Welcome to the Q&A Forum

RE:

Changed page name, etc - still get a "missing canonical tag" error. At this point, I could be wrong, but I am convinced there's hidden problem, or a bug in the system.

No more posts here, I emailed help@moz.com

What I ended up doing is just changing the page name from default.asp to "fedex-routes-forSale.asp", changing the navigation links and setting an .asp code page to redirect. Effectively skirting the default page canonical syntax conundrum.

This also cleared up the duplicate content issue as well - default vs root - www vs root. etc.

I'm still curious as to the dynamics of this issue, but opted for a nice, tidy PDF for my client, with all issues solved.

I'm getting two "no canonical tag" errors for the default page of a sub-directory default page (www and root)  - again NOT a subdomain.

Since the page is not the root of its own site, I tagged it as --

I have tried without the default.asp, but the error remains. Been doing this for 24 years and don't remember running across this before.

I just "test graded" a TOTAL dog of a page (wordpress site created by a print house) with NO SEO concept at all - main keywords nowhere! No tags.

It amazingly got a 69%. That's like grading an army 69 out of 100 points for having boots polished and uniforms ironed - even though they had no weapons or ammo.

The old version used to measure basic SEO, which is common to mobile, tablet and PC. You could instantly get a fix on where you went wrong. Now you have to weed through peripheral data to get to the meat. NOT an upgrade.

One cost effective benefit of using the root domain (no W's) is in setting up a MOZ campaign. If you set it up as a sub domain - www.sales.com - MOZ will track that version only. If you happen to have sub domains connected to that site - the performance of those keywords will not be tracked.

Setting up your campaign with the root domain, sales.com -- auto.sales.com, homes.sales.com, insurance.sales.com, ad nauseam, will be all tracked within a single campaign slot.

This code ratio metric is merely one of many issues to trigger a spam "conviction". It would seem logical that if you write junk-free code and raise few to no other flags, it should be ignored.

Surely if lean code alone were a violation - there would be no Google page speed tool!

Jeremy - you appear to be "The Man" here.  A very good answer to a less than obvious solution.

I assumed that the link was appended to whatever else I wrote - like an email signature.

Now I know, problem solved - Thanks!!

Exactly!! - this post is supposed to be in the spirit of a feature request.

• " if you're running a campaign for a client and they want a change, you could make that change."

• exactly - they shouldn't have a misleading link saying THEY can make the changes

• "it's unwise to give multiple people direct access to a login for any analytics platform."

• exactly- there should be no link telling the client otherwise.

• "If this was sent to you (presumably the Moz user),..."

• __exactly-I copy myself on client reports, to verify they go out - otherwise I would not be aware of such verbiage.

• I already know I can edit the report - I put it together!!

"I think the intention is that you'd download the report and write your own email."

• WHY? We pay a lot for "branding"

1. Why should it be designed for manual forwarding when it is clearly designed for the client's eyes only?
2. With a number of clients receiving weekly reports - that would be needlessly labor intensive

See below - why is the client offered the (false) ability to change report settings?

• Clients can't login or make changes!
• Why would co-workers need to be mailed reports? - they can just login and see the most recent results
• "To make changes to this report, simply edit your report settings." should simply be completely removed.

Download your report now.

To make changes to this report, simply edit your report settings.

Happy optimizing,

Moz

Damned if you don't - damned if you do - what a nutty game! This is a total surprise. I have been building websites since 1994 and I continued building lean code when bandwidth went up. I don't use CMS - all hand coded asp or, less frequently, PHP. My newer sites are all in the 90's in page speed.

Now I am penalized for this? Shouldn't that message say "Congratulations, Site Mark-up is** Exceptionally **Small"?

RE: http://seUP.net/sell_business-optimization.pdf

This is confusing - above is a link to a branded (by global setting) page grade report I ran, dated October of 2012. I used them all the time to show a prospect how bad his SEO is, like the linked one above. It was a great tool in landing clients. I was a major crusader in the branding issue back then.

NOW - we can only brand them on setup campaigns, and are restricted to keywords being tracked. That is a huge downgrade in service.

I had my server admin do a 301 redirect from the www to the non-www version of a site at the server level (probably like above) - and had no duplicate content issues crop up. That was accomplished without canonical tagging page by page. I do this now with all sites hosted where I have an admin - I am not a backend administrator.

PS - to all those wondering what the amount of stars under a poster's picture means......the more stars they have = the less paid work they have & more free time they have to hang out and yak!!

Ergo - the less stars you have, the busier you are!! Right, Michael ,-]