Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks Patrick, that's really helpful.

Hi Richard, Please check this you will get idea about DA dropped @ https://moz.com/community/q/da-pa-fluctuations-how-to-interpret-apply-understand-these-ml-based-scores Thanks

My Analytics stats For Devices / Source/Medium suggest: Mobile 64% / 0.5% conversion / <0.01% on mobile ads Desktop 22% / 1% conver / 0.15% desktop ads Tablet 14% / 0.75% conversion / 0.01% on tablet ads Since March of this year. I am tasked with improving Conversion %.

Hi Michael I don't think this is a concern in terms of a penalty or anything severe. But I would say, if you'd prefer the other breadcrumbs to show up, perhaps try some breadcrumb structured data (unless you have already?) - to get the preferred ones to show up. https://developers.google.com/structured-data/breadcrumbs

Hi, What ScreamingFrog is looking for is the actual UA-code on the site itself so in the code. But Google Tag Manager won't show this and will load GA itself via JavaScript which doesn't make it available for ScreamingFrog. That's why it won't show up for you. What you could do is set-up a custom filter in ScreamingFrog to check for the GTM code snippet so you can find out if you miss GTM somewhere on the site.

Hi Michael Thanks for your answer! No I have not implemented hreflang to all domains. I know now this is something I need to to do and will get on to it. FYI - Further research today uncovered this response from the  officlal Google Webmasters Forum: _Yes, redirecting Googlebot back to the .com site would be predictably disastrous for the .au site. _ _Google crawls from the US so will always see the IP redirect, it will have to be removed. Anticipating the next question "can we redirect users but not Googlebot? The answer is no."  _ _Can you prevent US visitors from visiting the .au site? No. But if you GEO target the sites properly US visitors on Google will see the .com and Australian searchers will see .au.  _ Unfortunately analytics was only set up after the redirect was put in place, so does not provide historical data. The client anecdotally feels the drop off in traffic through sales though. Search Console certainly does provide historical data that shows that massive drop in both impressions and clicks.

It's going to be a while -- possibly a year or more -- before we have good data for KWs outside the US. In the meantime, I'd suggest SEMRush, KeywordSpy, SpyFu, or Ahrefs, all of whom have fairly robust KW data sets outside the US.

Thanks Peter for your response.

Hi there. Kristina from Moz's Help Team here. We noticed you sent in multiple emails to the Help Team on this issue as well and we've gone ahead and addressed this issue in one of your emails. If there's anything else we're able to assist with, however, please do let us know! Thank you, -Kristina

That didn't even cross my mind. Thanks a lot!

HI there No, there is no evidence that responding to reviews will help you rank better in search. Don't look at responding to reviews as an opportunity to rank higher in search (because it won't happen) - look at it as an opportunity to directly engage someone who had an experience with your product or service; whether good or bad. It will speak volumes about your brand if users see that you are actively engaging and responding to users. That, ultimately, is more valuable in the eyes of users, not rankings. Remember - you're trying to please users, not search engines. Please users, and search engines will catch up. Shameless plug - I wrote a post awhile back on customer engagement and why it matters that dives a bit deeper and gives some examples Hope this helps! Let me know if it doesn't! Good luck! Patrick

Hi there! Good answer! I am doing pretty much what you said, and am getting lots of good feedback as post likes, comments and personal shares. However, I'm not getting as many page likes as I'd like. About being relevant and posting engaging content - this part seems to be covered. My page is about dogs and puppies (here, you might like it too https://www.facebook.com/LeMitris/), and, therefore, all groups I post in are about dogs and puppies. Feedback is great, here is an example. I did this post and after doing some social networking work I got 45000+ reach, ~2k likes, 70+ shares and ONLY ~30 likes to the page. Now, as you see, it be very nice to at least invite those 2k people to like the page, but I can't since all those likes are in groups, not on my actual post. Any idea how to utilize this? How to rip these benefits? P.S. I guess I can try to friend all those people, but it'd be pretty weird, no?

You could, in fact, test whether or not removing the keyword from the page has an effect on it's rankings, but most likely that won't necessarily prove anything. In fact, you may even be more confused, as a page can rank well even if the page doesn't contain the keyword or keyword phrase. There may be a lot more factoring into these search engine rankings, such as links pointing to the page or the number of social media shares. It could also be related to how often you update certain pages on your site and if you update those pages or not. Another factor could be user engagement on the page, such as how long they spend on the page, bounce rate, or whether or not there are comments (if it's a blog post). If there's one page that you want to rank (because it happens to convert better for you), then I would focus on link building and social shares.

You could always test the link to see if it is really being used from the secondary navigation more so (or at all) than the main navigation link. Create a parameter and track it over a few months in analytics. That way you don't over-optimize in the interim but 3 months from now (or less, or more, really that's up to you) you can definitively say whether it is better to remove it or if leaving it alone was the correct move.

Hi Brian, To answer your question directly, linking to these pages is the preferable option of the two. That said, if it were my campaign I'd be looking to cut down on the volume of these pages to make them a bit more manageable first. I've listed some suggestions below that may point you in the right direction, take from them what you may! Get Rid of These Location Pages These days, having a "Bands in Atlanta, GA" page isn't necessary to rank for that term. Your site is clearly about booking bands so if you've got a Georgia page in this example and your band's profiles list their locations, this combined with a generally well-optimised site means you can still rank for it just fine. Right now, having 750 orphan pages that are essentially duplicates of each other is not doing you any favors. Consider How the Users Expect to Find a Band The user experience on the site right now is by now means bad but if you were to remove these pages, this is the way I would go about it: Change "Browse Bands" to something more specific to their intent; perhaps "Find a Band". We're talking semantics here but "Browse Bands" suggests to me that I'm about to see a huge list of bands to sift through and I'm just as lazy as the next user. Let the filters do the work. From this band finder page (essentially your existing /bands#band-finder page), have 2 drop-down options at the top. The first one for Location and the other for Type or Genre. Again, minor changes but I would expect that most users want to find a band in a specific location so rather than putting this option in the top corner as a text link, make it the most prominent option on the page. Also stating that the other drop-down is before they click it is another minor difference but helpful. "Now Showing: All Bands" isn't entirely intuitive. Minor detail. Add a Page for Each State 750 location pages is not only hard to manage, it's also hard to offer unique value for. If you add a page for each state this is much easier to do. You can talk about the regional differences between each (most popular genres, different laws, any other common differences or booking requirements etc) You could also include the pre-filtered results for each state on these pages to give users another way to find a band quickly. ie From the California page, show the California bands by default and they can select their specific town/city from there if they like. Another great way to add unique and valuable content would be to have 1 to 3 featured bands on each state's page. This may be risky if it's going to upset other bands so it's obviously your call as well but it lets you expand a little more with something valuable and you could even include the areas they service which is a legit reason to talk about specific locations. Include Serviced Locations on Band Profile Pages The current band profile pages are excellent. Videos, song samples, a list of songs, photos, reviews etc. Great work! The only thing it's missing is the areas they service. This is redundant for people finding the band through location filters but not if they go straight to the "Select a Band" drop-down. Bonus points if this list of locations is also shown on a map rather than just a text list, though text is also important for those using Ctrl-F to find their location. Build Links to State or Band Pages Building location-specific links to either of these pages will add another signal to search engines that you offer the solution to a user's intent. This can be as simple as offering your featured bands a "featured on" type of badge that links back to their profile on your site. Something similar to "as seen on TV" where them linking to you genuinely helps their own site/image by suggesting to their visitors they're trustworthy. Don't Hide Too Much Content Be mindful of how much content is "hidden" in those pop-up windows. Bits and pieces of info is fine but if you do start populating pages with lots of content and obscuring most of it, you're devaluing your hard work! This turned into quite the lengthy response that went on a bit of a tangent but hopefully it's at least somewhat helpful to you anyway! Thin, duplicate pages bad; unique, rich landing pages good!

Thanks alot, Ill read it right away. Regards.