Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks for the answer:)

Hello, you need to have pages setup in the page optimizer. Insert a url along with a keyword you want to optimize for. After you have your first page optimized you will be able to access related topics based on a list of keywords you could possibly rank for. on the page optimization tab click discover. Then click the url you want to see related topics on. Click related topics and you will see a list of keywords. There will be a graph showing likely hood of ranking. To the far right is an drop down arrow. Here you will find urls to posts written that rank for a particular keyword. hope that helps!

Hey there J.P.! Sorry for any confusion here. Without looking in your campaign it's hard to tell exactly what's going on. Does your campaign include the Social section? To be fully transparent, we actually removed access to Social tracking for all subscriptions created after November 1st 2015, so if you don't see a Social section at all that's the reason why. Here is an explanation of this decision from our product owner, Jon White: https://moz.com/community/q/can-t-access-social-overview If you have a Social section in your campaign but are currently unable to attach your social media accounts, I recommend reaching out to help@moz.com so we can take a look at the issue. I hope that helps!

Thanks Jordan and Tawny! That is a good idea to check in GWT for link profiles of our sites that we want to check. We would love to find also though a link checking tool that is quite comprehensive. Thanks Tawny for your recommendation to check out Ahrefs. It is a tool we have trailed and do find quite effective!

Hi Aleyda thanks for confirming that I look fwd to meeting you in person at BigDigital Adelaide

Thank you!

The Austin district won't show up in search results unless it has a unique URL. Will search parameters show in the URL when the visitor submits a search? If so, you can create an XML sitemap with precise URLs (including search parameters) for each district and submit it to Google. Unfortunately, I can also see the potential for duplicate content if more than one URL (different parameters) could be created with the same page content, and I don't see how you could solve the problem with canonical tags if the pages are dynamically generated.  You may be able to use the URL Parameters tool in Google Search Console to exclude duplicates, but that could add even more complexity to the problem. If you were my client (and we've worked with preschool franchises), I would make sure there was a dedicated landing page for each individual location, regardless of how many there are. A search function is fine for users, but a local landing page with a unique user-friendly URL that can easily be crawled is best for search engines.

Thank you as well, Eric!

Thanks Everett - Just popping across to Stack Overflow now!

When it comes to Google Plus in particular, we do recommend that the authorship and publishership tags be used, as there has been mentions by Google reps in the past that those could come back at some point. We don't know if Google is still using Google Authorship internally as a search engine ranking signal of some type even though it isn't being promoted publicly. The same goes for Google Publishership, as well. If it requires a lot of extra time coding this into the site then you might consider not including it--but we do recommend that it still be included, especially since it may make a comeback at some point.

Nobody outside of Google, knows this type of information with certainty.   My guess is that Google is only concerned with what is within the article portion of the page. My honest opinion is that Google is not concerned with keyword density unless it is outrageous.   If I am writing an article with the hope of ranking for a one-word query, my use of that word on the page has a density of about five percent.  I have that density because my writing is very precise and explicit. I never even think about how many instances of a keyword is on the page.  My only concern is if the article is easy to read, easy to understand, and contains value for the reader.  Over and over, Google has told webmasters to write as though search engines did not exist.  I believe that is what I should do.

Thanks Eric, My title tags are already super-short (sometimes less than 40-45 characters and far less than 487 pixels) but are still truncated by Google as I showed you in my example...

For those wondering, I haven't been able to find a solution and the people I have spoken to have agreed that we don't think this is possible (to warrant the amount of work we would need to do)

Thanks for your help Logan. This is exactly what I was looking for.

Many thanks Eric - much appreciated - that clarifies everything perfectly

Is there is any other option available.? Please advice.

That's completely possible. I'm not sure about how your company works, but if they're slow to change, it's probably worth arguing that that content should be visible, just in case. If they can change quickly, I'd just let everyone know that you're keeping an eye out for changes in the algorithm, and will let them know when that content needs to be displayed.