Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I would say it's actually the quality of your domain as a whole not really matching up to theirs. Your competitors seem to do quite well with internal linking. High quality content on a variety of different pages. Whereas you have Lyft on your homepage and another page with very little other than that.

Honestly i've been a bit inactive at the minute, however from what I can see the mozpoints is working fine. I do only see the staff badge when i'm logged in.

No there is no such way to add a list of items to Google Search Console with URLs that you want have marked as fixed. Instead what you can do is filter on these URLs in the interface and then all at the same time you can mark them as fixed. Google Search Console doesn't allow you to update URLs based from the API.

Hi Becky, Here is what I found: The pros and cons of hiding content using JavaScript and CSS (display: none) has been a topic of some debate within the SEO industry, and Google’s comments over time have somewhat added to the confusion. **November 2014 **– Google’s John Mueller stated that Google _“may not” _index or rank hidden content. In aGoogle+ Hangout the following month, John repeated this, stating that hidden content would be _“discounted”_and has been for a number of years **21 July 2015 **– Google’s Gary Illyes, contributing to a Stack Overflow forum thread , provided clarification of this by stating that this type of content is given “way less weight in ranking” **27 July 2015 **– In a separate Stack Overflow thread on the same topic, Gary Illyes again confirmed that _“[Google] will index that but the content’s weight will be lower since it’s hidden” _ So the content will still be indexed, but deemed less important by the crawlers.

Sure, I understand, that makes sense. Thank you for your help!

Are you able to upload the back links or would you like me to grab the back links for your site? Then run it through deep crawl we can see if the old back links match and make them match if needed? I would love to see the deep crawl result. remember deep crawl will help you as well Hope this is of help, Tom

If I understand it correctly, you are trying to present different content/navigation to different devices. It is fine from SEO point of view, as long as you are not manipulating the content ( then it would be viewed as cloaking). Changing the markup for navigation isn't a bad thing till the time your links have good SEO friendly URLs. You should take help of Fetch as Google feature to review how spiders will look at your content on mobile/desktop devices. .I hope this helps, Let me know if you have further questions. Thanks, Vijay

i just facing same issue now solve thanks Regards Best for 4 year

Thanks Kate...I think this will be our best option for now...differentiate the content as much as we can. I'll refer back to this thread when we're ready to move forward with foreign language pages next year.

One of the typical ways a site ends up with a huge number of links, but from a small number of domains, is if they end up with a link in a footer or sidebar - something that appears sitewide/on every page. Or from social media sites. In these cases, the huge number of links probably aren't adding a lot of ranking influence. That's not to say multiple links from one domain don't have value though. There are plenty of situations where an influential site could be linking to you in different contexts. These, I definitely believe, still pas ranking authority. And remember, the only purpose of links isn't ranking. If they're good links, they'll also be sending actual traffic and eyeballs! Hope that helps? Paul

Hi Bernadette, Thanks for your input. I guess my question, put more succunctly would be- when does "personalisation" cross the line to become "cloaking"? And how to avoid Google confusing between the two. By definition personalisation involves showing one set of content to one set of users, and at least one other set of content to at least one other set of users. I totally understand that essentially Google will only see one set of content as a "first time" user, but given than that content will not be the same as the content all other users see, I can see that at some point Google might mis-interpret this as a maliciouos technique. Maybe my concern lies in y ignorance over exactly HOW cloacking is carried out technically. Thanks

Thanks Bernadette! What would you say is the best way to identify toxic links?

Honestly I wouldn't be able to tell you. As the article brought up cloaking I'm going to guess yes, however I haven't got any source or test for it.

If you've made the suggested changes on Bing and you're having the page break, then I would unfortunately sacrifice Bing. Alternatively I'm sure there are developers out there who could fix this and bypass your issues. You'll just have to weigh up if the "mobile friendly" on bing is worth it.

Thanks for the feedback Martijn. We have decided to  go the JSON-LD as you did. Having both markups on the page caused duplicate products in Google Search Console. We worried that might have negative effects.

This is where hreflang tags come in. Here's a great diagram I found: https://hreflang.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/mobile-hreflang-canonical.png on this site: https://hreflang.org/use-hreflang-canonical-together/

If they crawl the article again, and notice that the anchor text has changed, then it could put up a red flag. Yes, indeed.  I agree with Bernadette. Every site should have some anchor text diversity.  It keeps you from looking like you are trying to manipulate the search engines.  This particular anchor text, which is not exactly what you want, could actually be extremely beneficial if lots of your other links have highly optimized anchor text. I would not tweak this link.  Google is watching.