Welcome to the Q&A Forum

So, since I first posed this question i've tried adding schema structured data illustrating that the page is associated with 5 distinct locations.  Been over a week and the problem persists.

I would probably move forward based on the following two assessments: A) by a site's traffic figures, content quality, and backlink profile (assessing this within reason). If they receive a lot of traffic, produce great content, and seem to have an appreciable amount of good quality links, then the site in question is very likely "good" and "trustworthy" B) by the the types of links that are being provided to the site in question. If a certain instance of a link is not promotional, unlike in the case of a sponsored review, then this criterion checks out If both check out, then I would say it's safe to remove the "nofollow" tag for that particular link. Now, thinking about things holistically, I would say that if the site does not link out to a degree that seems above-average or high, then I wouldn't worry about potentially "following" nearly all of your links again. You received the penalty because of the the nature of the linking, the specific links that you linked out to, and/or the volume of external linking.

Do we know if a quick copy paste from the lower 1/3 of the page into Google returned the page (and copied text) in question? Or, have you ever seen a case where the top portion is findable in the SERPs through a quick copy/paste of a portion of text, but text from the bottom doesn't return anything? I've seen this happen, and don't really have a good answer for it. Seems like it could be along the same lines? I know Google can't index a portion of the page, but strange how when you copy a sentence from the top of a page with tons of lines of code, you can find it in the SERPs, but doing the same from the bottom yielded nothing.

Any time you  transfer part of a site you transfer away the strength of that portion of your site.  Your page count will drop, there will be some drop in visitor engagement and the number of inbound links and linking root domains will drop.  I would be prepared to see negative impact on existing rankings.

Hello JoaoCJ, My recommendation is to not allow internal search result pages to be indexed. You should block them from being accessed via the Robots.txt file and then request their removal from GSC. This is what Google recommends. There are always exceptions to the rule. However, best practices is all I can provide without knowing more about the situation, such as whether those internal search pages are an important part of your taxonomy (rare) or are also receiving significant, high quality organic search traffic (also rare).

Hey there! Tawny from Moz's Help Team here.  Ria Parish and Edward Sturm have the right answer here - it's just down to waiting for our index to find your new site, crawl it, and index links pointing to it. Open Site Explorer and the Link Analysis page of campaigns are both tied to our Mozscape index, which tends to update roughly once a month. Just a few points on how we compile our index: We grab the most recent index. We take the top 10 billion URLs with the highest MozRank (with a fixed limit on some of the larger domains). We start crawling from the top down until we've crawled ~130 billion URLs The idea here is that we're focusing on the highest-quality links we can find, coming from the most prominent pages of authoritative sites. So, while you may not see every link for a site within our index, we're aiming to report the most valuable ones available! Most new sites and links will be indexed by our spiders and available in Mozscape and Open Site Explorer within 60 days, but some take even longer for many reasons - including the crawl-ability of sites, the number of inbound links to them, and the depth of pages in subdirectories. (This also slightly biases our index in favor of newer links. Link data is only stored in the index for around 180 days. After that point, unless the crawler is prompted to revisit and re-crawl those links, they can fall back out of our index again.) You can see our most recently updated schedule here as well as some more technical metrics on our Mozscape API Updates page. You can also see when the last and next updates happened on the Open Site Explorer (OSE) homepage at any time. Since Moz focuses on quality of links over quantity, we are always focused on the most relevant links to display to our users. It's possible that Moz's index will leave out some of the lower-quality (non-link juice providing) links out of our index because of this. So, that might explain why you may see some discrepancies with what other tools may be showing. I know this is a ton of information, so if you have any questions or if I didn't make anything clear enough, please don't hesitate to ask! You can give us a shout at help@moz.com any time.

Thanks, it seems very clear !

Hi Luke, Martijn is correct, the source code of these pages is too similar. Moz's threshold for marking content as duplicate is 90%, meaning if the source code of any 2 pages is 90% the same, they flag it. I also agree that there are better things you can spend your time on. But if you do want to address it, there are a few things you can do: Custom review at the product level - user generated content is awesome because it helps build confidence for other users, but in this case, it also creates unique content Q&A section - See Amazon for an example, the benefits are the same as above Write unique product descriptions for each product - this one is obviously the most time consuming, but is also pretty simple compared to the others.

Hello, Whichever version of the site you want to display, (www or non-www) I would set this in the google search console as the preferred domain. You may also want to check that in your .htaccess file you have the proper redirects. One to make sure all links are redirected to https and another to make sure all links are redirected to www or non-www, whichever version you have set in the google search console. If different versions of you URL are accessible, this may be why you are seeing these issues.

My great pleasure, and yes, report those listings!

Hey There! When properly deployed, development of tools for any type of business can have several different goals: User engagment Resultant brand recognition via use of the tool Ranking well for tools of that type Customer acquisition Yes, publishing a really excellent tool could indirectly impact your domain's rankings if lots of people engage with the tool and link to it using keywords that are important to your business, but I wouldn't recommend looking at search engine rankings as the core goal of tool development. Simply putting a tool on your site because competitors do overlooks how effective it can be to have a thoroughly-planned marketing strategy that covers whether your potential customers will find such a resource useful, how you will build + deploy this resource and how you will set about marketing this resource so that it becomes a major asset to your business. For inspiration, you might look right here on Moz. We have a free tool called Check Listing that helps local businesses do a quick health check of their local business listings on major platforms in the US and UK. That's something useful that local business owners and marketers would like to be able to do, so the tool serves a definite purpose. If the visitor finds the free tool useful, they've just had a good experience with Moz and might be interested in learning more about our paid Moz Local software. If they like what they see, they might become a customer, and they might tell their colleagues about Moz Local, and they might even write a blog post on their own website, linking to Moz Local. And if enough customers do this, then yes, Moz's relevance to keyword searches like 'local seo software' could be positively impacted. In other words, there are many paths to providing a useful + positive experience to each consumer, and a good tool can be a great option where that is interest/need and a market in which you can compete as a provider of that needed tool. It's definitely something that takes a lot of initial research, planning, development and marketing to be successful, so give this careful thought, and see what your business could do to begin being present on a variety of user paths, which, if deftly done, could yield many rewards.

Hi, has anyone been able to look at this issue yet? Thanks.

HI, There are a couple of other articles worth having a look at that if you haven't already: https://moz.com/blog/what-we-learned-analyzing-featured-snippets https://moz.com/blog/game-of-featured-snippets-how-to-rank-in-position-0 Both mention what kind of content is likely to make itself 'snippable' for a variety of featured snippet 'types. It depends to a large degree on what kind of results are showing for the queries you are looking at. I have found tabular and list structures to work well for some best/top type queries I have looked at in the past. In some instances google will interpret list type data from non html list structure so you could (for example) simply put numbers (1,2,3 etc) in front of your list of things without actually using an html list format. Your developer would be able to advise further on this, but most cms systems have lists and tables built in so if the content you have makes sense to be in a list or table format - try it out! There is a tip in one of those articles to try updating your page and then submit it through google search console for immediate results. I am not sure if it works all the time but I have seen some cases where we updated content and had a featured snippet result 5 minutes after submitting through search console. I am not saying to redo content again if you do not see results so fast, but in some cases it can give you an idea that you are on the right track and that the content is in a format that triggers the snippet. Hope that helps!

Wow, that's awesome Joy! Thank you so much for reaching out and helping! Nothing more infuriating to me than a half completed job, and you were pivotal in getting it done. Thank you so much!

Hey Jonathan! Definitely don't recommend blocking your US site in robots.txt--you want to preserve any authority and pass on equity from your US site to your CA site if possible, so let's leave that out of robots. Are you fully deprecating your US site, or will it continue to exist alongside your CA site? If you're deprecating it, I'd recommend 301 redirecting the domain to the new CA one. If not, you should preserve the US site, as-is, set up your CA domain, and implement hreflang tags (information here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en). That'll tell Google that these sites are linked, but that they serve different regions. I do recommend also having a link in your nav or somewhere in your header (like flag icons) that can let users choose which site to navigate to. This will allow for internal linking between both domains.

Hiya! If you're on the Medium level plan or higher, you can upload a logo in your Campaign Settings. Just scroll down to the section called "Branded PDF Reports Logo". Hope that helps!