Welcome to the Q&A Forum

We don't seem to be having any issues with this report. Have you tried running it again?

Glad to hear thats all fixed! Though i will say thats a very slow response time for any development / hosting company typically i would expect a maximum response time of 8 hours.. We try to keep it under 2 heh. But yes, glad thats working for you now

In my experience, leaving the products up with links to the category page or a similar item has worked the best for me. A lot of people still search for items that were discontinued 2-4 years ago, so removing the pages didn't work well for us.  There is a meta tag you can use to tell Google the product is discontinued, but most of my customers really like being able to go to the old products and find similar models. I am in the generator industry, so years down the road someone could be searching for their model looking for a manual or something which is another big reason we keep the old products up. We also carry small parts, When those items are discontinued we redirect to category page with a message that says the product you are looking for is no longer available, please see these other suggestions or call us. If something is just out of stock, we leave the product alone and update the availability.

Many business asked about migrating data with change of ranking. I suggest SEO URLs migration plugins to supports users to transfer data successfully and safely. Check it: http://litextension.com/seo-urls-migrations-plugins.html

It is very unlikely that you would receive any penalties for having 404 errors in such a short time frame. It is common for 404 errors to happen, from others linking to pages on your site that don't exist or removed content. Search engines typically just ignore the pages and move on. It would only be problematic if your site continually creates new 404 errors. This would show a pattern of bad site design and may hurt you. Hope this helps, Don

This question has been correctly answered here:

A bit late to answering but yeah, they are right with the 303. Stick with a 301 for seo purposes.

Nice discussion going on here, with Egol making some very good points. Personally, I am not a fan of the multi-site approach. It's the brand that needs to be built as the authority, for all of its services. And when it comes to Local, having shared NAP on more than one website can cause citation difficulties. So, again, this comes down to having a single authoritative source representing your business on the web. This tends to be the consensus of opinion on the Local SEO world - 1 site is better than 2.

Hi Kraismir, While you're correct about the prev/next tags, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will want to use page 2 as an entry point to your website. Also, there is no content on page 2 which differentiates itself from page 2 - the title tags and meta descriptions are also the same. This is a very common issue with paginated pages and there are many examples of sites using the technique I described above. Take a look at the source code of page 2 of Yoast.com or page 3 of Laughing Squid and you'll see the same implementation.

Good advice Matt-POP! Thanks for taking the time to respond. I totally get what you mean. I think I'll go for the quick start and look to build a bigger LMS system in the background once I have proven my awesome training skills and that people are prepared to buy them. Thanks again.

Hi Ash! Thanks for taking the survey! Were you able to enter your email address? That's the only information you'll need. If you win, we'll reach out via email to get your details.

Alick300, Thank you. That was the true evidence straight from the Google source that validates this question my client had! Thank you again.

Well I'm glad to hear you've had a traffic increase at least! We're seeing different things at Majestic. I'm seeing 124 different domains with deleted links. Examples include: <colgroup><col width="470"></colgroup> | http://blog.sellingpower[dot]com/ | | http://www.honeywellaidc[dot]com/en-US/partners/Pages/find-a-partner.aspx | | http://www.sellingpower.typepad[dot]com/ | | http://www.dcvelocity[dot]com/whitepapers/ | | http://spectrumsuppliermarketplace[dot]com/Listing/Index/Printing__Surface_Treatment/Bar_Coding/3497/681 | | http://www.thomasnet[dot]com/products/barcode-labels-42422006-1.html | | http://www.business[dot]com/technology/electronics/ | | http://www.supplychain247[dot]com/company/supply_chain_services | | http://fc.webmasterpro.de/stat.php?name=hotelab&source=referer | I agree the purchasingandsupplysourcingguide link is active. I see that as well. "A_nd I run my report against the same competitors every month but theirs actually increased_."  Sorry, here I don't know what report you're referencing. Are you saying you run Moz reports each month that tells you the number of links you and your competitors have? I thought Moz used Open Site Explorer data for that - the same data we're talking about so can't speak to that. Lastly, yes - none of the tools are 100% accurate. They're all based on sampling and projections. Yes, I agree Moz estimates tend to be lower than other sources of link data.  I really think the reason you're seeing such a huge variation in link counts is because of the small number of sources you have for incoming links and the relatively small sample size Moz uses to make it's projections. I agree 80% is huge, but from what I can see in Majestic, you've lost 60% (124 of 198) of your link sources recently so that would explain it, at least partially. That's the best I can come up with Ken.

Hey there, This is Michael on the Moz Help Team! Sorry to hear about the trouble here. To see the source of those errors, you’ll need to export your full Crawl Diagnostics CSV, which you can do by clicking the "Email CSV" button at the bottom of the issues overview. Once the report generates, it will be emailed to you and you will want to open it up in something like Excel. In the first column, perform a search for the URL of the page you are looking for. When you find the correct row, look in the column labeled Referrer (column AM). This tells you the referral URL of the page where our crawlers first found the target URL. You can then visit this URL to find where we linked to that page. Hope that helps!

Good answer Ryan. Moreover, Howard, remember that Google - via John Mueller - advised that if site A is penalized, simply deleting it and cloning in a new domain B but not having solved the issues that cause site A being penalized, that won't "save" domain B from being penalized too after short time.

Thanks guys! I didn't think it would make a difference, but wanted to get another point of view. I appreciate it!

Excellent. Glad I could help Mase. It sounds like you have the right perspective on this as well.  Cheers!

Hi Riccardo, There are couple of errors with your code there. Firstly, the noindex attribute is used at a page level, not link level. If you want to noindex a page you should use the meta robots tag on the page itself. There is more information on the meta robots tag here. The nofollow attribute however, can be used at link level. You're essentially telling the search engines not to crawl this link. Secondly, the attribute isn't wrapped around any text so it's wasted code having it there. If you want your anchor text, 'Kumar' to be in italics, you should close the tag after the word. Also, replacing the tag with an tag (short for emphasis) is considered good practice. ____Finally, try not to use spaces in your anchor text. Modifying your code in this way will give you this: If you want the anchor text to be in italics: Kumar If you do not want the anchor text to be in italics: Kumar If you're interested in learning more about HTML (it's really easy!) W3C Schools is a good place to start. Happy coding!____

In that case you will have to install/use another type of light box - the two examples I menitioned offer the possibility to integrate iframes. rgds Dirk