Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Many thanks to everyone for the help!

Thanks,  I was clicking fetch and not fetch and render.

Google often has a long memory.   You removed the links, now you have to wait for Google to forget them.  It might take weeks, but more often it will be months.  I've seen things in Google Webmaster Tools that are over two years old.

Josh is right about the reason. Personally I would just do it if the old structure is really really bad

When I try the url mobile.gardening-services-edinburgh.com/index.html it seems it's being redirected to http://mobile.gardening-services-edinburgh.com/Mobile/ which is generating a 302 to the lost page. Could you try to take out the last 2 lines - they don't seem to work (adding the trailing slash) and I fear that they are generating this issue. Like most people on this forum I am not really an expert in regex - you could always try to put your question on a forum like stackoverflow - which is much more technically oriented. Dirk

Used to dealing with millions of lines of data and analysing so no problem doing it manual, however if there was a tool capable of doing it then why not use the tool if it saves time.............

I would go with rel=canonical straightaway, robots.txt is a bit harsh for that sort of thing. You could end up delisting yourself

Thanks for your reply. They are definitely low quality and have no relevance whatsoever. I definitely didn't post the myself, so not quite sure how they got there.

I'd expect it to be more consistent moving forward, but it will likely never be void of fluctuations. That's just part of the nature of the metric. For an in-depth look at DA, I'd recommend checking out this post: https://moz.com/community/q/what-s-the-story-on-mozscape-updates

If you look at Google's cache, you will see they have cached the page with the correct (user defined) title.

Thank you for this very helpful response, Matt!

Thanks for your understanding!

Hi Christy, Thanks for getting back to me. I do like the sorting functions and the capability to mark things as answered/unanswered are great too. I also really like the gamification with the points. We're working on improving our forum right now, and currently just using a WP one but it's organized in a format that is sorted by boards, as opposed to all the threads in one and filtering after (which I like about Moz's!) Hoping to switch over to something more similar to what you guys have going on. Thanks! Dave

"We did this to let people know that we come out to their location, and also to try to expand our reach. For example, if you were searching for an SEO company in Chesterfield, that is an area that is about 30 mins from us. I'm not sure our local office listing would "carry" that far out, and thus the service area was created as a test." Service area and service radius have absolutely no impact on ranking. It's been tested, proven. Typically you'll only rank in the city your are in. Unless competition is low and you are very strong, then sometimes you'll rank in other cities, but service area settings don't play a part. "I'm not sure that the bot would take that long to recrawl the listing, and I would have thought that it would have happened by now if that was the case." Sorry, not talking regular bots, like the ones that crawl sites. Maybe bot is the wrong word. But with Local listings you can have a violation for years without an issue. Then you make a minor edit and it seems to trigger a recheck of the listing to see if it stands up to current guidelines, then it gets wacked. You had another question I got via email but it's not showing up here so copying: "I had a question about this, as even though we had quite a few mentions of the city and service they were spread out throughout the description and not bulked together in the traditional definition of keyword-stuffing. If what you were saying about the description having no part to play is true, how would that have had an impact on the LBL drop? Help me understand, my mind is a sponge right now ;)" Description is not a RANKING factor. But the algo looks at it as a signal of spamminess. Spammers have lots of patterns that the algo can pick up on, this is one of them. So a non-spammy description can trip a filter if it follows the same pattern of overly repetitious keywords. In that short description, count every single time any word is repeated more than once. I did a quick scan and counted 25. Mike Blumenthal has also said mentioning city even twice in description can cause a 10 point ranking penalty. I have examples I could show at my forum, where the description was not spammy or KW stuffed, but the city and KWs were repeated multiple times. They clean up description per my recommendation and pop right back up. But again all that was pre-pigeon. After, it seemed like lots of really spammy ones were getting away with it. So may no longer be an issue. But like I said above, if it does not help and if customers will never see it and if it could maybe hurt AND if your ranking was suffering, why not clean it up? Nothing to lose.

I consider 100% match purely as theoretically possible. In my modest opinion the visitor determines the relevancy of the landingpage. And it is Google's nobel job to serve the visitor with a page that fits his needs. But in this case no page can be fully satisfying to everybody, due to different search intentions with the same keyword. When you achieve a high conversion on your page you'v probably written a very relevant page. So let the visitor truly find what he is looking for and Google will notice....

We have been happy with ekomi