Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thank you both for your insights. Samuel - Great article on owned and earned media! Thanks for sharing!

Yes, sorry, I missed that part! That looks great.

Hi DVOH! I know this is a headache. Not a great answer here for you, but no, there probably isn't much you can do to stem the tide of solicitations. When you build citations manually, you will note that some of the platforms have an auto-checked box for "I want to receive updates and offers about important, etc, etc." that you can uncheck, but, in general, you are going to be stuck with companies trying to market themselves to their customers. Now, regarding Moz Local, if you sign up with us and list all of your clients under your agency's account, we will only contact you, the account holder, with all Moz Local updates. We should not contact any of your clients directly. But, this does not mean your clients may not be contacted at some point by the platforms on which their citations exist, because, as you've said, they are then on the radar of these local business data platforms. I suppose you could have your clients set blocking in their email programs, but that seems like a bit of a stretch. After all, they might miss something important if they did this. And, as for phone calls, there is really no way to reduce this apart from do not call lists. Kind of a pain, I know, but likely a necessary evil If anyone in the community has a second opinion on this, I hope they will share!

Hi Alex! I was wondering if the answer Andy gave you was helpful or not. If it was, I kindly ask you to change the status of this question to "answered". Ciao, and happy searching G.

Yes, doing that is cheating, though not inherently "black-hat". However, it's also foolish to do that for a number of reasons: one of which is that you're putting an entire website in a sub-folder of the actual website. Another is that even with the canonization, they're forcing competition between these pages/sites. Even if they're not being penalized for it now, Google, Bing, and Yahoo will all eventually catch it and that'll be the end for them. A general rule: if you have to question the morality of something, it's probably wrong.

Hi Gannon! Let's take a look together at a well optimized multi-location business like REI.com. Just one site for the brand, but great little pages for each location. See this: http://www.rei.com/stores/corte-madera.html Look at the super effort that is being made to include unique content on this city landing page versus the many other cities in which this company has stores. To me, this is the best possible business model for any multi-location local business. All possible benefits accrue to the overall brand rather than being split up between a bunch of different websites, while individual city landing pages benefit from the strength of the overall brand. I am not a fan of a multi-site approach for local businesses. I am much more in favor of every effort you make strengthening the overall website and brand at a single source. A way I find helpful to think about this is: Core pages like Home, About, Products, Services - optimized for the brand. Locational pages like city landing pages, Contact and blog posts - optimized for brand+ location And, yes, you'll want to build a completely new set of citations for the 2nd location, and, if you decide to create a landing page on the site for the 1st location, as you have for the 2nd, you should edit the original citations to reflect the new landing page instead of the homepage. Will you lose rankings? It's possible that you could temporarily, but if the business is on the verge of expanding, you have to think to the future and have a strategy for properly marketing each of the locations as they are developed. Definitely look at the way REI has done this. I find them to be a great role model!

Hi, I did a quick crawl of your site with Screamingfrog - basic site structure seems to be ok - most of the pages are within 1/2 clicks from the homepage. The url's are pretty long - but that is not necessarily a sign that they are far from the root. I noticed that you are using a lot of (very) heayv images on the site and that these images are pushing the content to the bottom, invisible without scrolling. Example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/fattransfertobutt2.jpg -> 1.150 KB for one image. This has an impact on the loadtime of your pages - see: http://www.webpagetest.org/result/150110_FW_KEY/1/details/ . Some of the images are put on the non-www version, so needing an additional redirect. If I look at your page titles, H1, meta descriptions - it seems that they are very specific, but not really answering the questions a potential user of this site may have. Example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/services/non-invasive-treatments/skin-rejuvenation/matrix-ir-laser-treatment/ => page title: Matrix IR Laser Treatment - New Radiance Palm Beach H1: Matrix IR - Metadescription: Matrix is an amazing wrinkle reduction procedure that uses ...etc -> few people will be looking for Matrix, so probably you need to do some keyword research and see what are the keywords which by your target audience. Language used on the different pages is very commercial and not very informative.While most of the images are quite good in terms of quality, the images of staff are not sharp, and certainly do not look professional (example http://www.radianceofpalmbeach.com/about-new-radiance/neil-c-goodman/- the profile picture looks like a scan from a picture taken in the 80ties) Dirk

Hi Edmond, Like Ray pointed out, there could be multiple reasons. If you'd like another set of eyes, feel free to PM me as well.

There are many times where I would take something similar to Scott's tact. I agree as well, he mentioned some good general practices. But this site has been in the wild for a bit and you just acquired it. This means there's a good bit of homework to do before overhauling the entire permalink structure, for what I suspect is a considerable number of pages/posts. Knowing nothing else, the safest opinion I can render is to keep the structure as is for existing pages/posts (current traffic/link/revenue considerations) - and consider a custom post type and custom permalink workaround ('Sperimenting! Woooo!) for fun and profit(?). Your developer, or the WP development community, may have a better solution. Though I generally tend to disagree with doing things simply because the competition is doing the same. If nothing else, the mentality tends to bleed over into everything. Just think of all the wasted time/opportunities. Some differentiation can be a good thing. But if the custom permalink URLs tend to out-perform the slightly-lesser-than-pretty URLs over time, you can do a cost/benefit of total URL permalink change. (Rewrites... rewrites as far as the eye can see... buzzlightyear.jpg) But yeah, you'll probably have to confront the previous posts/pages permalinks at some time. I'm just saying confront the issue with some primary data, with the aid of secondary data.

I'm afraid its a job to be done manually (you can bulk upload the keywords so don't panic too much!) you can find out how to here - http://moz.com/help/guides/search-overview/keyword-rankings/add-and-manage-keywords 1,000 is rather a lot is may be worth looking if you need that many e.g. are they all getting month searches etc.  depending on what Moz plan you've got you may not have enough keywords in your campaign be able to add that many. Take a look at http://moz.com/beginners-guide-to-seo/keyword-research if you want some ideas Hope that helps.

You have a inside the but not thethat it is closing. That is just to start. The rest of that code needs cleanup and is mostly unnecessary--you wouldn't need two spans; the letter-spacing has no value, etc. What is best is to properly define the h1 in the CSS and then use Your Page Title . If you need to modify the h1 (maybe it is defined for a group of pages and on this particular page you want something a little different), do it as simply as possible. (The span attributes in your example probably would not do anything, assuming a white background, though that depends on how the class google-mixed, is defined...)

Dean is correct! As long as you are logged in simply head over to moz.com/billing and you'll find all of your historical invoices as well!

Hi Remko, Sorry for the late response. Currently you have fietstassen.nl and loodgieter.nl as duplicate content. (as far as I see, you do not have a cross domain canonical, nor a 301 redirect telling Googlebot which version they should index). So it might be a good idea to implement one of them. (301 is usually easier ) Gr., Keszi

Profile links aren't generally great links.  It is however quite natural to have some of them. Like many things in SEO it is a good idea to try to look objectively at them and ask yourself why they exist.  If the links exist because there is genuine involvement in a number of sites (includin niche relevant ones) and those sites are of an acceptable quality then there is no real reason to disavow them.  If they existing because someone thought they would be a good way of getting links or they're in unnatural proportions or the sites are very poor quality then you might want to do somthing about them.  If you have the logins removal might even be better than disavow.

This is the best guide to adding to Wikidata that I could find - http://undead-seo.blogspot.com/2014/03/create-wikidata-topic.html.  I actually came here to Moz hoping I'd find something beyond that, but this seems to be the only thread on the Moz Q&A that even mentions the word "wikidata".