is to add Schema markup. A few tweaks to your PDP template and you should be able to show price, reviews, etc. to both humans and spiders. If for some reason you can't edit the template, look for similar gains through Google Search Console. They have a content highlighting tool that will let you highlight a series of pages to show it where to find certain information, and they'll then understand (and presumably rank) your content much better. It varies by site, but if you're using old markup (say an XHTML transitional 1999 doctype) or lots of tables or tons of nested divs, that type of optimization can give you pretty decent gains as well. Cleaning up the codebase is often a huge ranking signal because it affects a ton of pages and shows you care about modernizing and improving UX.

Lots of methods to how you reach out to them, but sounds like prospecting and finding them in the first place is the bigger issue. For prospecting, go start by looking for lists of blogs, eg "top gardening bloggers". Also look for non-bloggers, eg "top gardening instagram accounts". Google obvious content, eg if you're looking for fitness blogs, search "best upper body workouts" or "post workout protein options" and you'll find sites that might not show up for "top fitness bloggers". Gather them all up in a spreadsheet. Find contact info. Interact on social. Email and introduce yourself. See if you can offer a guest post with some actual highly relevant titles that they'd be interested in. It helps to already have some decent content you have produced to lend you more credibility with them, eg "here's a few past things I've published on similar topics." Consider expanding the process with tools like LinkProspector, Buzzstream, Pitchbox, Just Reach Out (this one seems to have good training wheels for people new to outreach) - that can help you scale up the number of sites you can find and contact. But it helps to use them once you have done the process a couple times. As you mentioned, will take awhile when you don't know the niche. But you can learn the space pretty quickly

Thanks Paul

Hi Eddy, Edit: this was already answered before I could post my reply. But I've left the example. The issue with the meta robots tag is that you are using curly quotation marks around robots and noindex: You have: “robots**” content=“noindex”/> Instead of: name="robots" content="noindex"**/> This will fix your issue. Cheers, David

That's correct. If you don't have face-to-face transactions with customers, then you should not create Google My Business listings.

Hi can you please help me how to fix this. aEP1vVy

DA is better.  1. The number of referring domains is one of the metrics used to calculate Domain Authority. 2. My website can have 3 times more referring domains, but will that make my website better if those domains are trash with 0 trust?

As Red mentions, you're actually hosted on WordPress.com, not .org (which is the self-hosted version of WP) To resolve the specific error you're asking about... It's telling you that to be able to use the custom code features that are available, the settings for your domain name at your registrar should be pointing to the nameservers at WordPress.com, not the nameservers you're currently using (likely the registrar's own nameservers). Hope that helps? Paul

We're tracking 5 phrases. Two have improved and two are static, but this free-falling one is our most important. They are very deficient in backlinks. The competition started years ago, and even the previous SEO guy, according to ahrefs, got only 36 links in a whole year.  We can't beat the competition on total links, but I can beat them on higher quality. I'm a part of the local blogging community and have done a ton of work with local non-profits. Even so, it seems more volatile than it should. A competitor jumped 8 positions whose top link is from a parked domain page advertising porn sites. Not a single quality link according to ahrefs. Then I saw this thread in webmaster world talking about some glitchiness and wondered if anyone else had seen it. https://www.webmasterworld.com/google/4880306.htm

I would release the guide as soon as it's approved so can get indexed. Also, write verbiage on expected eta. Often times, these eta's are not made, so be broad: expected release q2 2018 or whatever.  Good idea to create a sign-up form to collect emails so you can send off updates & firm release dates. Good luck!

Alexa and DA are completely synthetic attempt by third-parties to try to guess what search engines might think of a website. Alexa, in particular, is a totally unreliable way of measuring the influence of most sites. If these measures have changed significantly, but with no change from your site's own data (e.g. Analytics, Search Console, careful rank testing etc) then it's far more likely that the third-party tools are having problems, not your site. Put another way - those third-party tools are hints. If they indicate potential problems, you'll need to assess actual website performance to determine if there's a real problem, or if the 3rd party tools are misreporting. Hope that makes sense? Paul

Name Twins! We're just checking for the word "mobile" in the code on your site in a couple of different languages. You can definitely still rank well in mobile search engines while that column says "False." Sorry for any confusion! If you've still got questions, feel free to give us a shout at help@moz.com and we'll see what we can do to sort things out with you.

After a bit more digging (and a venture down a character encoding rabbit hole) I haven't come up with any smoking guns (mixed metaphor alert). I don't suppose there's any chance those pages could have had a noarchive meta tag on them (or nosnippet) at any point in the past is there? It's possible that would remove the link but not remove the cached copy itself. I'm honestly not sure there is going to be a ton of ROI to going further down the rabbit hole to be honest. I think it's most likely to either remain unsolved or be something you can't do anything about (and we don't even know if it's really causing actual issues). If you want to continue debugging, I would run through these steps: Take a page like the one you mentioned and duplicate it on a different URL outside of that folder structure and see if that gets a cache link If it does, try 301 redirecting the page without the cache link to the one with the cache link and see if it disappears Try the above but with the redirect the other way around This will help narrow down what's going on - but doesn't guarantee that it'll be fixable, nor that there is actually any value to getting the cache link back. If you have any more evidence on the other issues you referred to (featured snippets etc) let me know and I can look at that separately. Let me know if you dig anything out. Good luck.

I don't think it's a good idea to increase the authority of the page. You can try with 2 or 3 domains to redirect them to your money site domain. I have done this for my Hesco page and it's working fine.