Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Not sure what you mean with Google Parameters  - but normally the hreflang should be reciprocal: (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en) Missing confirmation links: If page A links to page B, page B must link back to page A. If this is not the case for all pages that use hreflang annotations, those annotations may be ignored or not interpreted correctly In your case page https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting?grank=open is linking to https://fr.sitegeek.com/a2hosting - but https://fr.sitegeek.com/a2hosting is not linking back to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting?grank=open but to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting. You could try to add a canonical url to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting?grank=open pointing to https://www.sitegeek.com/a2hosting and combine the canonical with the hreflang. Normally this should be possible according to Google - but I couldn't find an example of an implementation. Try the canonical & test it here: http://flang.dejanseo.com.au/ Hope this helps, Dirk

Just want to add that the below fields will be pulled in dynamically by the clients CRM system. /> Thanks again for any help

Thanks everybody. Great help!!! I have a web site with jokes I like to promote and I guess I will just start with the opensiteexporer. I will go easy on links and focus more on the qualtity and quantity of content. I guess I will build like 2-3 new links a month.

Hi, For situations like this, God invented hreflang... Basically with hreflang you tell search engines that duplicates of the content exist that target other countries/languages. The exact definition can be found here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en There is a great article on hreflang here on Moz (and more important) a tool that you can use to generate them): https://moz.com/blog/using-the-correct-hreflang-tag-a-new-generator-tool - once implemented you can test it here: http://flang.dejanseo.com.au/ Hreflang needs to be implemented on all the pages on your site which have equivalents on the other sites. It's not necessary to change the content or the images. Hope this helps, Dirk

Thanks for dropping by Linda, You are right, my moz profile page has came back to some sort of normality, not the same PA but similar, I believe this "relatively small change in PA" is due to what Rand, Patrick and Matt have explained referring to "mozscape update issue".  Actually I placed a form in the moz help desk and Sean´s answer was the following: "Thanks for writing us and it does appear to be quite a mystery. While we do not seem to be able to determine the reason for this particular disappearance..." and they didn´t see any links at all in my profile which refering to links, it appeared as empty!. As a matter of fact I couldn´t fill them "again" as for me, they where perfectly correct and seen in my own profile. Anyway, things are more or less back to where they had been before. Thanks for all your replies, I believe it was some sort of a mistery, and will remain as a mistery... Regards from sunny southern Spain.

In the real world most people use the least number of words when searching for something to get the most relevant results.  based on the data I see (and the examples you provided), it's fairly clear more people search without using "find" in their search query. While it is true that you can still optimize a site for "lawyers in ____" even if you include "find" in the page Title, the more precise the topical refined understanding a page has to a specific search query based on common intent, the more likely that page will be able to properly rank for that situation. So while you can include "find" in the page Title, I wouldn't recommend it in this case.

Thanks! Very helpful!

SEO in 2015 is all about refinement of focus and effort.  I came up with what I call the 5 super signals of SEO a while back and that's more valid now than ever. QUART - Quality Uniqueness Authority Relevance Trust Every single thing you want to do for SEO needs to be passed through the QUART test - and score as high as possible on as many of those five as possible.  Its not about perfection though. So for example, if an individual factor on an individual page, or the cumulative factors on an individual page, or section of a site, or entire site score strong enough in quality, uniqueness and relevance, the authority and trust scores will eventually grow but don't need to start out as high. Links are absolutely still important in 2015.  Its just that the threshold for acceptability is radically different nowadays. So again, quality and relevance are crucial for sustainable success.  And the more authority the page / section / site has that link comes from, the more trust that link will get. Its more challenging for small business to compete than ever before obviously, and its true that some sites STILL rank using tricks and system gaming tactics because no matter how much goes into search engine algorithms, some players will just continue to devote so much energy and effort to manipulation that some of those will break through.

If image search is important to you, I would suggest creating 301 redirects for all image URLs. Unfortunately, there's not an easier answer than that, especially on a self-hosted platform. If you aren't able to do that then you'll need to get by with simply uploading a new image sitemap to Google webmaster tools, and start fixing the 404 errors manually when they show up in GWT. Assuming your pages are 301ing to the new URL, then Google should find the new images pretty quickly, but might take awhile to gain rankings back.

Ha ha, I know! It's like giving the developers a little present all wrapped up with a bow...here's the problem, and here's where to fix it

Hi Rosemont, Thanks for taking the time to ask about this. I want to share with you all that I can about this topic. I completely understand that there might be some confusion surrounding this, and we've recently updated our Help Hub to reflect our current best advice regarding duplicates. Basically, what happens is that Moz suggests the duplicate closure request to given platforms and they then process these in very big batches, based on each platform's own internal structure of handling such requests, whether they come from Moz or from a data aggregator or what have you. The issue, then, is that we have no way to estimate time frames or to guarantee that a request on our part won't be denied by a given platform based on its own assessment of whether a duplicate is really a duplicate or not. They have the deciding vote on this. So, at this point, what we're suggesting to customers is that they consider manually closing small numbers of duplicates as they may get faster results than Moz will. For large accounts with hundreds of customers with hundreds of duplicates, it can be helpful to automate duplicate closure requests with the thought that they will eventually close, but it's unlikely to happen quickly, bringing us back to the suggestion that manual closure for small numbers of duplicates may be a smarter route where speed is key. We'd love this to be faster and more reliable to automate, but we're working within the limitations of the various platforms. For your particular situation, as we've already assumed management of the duplicates in order to request closure of them, you would not be able to act manually. I'm not sure if it would be possible to reverse our management of the duplicates, but if you would like to get further feedback on this, you could create a help request with our Help Team who then might be able to escalate the question to our engineers to see if reversal would be possible. https://moz.com/help/contact I want to apologize for the inconvenience you've experienced and disappointment with time frames. The duplicates feature is really helpful for surfacing duplicates, but for now, manual closure may be faster than automated closure.

Hey, Can anyone help me out with how I can add keywords with noodp directives?

Yes, sorry I used the form on their support site for the webmaster tools : https://www.bing.com/webmaster/support Although that doesn't seem to be working at this moment so the email address that it was sent to is : ucmbwts@microsoft.com Hope this helps!

Hi, The example I quoted in my reply about Paul's pizza (it's not exactly the same - but quit close) For the newspaper: if it's just an ad random links (e.g. in the footer) it doesn't look really natural. If the newspaper is featuring an article about a legal issue and it's quoting your law firm in the article, than the link would be quite natural. For the retirement homes: Google is quite aware that if you're in a retirement home you have entered the last phase of your life; so it's not really unnatural for a retirement home to feature some articles on your final "bucket list" - which could include content on how to make a will. If on these articles they quote your law firm, or if the content is entirely written by your law firm, it would be quite logical to mention the original source (or even better - put a canonical url pointing to your site). Basically - natural links are quite easy to detect. Just ask yourself: if no link building for SEO purposes existed, would the publisher include this link? If he would, it's almost certain that it's a good link. If he wouldn't, it's not really a good one. rgds, Dirk