Welcome to the Q&A Forum

So that's sort of my initial thought in using the rel=canonical tag for its stated purpose. But I know that Google is pretty liberal with its understanding (say in using rel=canonical for individual events in a series) of user intent. So my example would be: if I had a gray washtub and a black washtub - two separate products because they have different dimensions, capacities, etc, I would want to point any value back to the category "washtub" where both these products are listed. Do you still think that would be frowned upon?

I don't understand what the problem is. You have a domain and a subdomain. Do you use href lang? If so, how do you use it? Also, do you rank with your main domain in czeck rankings? From what I understand you should rank with the subdomain, right? Or is it that you do not rank at all (no domain, no subdomain) in the czech language? I don't think that the solution is to delete your language specific subdomain. Why do you think they are considered duplicates? Is the language not different? There are multiple questions that can be asked before reaching your conclusion. This is my input here.

I agree with everyone above. A great tool for this may be SEO Yoast Premium. When you create categories that changes your permalink structure it automatically creates a 301 redirect for each page.

It is possible for Google to index content within an iframe. There are some solutions to stop it indexing the content, if possible I would get your partner to add a canonical to your page to stop the content competing. However, this really depends on what the purpose of the page is and what you are able to do technically. This is a really good case study explaining the different ways to index iframes by search laboratory.  https://www.searchlaboratory.com/2017/09/iframes-and-seo/

If your site has a penalty, fixing it will require determining why the penalty was given. Most likely it has something to do with breaking the webmaster guidelines.  That is best assessed by the webmaster himself, and if the webmaster can't do it then an expert at identifying Google penalties is the best bet.  People who are not experts at penalty identification will be guessing and you don't want to guess, do the recommended work, wait to see if the site recovers, then see no recovery, guess again,work, wait, find nothing happens, etc.

Thanks!

The penalty mentioned in the article wasn't even a link based penalty... The Moz spam score looks at the quality of links pointing to a domain and has nothing to do with spam content on pages - so that score is irrelevant here. Having the penalty removed could have been as easy as clicking the 'Request a review' button so Google would check to see that the domain no longer contains any auto-generated spam. I would also have to ask why the person even wanted these domains? They are clearly up to some black hat SEO tactics and should probably stop complaining about Google penalties...

On the contrary, I am an SEO professional with many hats. I do appreciate your brutal honesty - I get why you are. However, I have been in the SEO/Digital Marketing industry for the previous 5-6 years now. There was a period where I stepped away for awhile due to life circumstances....but now that I am back....I noticed there has been a torrential amount of changes hence my question about current link building practices. I do have developer/coding experience and have built a few sites myself, however, I'm hoping to avoid build-from-scratch scenarios from here on out. I've decided to fly solo as I am confident in doing so. The request for site feedback is positive for "outside observers looking in" to find any errors I may have missed. I specifically requested site feedback because this is my first round through Divi and wished to make sure all is working well. I promise you also it is most definitely not a scam but again I understand where you are coming from. Yes, I am starting small while solo and working my way up, eventually hiring freelancers to take on work I am unable to handle at that time. Seems you yourself have experienced scammers and "illegitimate rogue SEO's" which is sad and terrifying for legitimate individuals making a name for themselves. But hey, we all have to start somewhere with what we got. I'm letting my few years of experience and successes guide me while exploring new avenues.

A thought about blocking competitors...  Most people who land on your website are not going to purchase anything.  If your conversion rate is 2% then 98% of the visits are not made by buyers.  If you have a lot of content pages on your site that receive good traffic then your conversion rate (sitewide) is probably a lot lower. Your competitors might be bidding good money to have their ads appear on your site.  So, it might be a profitable idea to allow the ads and take a piece of your competitors' ad budgets - even if you might lose a few sales.  When you make money from ads you don't have to do any work, but when you make money from sales you must do work - not only filling orders but also supporting customers in their use of the product. We allow many competitors ads to appear on our site, especially those who because of prices or services are not real competitors.  The only exception might be those who are extreme in their price discounting or on websites that are selling consumables and have a very high rate of repeat ordering. At times we might be running low on stock or have employees out.  At those times we might become very aggressive with ads, inserting them high on the page or above the header.  These options are built into our design.

Thanks for the advice James. Honestly, not sure why the message was even showing and it seems to be corrected without me doing anything somehow... All's well that ends well! Thanks for your help!

Google can read dynamic content, so I would not do this. In terms of UX, why don't you come up with something really cool while the users are waiting? How many seconds do you need for the change? As a rule, I would keep the sections with their own content because Google can read dynamic content.

Well done! Glad we could help.

Hey Ramon, Thanks - that's very helpful. The chat problem was actually a bug I hadn't noticed, so very glad you pointed that out. I am a big believer in A/B testing, but I haven't been able to truly move the needle yet. I will keep trying different options. We're still working on organic (we're doing well on Tenant Submetering), I knew that we're getting targeted traffic from our Adwords. Thanks for the input!

Hey there! Tawny from Moz's Help team here. That's a known bug with the MozBar, unfortunately. It has trouble reporting the country where the site is hosted accurately. The only thing we can do about it is report the issue to our engineers, and for that we'll need you to write in to us at help@moz.com. We'll need to gather some further details from you to send over to our engineers. Please drop us a line at help@moz.com and we'll do our best to help you out.

Thank you so much Tawny! Perhaps they could at least incorporate Google's current method of grouping for the DFW Area.

Hi Allison, any updates on this? From my understanding, it is possible that Google is not indexing the mobile versions of pages if they are simply corresponding to the desktop pages (and indicated as such with the rel=alternate mobile switchboard tags). If they have that information they may simply index the desktop pages and then display the mobile URL in search results. It is also possible that the GSC data is not accurate - if you do a 'site:' search for your mobile pages (I would try something like 'site:domain/m/' and see what shows up), does it show a higher number of mobile pages than what you're seeing in GSC? Can you check data for your mobile rankings and see what URLs are being shown for mobile searchers? If your data is showing that mobile users are landing on these pages from search, this would indicate that they are being shown in search results, even if they're not showing up as "indexed" in GSC.