Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I have no evidence of this but maybe Google is taking into account your clickthrough rate. If people search "ProtonMail", and almost always go to the login page they might have bumped it up.

Thanks Patrick, the Linkarati article is especially helpful.

The problem is that you are implementing a canonical from all those parametrized pages to http://mathematica-mpr.com/news/, and the content in that page -an empty result list- is not the same as in the original link you provide in your post -which show article results. Canonical is used to show a preferred URL for a page, when there are two or more URLs which lead to the same content. After implementing the canonical, you have to make sure you are not linking to the "bad" url or it will never disappear from Google's SERP. As your content is not the same on both pages, and the old URL is still accessible from your site, you are not fullfill the requirements to make those URL disappear. I think that if you don't want those index to appear on the SERPs as depending on the search options it will lead to very common pages, and it is almost impossible to identify clearly a canonical reference for them, the best option is to add to robots.txt a line which blocks those parameters, and you will end with that problems. Disallow: /news/?facet=* This will remove your search results from the index, ending with duplication problems. Please make sure this is what you want, or if you prefer to keep those results although you continue having duplication issues.

Hi, There are two ways to fix this isuue. 1>Add paypal.com in referral exclusion list in Google Analytics. 2>utm_nooverride=1 To know more please visit @ http://blog.analytics-toolkit.com/2015/payment-gateway-referrer-exclusions-google-analytics/ Hope this helps. Thanks

Certainly!  You can request a CSV containing all of your ranking data from the dawn of your campaign by hitting the 'Email Rankings History CSV' button with the 'Keyword Rankings' section of your campaign :).

Howdy! Sorry for the conflicting values! We did just release a fresh index update which is available through the MozBar, but the update would have had a delay before being pushed into campaigns. So, if you were checking the campaigns before that update was published, then the MozBar would have been reporting June 9th data while the campaigns were still reporting data from May 4th. With that being said, I took a look through a handful of your campaigns, and everything seems to be matching up as of now. But, if you're still seeing inconsistencies, then please feel free to write in to us at help@moz.com with a specific example

Hi Saurabh! Sorry for the confusion! Your campaign (at the Standard or Medium level) will automatically crawl up to 50,000 pages of a site and return the results within the 'Crawl Diagnostics' section on a weekly basis. The Crawl Test research tool is completely separate, and it will allow you to make on-demand crawls of up to 3,000 pages which can be viewed in a CSV. I hope this helps to clarify!

Thanks a lot for your answers...it's all more clear now. Have a lovely day

Hi Nikola It certainly won't be the case that, if you have a big rankings drop, that might have a ripple effect on other rankings.  There's no way the two will be directly related and Google won't adjust your other rankings because of one falling. However, the reason behind the ranking drop might well have contributed to other keywords falling, particularly if they are related keywords.  So, if a competitor has had a successful link building campaign and risen above you, you yourself have lost links, made onsite changes etc etc.  Those ranking factors can all increase or decrease your keyword positioning - and if all of your keywords are related and possibly ranking for the same page, that might explain why other keywords have fallen as well.

Hmmm... usually when we see this, it's some kind of implicit canonicalization, but clearly these sites have nothing at all in common and aren't remotely duplicates of each other. I'm not seeing any issues in the headers, either as a browser or as Googlebot, and the cache is very recent, so the problem isn't some legacy of weeks or months ago - it seems to be still happening. The cached page seems to reflect this one: http://www.sidelinemvp.com/nfl_personalized_jerseys.htm ...and I'm not seeing any bad headers or tags on that side either (?) The NFL site uses a content delivery network, and there's an off-chance something is seriously screwed up on that, but that's speculation at best. Looking at your indexed pages, via the site: operator, I'm seeing multiple indexed URLs that seem to redirect to another NFL site. For example: http://keesen.co.in/poolfelt.html This seems to set off a chain of 301-redirects and goes back to the home-page, but something very weird is happening here. Was your site hacked at some point? If you added the 301s to fix the hack, I'd suggest you actually let these bad URLs die (404 them). You may be mis-attributing some old/bad URLs to your home-page somehow.

Hey all... I'm in the same boat for http://www.owneroperatordirect.com Any ideas?  Would love to start using the Page Grader feature. Thanks.

Thanks for your response. Anchor text is where my thoughts lie. I think there could be something here as they do have lots of exact match anchor terms for their brand name. plus one of the dropped keywords is that term. Not phrase but one word term. Say their brand name is Gym Shack. They have dropped considerably for the term Gym whilst maintaining or improving for Gyms in England or MMA Gyms. This is where I am leaning towards. What can be done here if Google is devaluing the term Gym? Is it the links that need removing or does the focus need to shift somehow? Thanks

Hi there Yes, these content distribution opportunities are fine in the eyes of Google - Outbrain actually has pretty strict guidelines to use their service, so they do a good job of keeping spam out of their networks and features. Remember, most of these links go through 302 redirects or nofollow tags before actually getting to your content, and sometimes it's drawn from a widget, meaning the link does not appear in the source code of the page. While I have a hard time attaching any real SEO value to these types of opportunities, I do find brand awareness and engagement value in them, because users click through (create a good headline), read the content and potentially read my other content (if it's easy for them to find). If they enjoy it, they can keep track of more content I am putting out and so on so forth. Keep in mind, this is "ideal", but the reason you use services like this is to get momentum for your content and hope someone likes it enough to share and build brand equity. Hope this helps! Good luck!

Hi Naracci - it's possible that the Mozscape index (which certainly doesn't have perfect coverage, but rather a more representative crawl coverage) hasn't seen all the links to your site. As you get them from more notable domains and pages, though, we should pick them up and you'll see that reflected in your DA/PA scores.

Thanks for the insight, EGOL.  It made me reconsider going this route.  I have good experience on the subject, but I'm not sure I want to position myself as an authority on it. It's a niche where experience is not enough, readers will definitely be looking for experts. Thanks!

I do assessments of existing articles by looking at their traffic.  If they are pulling in very little traffic I look at their optimization and see if I can tweak them towards better keywords.   I also look at traffic growth over time.  For my sites a new article might not start drawing representative traffic until it has been on the site for at least a year.