Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Indeed, there is! On the option window that pops up when requesting a Full SERP Report from the Keyword Difficulty tool, you'll be able to use the bottom box to specify an 11th URL that you'd like to have compared with the first 10 search results (http://www.screencast.com/t/nzpvgpXgQq). Party on

I think the general idea is a good one. Having one very thorough and authoritative page about the common cold should be more powerful than three weaker pages that all compete for the same keywords. In fact, we did something similar last year when we pulled coupons, deals and reviews into a single page, but our review pages hadn't quite taken off and we knew that people don't really search for deals the way they search for coupons, so consolidating made sense to beef up the content in a single authoritative place. However, in the medical niche I'd be very wary of losing traffic that would have gone to symptom and treatment pages, just knowing (ok, I didn't look anything up, but I can guess) how often those are specifically searched and the indexing issues we've had with content inside collapsible divs. John Mueller has said before that if that content was really so important, you wouldn't be hiding it behind a click. It's a really big risk. If there's a way to test it on a handful of pages before rolling out any sitewide changes, I would absolutely do that.

Thanks so much, that is just the answer I was looking for.

Hi Jake! Crawl data for your campaigns will refresh on a weekly basis. If you've made changes to your site that you would like to check without waiting for your campaign, I would recommend running a one-time Crawl Test here: https://moz.com/researchtools/crawl-test If you have any more questions or run into any trouble with that, send us a message at help@moz.com Thanks! Kevin Help Team

I agree what Oleg has suggested. You can use http://schema-creator.org/ for creating the code. Hope this helps! Umar

It is not unusual to redirect a whole website and all of its pages, so it wouldn't make sense that you could have too many. And you should keep the redirects indefinitely--what if there is a link to the expired page? You do not want to lose that equity by having it go nowhere...

I'm seeing a lot of that in the SERPs with no particular pattern, even on BBC's site. Are you running Wordpress? Could it be a plugin you've added?

Hi there Craig makes a great point here - always have second sets of data to reference when it comes to backlinks and site performance. Crawlers from one vendor can only do so much, and other vendors sometimes pick up what others are not. Majestic and ahrefs are great, but also pay attention to Google Search Console, as those are the links that Google is seeing. If you want to give yourself an extra advantage, check out Kerboo - it scores your backlinks and also has a ton of great features to help you assess and maintain your profile. Hope this helps! Good luck!

Today can be a page talking about icons, tomorrow other subject ... Thanks.  My biggest problem is image theft. There are a lot of sites doing this with my brand.  I don't think it is worth doing anything about, and I don't think it is malicious - unless they are using your brand name and your content in a bad way or to attract traffic to ad-filled pages that should have been coming to your site.  But these sites generally do not rank well. Today can be a page talking about icons, tomorrow other subject ...

Hi Sarwan! The rel canonical will not change the URL opened in a browser. It will only be a signal to the search engines to count links for docbeans.com/index as links to docbeans.com and to threat them as a single URL in regards to ranking. Also, doing the 301 redirect shouldn't really have an impact with load times, as the redirects happens before loading any content. As they both load the same content, I guess this is because the docbean.com is really an alias for docbean.com/index. Hope this helps. Anders

David, I can see the frustration. It would appear to a searcher on Google that the page for this class hasn't been updated since 2013 because Google is using the Schema markup you have around the review, which is: A quick fix that could help until you get this figured out would be to change the published date on the review to a more recent date in 2015. I do see that you have placed the "datePublished" markup within the Schema.org/review container, but Google seems to be interpreting it not just that way, but also as if it was on it's own to describe the entire page. In other words, it seems to be treated like this: https://schema.org/datePublished . I see that you have itemtypes for an offer, dates, reviews... but not one for the page itself. Perhaps just below the HTML header of that page you could define the web page's publish date using this itemtype: https://schema.org/WebPage. It would would begin with: itemscopeitemtype="http://schema.org/WebPage"> And would contain: <meta< span="">itemprop="datePublished"content="2015-01-01"> (or whatever the real publish date is)</meta<> And would cover the entire page down to: Another option could be to go with JSON-LD instead.

Egol and Moosa are spot - a couple of things to add. I suggest do not first work on your most important pages first. With the new search analytics in WMT's you can learn a lot about your website - easy and quick now to monitor page change outcomes. Train on a few lesser important pages, some might have more traffic, then go to your most important pages. If you only change the meta description - monitor CTR on WMT's. If you change the title and meta description - spread sheet both Clicks and CTR. When changing Title often the page rank and even the CTR can drop but total clicks increases. After you have optimized a few pages and found out why people click, comfortable with the results, made your mistakes:- Then armed with that knowledge focus on your primary pages, and you will do it with confidence. We do alot of this and to jump to the most important pages first and "practice" on them, is not something we recommend. We often think we know, but every site has nuances and customers do not do exactly as we anticipate.  We got burnt a few times doing the important pages first as that is what the client always wants...  You may get it right, but why risk it. It is a ten day delay, if all goes well. Hope this assists.

Hi there If the URLs are relevant and have a spot to go on the new site, and it just so happens to be the same page, that's totally fine. Remember, you want to send and redirect the user to a destination that happens to be relevant to what they clicked on. Have multiple URLs point to the same site or URL is totally fine, so long as it's relevant and speaks to what the user planned on reading or seeing. If you do this, make sure that you update any internal links, backlinks, and sitemap information so that this new page is recognized as the new destination. Hope this helps! Good luck!

Thank you for the resource links and excellent answer! I think I was doing just as you say, "Don't overthink!" I feel like I'm on the right track now. Thanks again!

Hi there Okay cool - didn't want to give you information you didn't need. I'd also take a look at the Moz SERP analysis - tons of great information there that can help guide you in the direction you should take with your efforts. Good luck!

Hi Mike, Patrick makes some good points, especially regarding the site returning a 500 error; as long as you're returning a server error on this site's only page, it's unlikely you'll be able to rank for anything. The fact that the AVVO page is ranking instead is far, far better than nothing. It looks like the site is no longer redirecting, so I suspect you're right about it being a caching issue. You haven't lost all of bestdefensega.com's link juice permanently; once your server error is resolved and the new site is live, those links will still pass value. If there are pages that used to be on bestdefensega.com that will no longer be there, make sure those are 301 redirected to their nearest equivalent and, where possible, reach out to the sites that link to you to ask them to update the links, and it should be fine. You can view the reasons behind the low spam score by going here: https://moz.com/researchtools/ose/spam-analysis/flags?subdomain=bestdefensega.com. It looks like most of the problem is that you just don't have many links pointing to the site, and the ones you do have are lower-quality. Some of the other flags, like ratio of followed to nofollowed subdomains and percentage of branded links, may be somewhat skewed by the small size of the data set. OSE is now showing that you have 5 inbound links to the site; Majestic has you at 231 links from 9 domains. It's not uncommon for tools to show different numbers on something like inbound links. Each tool crawls and stores link data differently, and links may or may not show up in each tool based on factors like age, trust/authority, etc. Whether you have 500, 200 or 5 links, that's still not very many links - and it looks like most of them are coming from just a few domains. So once you've got the new site up and running, make sure you're investing some time and effort into a long-term link earning strategy. To Patrick's point, getting links and citations from other businesses/websites in your local area will help build your brand and send a strong local signal. Good luck!

Hi Mark, Google's rule is 1 listing per physical location. So, if you've opened a new office (congrats!) that means starting a second, totally separate listing on Google. I believe you'll find Google's guidelines to be a big help: https://support.google.com/business/answer/3038177?hl=en Just be sure: This is a physical location with in-person contact with customers You have a unique local area code phone number for the new branch. Hope this helps!

Thanks - I'm not terribly worried about the test site as we use a password protected and IP blocked development domain that is completely different from the root domain. Its not even a subdomain. Eg. www.realsite.com and www.testdomain.com My dev team is trying to get me to wait and just do a massive 301 redirect > moving the URLs with the query strings (old site) to new page (e.g. multiple many:1) vs doing the canoncial. The new site won't create the query string issue. The challenge I see is that the 150,000+ indexed URLs really should be around 7,000, so the organic value of the real 7,000 pages (other than possibly the root domain) are probably getting punished, even though the site is doing decently well.