Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hey! Dave here from the Help Team.  Sorry for the delay in response and yes, we were experiencing an issue with keywords not retrieving accurate monthly volume.  However, this has been resolved now so you should see the normal volume in your account! Hopefully that helps,

Hi James, Great question! My two cents would be as follows: Firstly, I'm assuming that there is no way that you can make the responsive pages show up with the same domain as the current non-responsive site. I'm guessing that you are building these pages on a different platform than the main site, but it is possible to use multiple platforms on a single domain (for instance, many websites build their blog on Wordpress and their main site using something different) - so I'm curious about why in this case you are choosing to make it a totally separate domain. Assuming that this is the only way to do it, my first question would be: are these pages something that would be indexed normally on the main site? You mention they are 'Action' pages - search engines may not need to index transaction pages, for example, where the only purpose is to submit a payment or sign up for something. Unless you also expect these pages to rank as entry pages, but if users are navigating to these pages primarily from a different landing page, they may not be relevant to search engines at all. If this is the case, and you are still concerned about appearing to send users to a different website, you could consider making the donate button to these pages initially link to a page on the existing domain (like www.maindomain.org/secure) which could then immediately redirect to the secure version. You could nofollow this link and block the transaction pages on the other domain from search (I usually see no reason to have purely transactional pages indexed, but I may be missing some context in this case.) However, this may run the risk of looking like you are trying to do something sneaky with redirects. You could also include a note on the first page (the one the user is on before being taken to the secure site), next to that 'donate'/'signup' button/link that states "by clicking this link, you will be taken to our secure platform at 'domain.com' to complete your donation/signup". I do like the idea of including the name of the charity in this secondary domain if possible, to help make it clear that they are connected. You could optimize the pages' meta data to include the name of the charity as well. I don't believe there is a negative consequence (generally speaking) to sending a user off-site - unless you appear to be running some sort of 'doorway' page scheme, or using sneaky redirects to show Google one thing and the user something else. My one caveat: I'm not sure what you mean by "booting" the user- I could see it potentially seeming problematic if the user is automatically sent somewhere without choosing to navigate to the other domain...it could even fall under the category of 'malicious behavior'. But as long as the user is choosing to click on a link that takes them to a 'donate' or 'sign up' page, even if it's hosted on a different domain, I don't see that creating a major issue for Google.

You Should have a self hosted website. Do not use Wix or Squarespace. SEO is terrible on these platforms.

Hi there, Thanks for the question. Can I just check something regarding this bit from your question: "My company currently owns five different websites and every day we download a list of for Google crawl errors.I then crawl the downloaded list with screaming frog to double check the redirects to make sure the pages are not 404s." I'm a bit confused because you say you download a list of crawl errors, which would be 404s, but you then crawl them to make sure they're not 404s? Could you clarify this bit? Thanks! Paddy

Actually, you are right. The reported links just went down to 0. I don't know why would that happen?

Could not imagine why that should be bad. Each Product Feature is good to be explained (for the user at least). Linking between different sub-directories in general is not a problem. The only thing what could make a "Problem" is, that your guides are linked a lot better than the rest. I usually ask myselfe: Is that link useful for the user? And if the answer is yes, I care less about possible Problems. I just think twice when it is an external Link. Additional, for internal Linking - https://moz.com/blog/should-seos-care-about-internal-links-whiteboard-friday

Sorry for the trouble! This is an intermittent error we sometimes see. If you are still experiencing trouble, feel free to write in to help@moz.com with details about the circumstances of the error, and we can check it out! Thanks.

Thanks

Correct!

That does help thank you.  Really appreciate your time, and I can see how the extra content on the products pages could help with conversion.

Hi James, Thanks for the response. I am looking for the best practices. Actually, I was thinking of adopting strategy mentioned towards the end of the article, which includes 1 and 2 as well.

Thank you for replying. Backlinks are the issue and this is the main reason I got external SEO agency to step in. They are working specifically on link building. Is there any way to do a "health check" for keyword spamming? I already removed a lot of those, but selling fascinators it is difficult not to use the word a lot. And yes, I looked at competition also -- In mot respects I beleive my site is a better fit, but Google obviously thinks otherwise for some reason. Rudolf

Hello Gavo. Yes! It is a problem for Google. Just make a 301 redirection to the HTTPS and problem solved! Best luck! GR.

Hey there! Tawny from Moz's Help Team here. Unfortunately, we don't have the ability to filter by two different things at once in Keyword Explorer at the moment, but that's a great feature request! I'll pass this along to the team — maybe it's something we could consider for future updates to the tool. Thanks for writing in! If there's anything else we can help with, feel free to drop us a line directly to help@moz.com and we'll do our best to sort everything out.

I'm afraid we'd need a little more information to give a good answer. What is the problem exactly; what do you mean by "being flagged as 98% similar in the code"? The HTML source of the two pages is likely to be very similar, but this is to be expected. The only thing "triggering" the duplicate content is the fact that neither page has much in the way of unique text. I don't recommend stuffing lots of text in there, though, if it isn't going to be useful to the user. I think the more important point here, though, is to focus on the real world impact, and not on a score given by some page-similarity-scoring tool. What is the real-world impact? If you're worried just about the score given by a tool then don't be; there will be better places to focus your attention.

Hey there! This will be a lot easier to troubleshoot if we can look at the same thing you're seeing. Please write in to help@moz.com with the details of what you're seeing, and we'll do our best to sort things out for ya!