Welcome to the Q&A Forum

All good stuff.  I must admit I am ignorant around the Open Directory Information and how it impacts Google display Information. I’ve put in a request with DMOZ.  I’ll be adding the meta tag you suggested, and I’ll reach out to our Communications team to see if they have the ability to edit legacy company’s old Wiki page.  Fingers crossed. I’ll continue to dig through the links Patrick provided. I’m a team of one – so really have no one to bounce ideas off of - it’s great to be able to reach out to people that have some real tangible knowledge.  Thanks again and if any other ideas feel free to pass them along.

Hello, If the article is sponsored by you and is all about you, I would request no-follow. If it was not sponsored by you (but still by someone) and there is only a brief mention of you and a link I would keep that as a follow. At the bottom of this article from woorank it explains similar circumstances. Thanks, - Mike Bean

I am almost 100% sure it is spam attack of your competitors. Actually you should better quickly disable those links or you can be penalized by Google

Hi There It's tough to give specifics without seeing the exact page and site. But in general, this is something I have seen sometimes. It's possible Google re-ranked the newer page highly to test for user metrics like click-through-rate, dwell time and "pogosticking" - maybe the user metrics didn't go so well so they dropped it back down. Here's the question too - it's important to note that if Google actually crawled and re-cached the page with the new design when re-ranking. I would recommend always checking the cache date so you can tie the ranking timing to which version of the page they are ranking. Also, another thought - when you updated the page, did you give it a social push and/or did it get lots of traffic from other sources too? Sometimes I've seen Google rank a page higher while it's getting social attention and then drop it back down after the social attention goes away.

Hi Everyone The weekly delays and the smaller Index are completely separate, but importing the index data into Moz campaigns are affected. A smaller index was necessary for us to release it without further delay. This release has 187 billion links instead of what we originally had planned which possibly between 250-300 billion links. We hope our next index will be intact and released on schedule. Here are the index details: https://moz.com/products/api/updates

There is some indication that Google may discount content hidden in tabs or click to expand, even if it is genuine content. (John Mueller of Google said this in a Google + hangout--see this article by Barry Schwartz on the topic.)

Jochen, I can't say I've seen this particular issue, but you are right that it is odd. It sounds like you have everything set up technically correct, but Google WMT is crossing some wires. I wish I could provide you with more, but I wouldn't know any potential issues without being able to look at your whole setup in GoogleWMT. I recommend having a consultant take a look. Typically, I hate recommending that (because I'm a consultant and that looks shady), but there really is no other way to know if everything is set up right and Google is just on crack, but I think that's it.

awesome, awesome answer here man. thanks for taking the time to respond. I went in and setup WMT for the old sites and things are looking a little bit better now.

Hello Rosemary, This is the Nextscript announcement your contractor is talking about: [Update – May 2014] Facebook changed some rules regarding the apps. This means that the Facebook App, Facebook profile or page and the user who authorizes the app MUST belong to the same Facebook account. So please make sure you are logged to Facebook as the same user who created the app. You definitely don't need to give your client's personal FB access to a third party BUT you should create the Facebook App (keys) by yourself and finally go to the wordpress and authorize the access. Detailed instructions here: http://www.nextscripts.com/instructions/facebook-social-networks-auto-poster-setup-installation/ I'm afraid there's no other way! Hope this helps! Luis

Hi Moosa: Thanks for your response. Yes, LinkDetox seems to be the best solution for toxic link removal. I purchased the basic package today and ran a report (See enclosed)  As a novice I have a few questions for you regarding this package: -We scored a domain wide detox risk of 1,723. The site has referring root domains with 7113 links to our site. 121 links were classified as high audit priority. 56 as medium audit priority. 221 links were previously disavowed and we uploaded a spreadsheet containing the names of the previously disavowed links. We had LinkDetox include an analysis of no-follow links as they recommend this. Is our score really bad? If we remove the questionable links should we see some benefit in ranking? -Some of the links we disavowed last year are still linking to our site. Is it worthwhile to include those links again in our new disavow file? -Prior to filing a disavow we will request that Webmaster remove offending links. LinkDetox offers a package called Superhero for $469.00 that automates the process. Does this package effectively help with the entire process of writing and tracking the removal requests? Do you know of any other good alternatives? -A feature called "Boost" is included in the LinkDetox Super Hero package. It is suppose to expedite Google's processing of the disavow file. I was told by the staff at Link Detox that with Boost Google will process the disavow within a week. Do you have any idea if this claim is valid??? It would be great if it were true. Thanks for your feedback, I really appreciate it!!! Alan p2S6H7l

I'll have to dig deeper than my local big-box retail store.  This is a url from a random screw at Home Depot: http://www.homedepot.com/p/Grip-Rite-8-x-2-1-2-in-Phillips-Bugle-Head-Coarse-Thread-Sharp-Point-Polymer-Coated-Exterior-Screws-1-lb-Pack-PTN212S1/100173447 This product exhibits the issue.  Product name, size (8 x 2 1/2), style (Phillips, Bugle Head), Thread (Coarse), Point (sharp), Coating  etc.

Issue 1: I think your intended ranking page is not indexed. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:http:%2F%2Fwww.localsearch.com.au It's probably because, as Donna indicated, you have so many pages. This happens when you have what are essentially search pages that are indexed. Stuff happens like having a page for plumbing and plumbers in the same city, for example. In the short term, you can make sure that non-indexed pages are linked to across the site. Long-term you're going to want to think of a way to organize your site to make sure Google and users can find the most important pages. For example, add breadcrumbs back to the city page, and have the city page linking to your most important types of pages (even if they're still searches) for the city. Right now your city pages are just more search pages, which is a big wasted opportunity to layout which pages you most want people to find. Also make sure  you figure out what's going on between these two "types" of the exact same page. There should only be one for the same results where possible: http://www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW http://www.localsearch.com.au/Search?where=Gosford,NSW Issue 2: Look at the "linked from" and figure out where these bad pages are linked to on the site. Google wouldn't make up a URL if someone wasn't linking to them, and my guess is your site is causing them. With a highly-dynamic site like yours it's usually either a crawl trap or a combination of dynamic URLs through a particular path that the server wasn't expecting. Alternatively, and maybe more likely, Google has been trying to parse Javascript lately, and doing a rather poor job of it. I've seen Google try to find links in Javascript that were never intended to be links. You can either ignore these errors and wait for Google to get better, or you can dig into the JS with a dev and see what's causing Google to interpret something as a link. There's usually another way to put the code together where Google understands.

Hello! The categories we display are close matches to what already exists on various search engines. You would need to reach out to each service to request they add those categories.

Joost - that's correct! Yes, I assume woocommerce, since they are product pages.

Hi there Don't block pages or directories because they have duplicate/missing titles - instead, fix them - those pages may provide value and you could be missing some big opportunities. "...we can leave things as is without worrying about the page being de-ranked/penalized." - you're blocking the page in your robots.txt, so you're already not being indexed. If you are looking to index these pages, you need to remove that robots.txt. Go through, assess your titles and page content, and change your titles to be uniquely relevant to the content on that page. If you have the opportunity as well, do a content audit to see if pages can be condensed or expanded. Hope this all helps! Good luck!

I thought this question would be very interesting to lots of people.  someone please!

Hi Tom! Thanks for reaching out, and sorry for the confusion! The best section for this would be to head over to the 'Duplicates' tab from your main Moz Local Dashboard. From there, you'll be able to us the 'Add alternates' function to list any other names, addresses or phone numbers that we should pull in for you