Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This is more of a UX questions, but generally if you are delivering a help content, opening it up in a tab is fine. Many times there will be other on pages interactions that a visitor may want to make as well, so you do not want to remove them completely from the page.

Thanks Samantha, this is really helpful!

Hi there! We're happy to help you out. The best way to get in contact for a refund or cancellation is by emailing us at help@moz.com and we can discuss your account details! Thanks!

Hey Alessia, So, there are quite a few moving parts here; let's go through them one by one... When you say that you've changed domain to siteground, what does that mean, exactly? There are a lot of nuances and a lot of potential complexity surrounding changing domains and sites; something I've written about recently on Moz. It'd be good to understand whether this was a just a domain migration (and if so, how it was managed), or something more complex or comprehensive. If you could answer that, it'd provide a lot of useful context for helping to diagnose your problem, and working towards some options/answers. In the meantime... With regards to the traffic you're still getting from Japan, I wouldn't be too concerned. It's doubtful that it's harming you, although, if it's coming through as a result of a hacked site, I'd wonder if some/all of it might actually be bot traffic - are you tracking it in Google Analytics / similar, and can you get a feel for whether it looks like normal browsing behaviour (or something a little more robotic)? With regards to the errors reported in Search Console, I wouldn't worry too much. If you're confident that you've resolved the issue, the error reports are just paperwork - they don't harm you in any way, and you can tick them off a little at a time. Unfortunately, there's no fast way to do this, and you can only remove 100 (I think?) per day, without using their API; but it really doesn't matter too much. Still, it's worthwhile clearing them out, because you'll want to be able to see any new or remaining issues in the future.

Hi, Google wants to offer the best experience. If the website's grammar is a disaster, it might prefer better presented content. Another thing is visitors - they too want the best experience. Moreover, there is a trust issue when the website looks like the content was created overnight by an illiterate person. This will look like the company cannot afford to employ educated people, not mentioning proofreaders. This will certainly result in higher bounce rates, unless the grammar errors are entertaining and reading the content is actually fun! I would suggest to you to mention this to your client, editing doesn't need to be expensive. Good luck! Katarina

I would concentrate on creating the most logical site structure from a user perspective and less on the length of URLs. That combined with highly descriptive, clear and concise Meta Page titles will make your site rock.

Nope, I don't think we have any Github badges like those ones. Sorry about that!

Hey Ryan! I saw that you got it working already but wanted to note that I've seen this same thing happen when I enter only the url, (without http:// or https://) Once I add the http or https it seems to work perfect. Either way, glad you were able to get it working, cheers!

Hey Judd, I would't bother with this in 2017. Most of the people comment on the bigger sites anyway so you can just turn it off. Cheers, Martin

Hi Martjin, Thank you for your response, This is strange, I haven't tried this yet but I've used Google.nl and found competitors to the site in the example who are using the same setup with votes, but the only one I see that has both the ratings and the offers in their listing is using the regular reviews correctly (attached). I can't see what they're doing that is out of the ordinary - I'm currently using the exact same schema data, but the only difference being I'm using JSON for the whole setup while they're using microdata for the ratings and JSON for the offers. Can you spot anything on this example that's out of the ordinary? MYLjEzp.jpg

I see. Thanks for the info, Tawny.

Hi! I guess that really depends on what you are trying to accomplish. If it is relevant for usert to have a link back, or if the text on the help-page dictates that a link to the product page gives value and meaning, then I would absolutely add a link back. From an SEO perspective It could also be valuable if it helps mapping out the site hierarchy and distribute "link juice". However - I would ask myself if this gives value for my user, not only worring about technical SEO. But if if gives value for your visitors, then you should absolutely go ahead and link between the pages. Some more info can be found at https://moz.com/learn/seo/internal-link and https://blog.kissmetrics.com/commandments-of-internal-linking/ (and https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35769?hl=en) Hope this helps Best regards, Anders

Hi Alexandre, It depends: If the page you are talking about is one of that you disallowed (...URL's that contains a "?") then i guess not because then in the robots.txt you would prevent Google to crawl it even if its in your sitemap. If this is not the case then Google will be able to access it. If it does and when is another question. --> I am not sure if you should include the (...URL's that contains a "?")  pages in robots.txt. If they are unique and do not include duplicate content you could Google let them crawl and just prevent them from being indexed by using NOINDEX tag: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93710?hl=en Hope this helps. Cheers, Cesare

Hi Aua, The word you may have been looking for is "reciprocal" linking (you link to me so I link to you). Reciprocal linking isn't/wasn't really a best practice for SEO it's something that SEO's used to do because it was easier to get a link that way. This was used a lot before the conversation in SEO (in a broad sense) really turned towards providing value instead of just trying to game Google. It's actually defined by Google as a no-no (if used excessively) on their support pages: "The following are examples of link schemes which can negatively impact a site's ranking in search results:...... _Excessive link exchanges ("Link to me and I'll link to you") or partner pages exclusively for the sake of cross-linking" _ In example it used to work like this; I reach out to a small business in my area who I want a link from. I explain it's for my SEO and that the more relevant local links I have the more trusted I appear to Google. In lieu of providing any real value or reason to link to my website (such as killer content that might be useful to the businesses users) I would offer to link back to them if they linked to me. That way, both of our websites were getting a link and Google will love us both. To summarise; No it wasn't best practice (never was as far as I am aware) You don't need to link back to the article

Hi, The answer to the first question is yes - many publications, including niche titles will have a features calendar available, or will regularly email enquiring if anyone has products, news or can help with features... Second question? In addition to HARO and Pressloft, I'd look at the big PR lists etc. It does mean dealing with some spam requests, but can be worth it if you have the time.

Hi! Potentially you can, but it probably would be better to implement it in your current sitemap structure. As it will give you a better flow of working with this. Martijn.