Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the info guys. I didn't think it mattered, great to get some validation.

Hi there! Tawny from Moz's help team here. The best way to prevent our crawler from reporting duplicate content for pages you aren't concerned about and don't intend to change would be to block our crawler from these pages using the robots.txt file for the site. For example, it looks like most of the pages reported as duplicates include URL parameters, so you should be able to add a disallow directive for that parameter and any others to block our crawler from accessing them. It would look something like this: User-agent: Rogerbot Disallow: ?type etc., until you have blocked all of the parameters that may be causing these duplicate content errors. You can also use the wild card user-agent * in order to block all crawlers from those pages, if you prefer. Here is a great resource about the robots.txt file that might be helpful: https://moz.com/learn/seo/robotstxt I'd recommend checking your robots.txt file in this handy Robots Checker Tool once you make changes to avoid any nasty surprises. Let us know if we can help with anything else! Just drop us a line at help@moz.com and we'll do our best to get things straightened out for ya.

Hello! Can you provide a screenshot of what you have in link_service.php on line 80? This appears to be where the undefined error is reporting for. You may want to consult with a developer to troubleshoot as we are limited to providing dev support.

Hi Michael, Yes, Google does say "whenever possible", so this is one of those things where you could possibly decide that there isn't a huge risk in the redirecting numbers, but it would make me a bit uneasy. For one thing, there have been numerous documented incidents of Google calling businesses. If the switchboard receptionist answers "Happy Sailboats" or "Happy Sailboats Marina" instead of "Happy Sailboats Shipyard" this can actually trigger a red flag about the accuracy with which you're representing the business name/s on the Google My Business listings. So, just so you know, there is some risk whenever you don't stick to Google stated preferences to the letter. How big a risk? Hard to say. The risk-free way would be for the business to change its phone system if having 3 GMB listings is deemed important enough, so that each department answers its own phone directly. I'd also build a really strong landing page for each of the 3 departments and link the GMB listings to them. Or, in the end, the business may decide to simply marketing itself with a single GMB listing, which is also risk-free but could miss out on the opportunity of ranking for the wider variety of categories the department approach can cover.

Hey Matt - I can get into some of the nitty gritty details on this. Basically - we've been having trouble of all kinds with Mozscape, and while our team has indeed been working around the clock, the reality is that it's an old, clunky, hard-to-understand system that needs to be replaced entirely. That work is also going on, but as you might imagine, has a separate team on it, which means the Mozscape team's bandwidth is split. Mozscape has crawling trouble - we've had issues with our own crawler design, specifically with spam that's fooled our crawlers (it's designed to fool Google, obviously, but has caught us, too), and biased our index. We also had an issue where some code was commented out that helped us recrawl important pages and other issues (along with a couple of longtime engineering departures) made that invisible to us for a good few months (even with it fixed, it will take an index or two to get back to normal). We've had other issues with hardware and bandwidth restrictions, with team changes, with unintentionally excluding important sites and important pages on sites due to erroneous changes on our end, with robots.txt interpretation mistakes. You name it. It's been pretty frustrating because it's never a single issue coming up again and again, but rather new issues each time. The team currently on the Mozscape project is relatively new -- we had almost complete turnover on that team in the last year (a combination of voluntary and non), so there's a lot of rampup and trying to understand what things do, and fix old problems, etc. I'm sure as an engineer you're familiar with those types of challenges, especially when the documentation isn't pristine. IMO - those are crappy excuses. We should be better. We will be better. I don't provide them to pardon our shitty quality the last few months, but rather because you said you wanted detail, and I do love transparency. I think we're going to have a tough slog until the new index system comes out (likely this Fall). I'm keeping my fingers crossed that we can repair each new problem and that few others arise, but the past 6 months have made me wary of overpromising and under-delivering. BTW - it is true that the ML model means there's lots of DA flux as the goal is to be as accurate as possible with Google's changes, so if we see a site with certain types of inputs matching patterns of sites that don't rank as well, that DA will drop. Given that Google's rankings fluctuate all the time, that our crawlers fluctuate a lot (more than they should, as noted above), and that the link graph changes constantly, a lot of flux in DA is to be expected. That said, the new model will have DA refreshed daily, rather than monthly, and will also have history, as well as a way to dig in and see what inputs are big in DA and how those have changed. I think all of that will help make these shifts vastly more transparent, even if they continue to be high (which they should so long as Google's own flux is high). One thing I am working on with the team - a different kind of score, called something like "domain visibility" or "rankings visibility" that tracks how visible a site's pages are in a large set of Google rankings. I think that score might be more what clients are seeking in terms of their overall performance in Google, vs. their performance in the link graph and how their links might be counted/correlated with higher/lower rankings.

Hi There are a couple here: http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/ergonomic-office-chairs http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/executive-office-chairs

Any suggestions?

You are very welcome, Michael. So glad to have you here, asking good questions!

Thank you.

Thanks so much Alick300, I have a better understanding of MOZ now;) Have a great day!

Luca, You're asking a pretty open ended question of the Moz community. If you're serious about wanting constructive feedback, you'd be better off hiring someone to do a thorough analysis of your website and its supporting processes so they could come up with some worthwhile and actionable recommendations. You might get onesy-twosy suggestions from this post, but it sounds like you might need something more thorough and exhaustive. Moz has 58 recommended companies on a list you can peruse. You could also go thru the Q&A and blog looking for people who are experts in this area and put feelers out to them. Otherwise, I'd suggest you post a more specific question as it might incent more responses. Good luck!