Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks all for the help. After digging a little deeper I discovered that Yoast's inability to run properly in our blog wasn't because of the theme, but because "Your hosting environment does not support PHP's Document Object Model. To enjoy all the benefits of the page analysis feature, you'll need to (get your host to) install it."

I am happy to hear that the community is still a big priority. I personally think that Moz SEO software has become better and better. I use it along with other tools. Things like the content tool and the new keyword tool are really outstanding. Moz analytics has been improving and is a quality tool. I cannot imagine one platform providing everything we need today for search but I am happy with Moz and other tools for unique purposes. My hope is that the community keeps getting better. I'm glad to hear It is considered a priority as well. Thank you or providing such quick feedback. Respectfully, Thomas

Hi Dana! This is perfectly accurate

Thanks Lesley. Yes, I agree. I think the only way we are going to get a definitive answer is to look at the logs. We are working on getting access.

Not a problem, thanks for the kind comments both! Cheers. Dan

Thanks David. Yes, we did this for Travis who responded above. Would you be interested in taking a look as well? If you private message me your username I can have my IT Director set up access for you.

Howdie, Yes, I believe we got this sorted out. Interestingly, it wasn't any of the suggestions made here causing the 301 status code responses. I posted a thread in Google Webmaster Tools Forum regarding the issue and received a response that I am 99.5% sure is the correct answer. Here is a link to that thread for future readers' reference: https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!mydiscussions/webmasters/zOCDAVudxNo I believe the underlying issue has to do with incorrect handling of a redirect for this domain:  ccisound.com I am currently pursuing getting it corrected with our IT Director. Once the remedy is in place, I should know right away if it solves the issue I am seeing in the server logs. I'll post back here once I am 100% certain that was the issue. Thanks all! This has been an interesting one for me!

Excellent answer. Thanks so much Doug. I really appreciate it! Adding a "nofollow" attribute to the Checkout button is a good suggestion and should be fairly easy to implement. I realize that internal nofollows are not normally recommended, but in this instance, may not be a bad idea.

I don't think you came across as defensive at all. I totally get the house-keeping issue. I know the "Bounty" section is something quasi-new...what about the possibility of just moving unanswered questions over there after they've gone unanswered for a set period of time, provided the person who posted responds to admin emails and indicates the question is still unanswered? Perhaps another option would be for the original poster to reverse the "Answered" status? I don't think Moz's intent at marking questions as "answered" was to effectively shut-down a topic, but, unfortunately, I do think that's what happens. I agree with EGOL, I am not looking to see if someone marked my answer as a "good answer" or not, although I am always thankful if they do. What I do do is go back to questions I've answered to see if the person responded with another question or needs clarification on something and I try to help them if I can. Because I know sometimes people who are newer to Q & A often mark a question as "answered" when they read a response they "like" (but not be a complete answer), I'll often encourage them to continue to solicit answers from more people so they can get more input from the community. It would be interesting to see data on how many threads complete stop getting new comments once they are marked as "answered." I bet it's more than 90%...which, from a UGC viewpoint, could mean Moz is losing out on content they would be getting by leaving more threads marked as "unanswered." Hmmm,

Hi Dana, I'm inclined to think that this is a problem with how the tools process links to and from PDFs rather than the passing of PageRank through PDFs itself as well, although I am not sure. I would certainly not say no to a link to or from a great PDF if that was the only option, although I have also actively encouraged clients to re-publish their quality content housed in PDF format as HTML and redirect the PDF file to the new source. We're just a lot more sure about how authority passes through HTML files.

Hi Dana, The problem when it comes to passing authority internally is that properly paginated and crawled listing pages can be one of the primary routes via which Google finds and assigns authority to internal pages. Unless those products are linked to elsewhere, they're not going to be found if they cannot be found on a URL like http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/audio-technica?page=2, ?page=3 etc. The lack of a unique URL with content changed dynamically also means that there never could be a good flow of authority through the site as Google does not have new pages to crawl and new outbound links to index / follow on those pages. Your diagram is correct - the second option (Page 1 ---authority---> page 2 ----authority---> page 3... ) is what you're looking for with pagination.

Anthony, thanks so much for chiming in. My gut instinct is to agree with you. I think I'm going to sit on this one and think about it for a little bit. It will also give me some time to formulate the best approach if I do decide to ask him to change the links to "nofollow."

Thanks so much Gianluca for this thoughtful and valuable advice. Yes, page load speed is definitely something that's been a concern. This is why we went back to 24 products displayed per page instead of 50 a few months ago. However, since then we've made some significant improvements in page load times and we think we can probably go up to 100 products per page and still be fairly fast. We will have to test. On the up side, we only have 7 categories with more than 100 products, and only 24 with more than 50. The biggest problem we have effecting speed isn't so much the images. It's the fact that the website does real-time pricing calls on every product to ou business back end every time the page loads. This may be a sticking point. I have also thought about the canonical tag problem. Of course, it's a problem now too, but if the "View All" page just ends up getting that generic URL and no proper canonical tag...then we really are back to square one. The possibility of no-indexing all of the categories that are related to paginated series is something that crossed my mind yesterday, so it's interesting that you mentioned that. While it would solve certain issues, wouldn't this be a problem in terms of having valuable content in Google? Granted, some of our category pages are purely there for navigation purposes, in which case, I suppose there's no harm in no-indexing them. However, with the roll-out of Hummingbird I began looking at our category pages as valuable opportunities for "topics" pages that could act as a hub for visitors searching for products or information around specific uses or brands. Wouldn't there be a significant risk in losing valuable market share for key terms by removing so many category pages from Google's index? If I am understanding your last suggestion you are saying to have the page default to "View All" and noindex everything else...You are right, not a great scenario, but you are also right in that this may be the only solution given management's steadfast stance on not wanting to pay to fix it. Lot's to think about, but your comment has been extremely helpful. Thanks again!

Thanks so much Bill and Brian. This is exactly what I was thinking. I did the same thing Bill suggested initially and took a snippet from one of the reviews and did a verbatim search and got nothing. What I thought this told me was that yes, the page was indexed, but not the content. The fact that the cached version renders the content from the javascript only shows that the script was executed, not necessarily that any of the content it contains was actually indexed. From an SEO standpoint I think this is valuable content that the dealer would very much want indexed. While the service providing the javascript might be very convenient, and the majority of end users might be able to consume the content, the fact that it's not searchable, to me, means it's an opportunity lost. Thanks again everyone.

I read your post at Mstoic Hemant and noticed your comment about Firefox 10. Since I couldn't get Dust-Me Spider to work in my current version of Firefox I tried downloading and installing the older version 10 as you suggested. When I did so, I received the message that the Dust-Me Spider was not compatible with this version of Firefox and it was disabled. We are considering purchasing the paid version of Unused CSS (http://unused-css.com/pricing) - Do you have any experience using the upgraded version? Does it deliver what it promises? Thanks!

Thank you all so very very much. Matt, I am going to drop you a PM as you suggested. Paul, wow...thank you for sharing your insights here. I am sure this is extremely helpful information not just for me, but for many other folks here who've observed some of the same things on their sites. Yes, I agree that the conversion issue could very well be a mobile optimization problem and not a Safari problem as we have spent very little to no time optimizing our mobile site. Given the traffic levels coming in via that channel, it's probably time to get crackin'! You guys are awesome!

Thanks Alex. Wil Reynolds actually gave me a copy of Influence at MozCon this past summer and I found it completely fascinating. I read it twice. I think that one's a definite keeper. Don't Make me Think is a very amusing, smart, astute, relevant, fast and easy read, which makes it a good choice for busy people who still want to learn something. You've got me curious about Out of the Ordinary so I'm going to hop over to Amazon and check it out. I'll let you know how it all shakes out!

Hi EGOL, Wow, thank you so very much. This is one of the best answers I've ever received, probably the best, here in Q & A. Your thoughtful comments and suggestions are so appreciated. Honestly, you gave me a check list of things that have potential to be pure gold for us if we act on them. Yes, you are correct, this is the site that had many issues with content being under tabs. It's also got a tremendous amount of duplicate and thin content issues, in addition to orphaned pages. Progress has been coming along, slowly and surely, but having your comments, and having them be so specific, pointed and concise are something I can take to my team and say "Here's an awesome check list of  things that we can actually address right now, without re-platforming the site [you know, there are always people who think that the root of all a site's problems is the platform that it's on...pure mythology]." I hope many others find your check list useful. Combined with Annie's audit spreadsheet in Google docs, I feel like I have the tools I need to go to battle and help this site fulfill its potential. Nearly every point you mentioned struck a chord. Better yet, now that I know my way around the "guts" of this homegrown CMS, I feel like I can actually make the necessary changes. Egol, I really can't thank you enough.