Welcome to the Q&A Forum
Browse the forum for helpful insights and fresh discussions about all things SEO.
Gotcha, looks like Mozscape doesn't provide "just" internal or nofollowed for a subdomain. Too bad. Perhaps someone from SEOmoz will notice this post and respond with whether or not they can provide that information via API. Otherwise, you might want to drop them a line at help@seomoz.org.
Good luck, looks like you are working the API to the bone! 
Mat is right, it's happening in the code that creates your "View Larger Image" button below your pages:
<a <="" span="">href="</a>/images/products/detail/AC7034048RoundGlassDiningTable.jpg target="_blank"
The code is not outputting the second "double-quotes" after your anchor tag href property. The page I see this on is "http://www.efurniturehouse.com/Joshua-Glass-Chrome-Dining-Table-Set.aspx", but it looks to be happening everywhere.
Ah ok, do you think Links to Subdomain (bit flag value:4294967296 - Total links (including internal and nofollow links) to the subdomain of the URL) minus the Subdomain External Links (bit flag value:64 - The number of juice-passing external links to the subdomain of the URL) will give you the number of NoFollowed links?
Edit: updated second bit flag
Hello Kyle, someone tweeted about this recently. You might want to check out the Chrome extension "Scraper":
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/mbigbapnjcgaffohmbkdlecaccepngjd
You would use it with the Chrome browser of course.
Hope this helps!
Ok, I think you are talking about the informational information if you are talking about your campaign in SEOmoz Pro. Yes, it is ok to keep your 301 redirects if they are set up correctly, which it sounds like they are.
Hello HQP,
You should be able to find this information here: http://apiwiki.seomoz.org/url-metrics.
The total juice-passing (followed) external links to a page should have a bit flag value of 32.
The total juice-passing (followed) external links to a root domain should have a bit flag value of 128.
You can also get the total juice-passing (internal or external) links to a page with a bit flag value of 256.
Hope this helps!
Hello Martin,
Yes, duplicate content can affect your search positions. Since your site can be accessed either with or without the www, you are likely going to have issues with duplicate content. You can fix this either with a 301-redirect or with canonical links.
You can read about 301 redirecting here:
http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/redirection
And you can read about canonical links here:
http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/canonicalization
Hope this helps!
Yes, you are correct. But only if you have a base link in the document:
<base href="http://www.ccisolutions.com/">
This is a very good example for why you may want to stick to Absolute URLs. With an absolute URL you only need to know the actual URL of the page:
Hopefully I'm not adding even more to the fire, but now might be a good time to change "StoreFront" to "storefront" all lowercase. I think lowercase URLs are better if you can use them.
Also just to clarify, when you state they are using "relative" URLs, are you talking about "www.ccisolutions.com/page1.html" vs. "http://www.ccisoultions.com/page1.html"?
If this is true, then both versions are absolute URLs. A relative URL is different. Here are a few examples of relative URLs:
page1.html
/products/page1.html
../products/page1.html
../images/image1.jpg
/images/image1.jpg
image1.jpg
Each of the above are "relative links". Absolute links look like the following and don't necessarily need the "http://":
www.ccisolutions.com/products/page1.html
http://www.ccisolutions.com/products/page1.html
Hope this helps too.
Document refers to the single web page you are placing the canonical link on.
The base link is referring to the URL you can provide as the href property for the base tag. The base tag can be included in the head of your HTML document.
Example base link:
<base href="http://www.ccisolutions.com/">
If you choose to use the example base link above and this relative URL:
Your canonical link will end up referring to “http://www.ccisolutions.com/page1.html”.
Here is a second example, this time using a new base link which includes the products directory:
<base href="http://www.ccisolutions.com/products/">
If you choose to use this new base link and the following relative URL:
Your canonical link will end up referring to “http://www.ccisolutions.com/products/page1.html”.
If you choose to use this new base link and this relative URL:
Your canonical link will actually refer to one-level-up from your base link or “http://www.ccisolutions.com/page1.html”. I'm not sure if you're familiar with the syntax "../" (dot dot slash), but it means to go up one level from the current directory.
The use of base links for canonical linking might be useful for a CMS where the content is generally dynamically created. It might be good to sit down with your developers and discuss which tactic would be best for the site in question.
I am including a link to this SEOmoz blog post in case it is also of help.
Edit: expanded on the explanations...
Hello Dana,
I suggest reading this over: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139394
Midway down the page, Google states:
Can the link be relative or absolute?
rel="canonical"can be used with relative or absolute links, but werecommend using absolute links to minimize potential confusion or
difficulties. If your document specifies a base link, any relative links
will be relative to that base link.
Hope this helps!
Personally, I would focus on other site concerns to start. Unless your site takes forever to load, I would give priority to content, site architecture, internal linking structure, etc... before site speed.
Here's a good post for determining whether you should be worrying about site speed:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/site-speed-are-you-fast-does-it-matter
Hope this helps!
I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but I think I know why Google is indexing these pages.
Right now, you are outputting URLs into your source code of your page in the form of a JavaScript function call similar to the following:
I believe this is because your page (and this function call) is programmatically created. Instead of outputting the whole URL to the page, you could output only what needs to be there.
For example:
Then change the signature of the JavaScript function so that it accepts this new input and builds the URL from your inputs:
function initSlider(price, low, high, category, subcategory, product, store, ajax, ?) {
// build URL
var URL = 'http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/' + category + '/' + subcategory + '/' + product + '.html?_' + store + '&' + ajax;
// continue...
}
Right now, because that URL is being outputted to the page, I think Google sees it as a URL it should follow and index. If you build this URL with the function in an external JavaScript file, I don't think it will be indexed.
Your developer(s) should know what I'm talking about.
Hope this helps!
Hello! Here's another similar question that has been answered:
http://www.seomoz.org/q/google-penguin-question-re-footer-links
Personally, I would continue using your brand name and just remove the keywords. Others may feel differently, but I like to continue marketing my brand and a link with my brand name is going to be more natural than exact match anchor text for the keywords I'm targeting.
Here's what I would do:
Website designed by Brand Name
Hope this helps!
Looks like AoV and I posted at the same time. AoV is exactly right. We're both pretty much saying the same thing. Add a Cols parameter and you should be good to go.
Good luck!
I just submitted a YOUmoz post on this topic. Hopefully it runs the gauntlet and is approved.
The Mozscape API used to provide everything if you did not provide a Cols parameter to the request. Now you need to send a Cols value with the summed up total of all the bit flags you want the request to return. You can find all of the URL Metrics bit flags and their values here.
Here's an example using your URL and these bit flags: Title (1), URL (4), External Links (32).
http://[member-ID]:[secret key]@lsapi.seomoz.com/linkscape/url-metrics/greatbritishchefs.com?Cols=37
The value 37 represents the bit flags you want to get back added together like so:
Title (1) + URL (4) + External Links (32) = 37
Hope this helps!
On your web server there is a configuration file that ends in ".conf". This file will have settings for the virtual host, it will look something like this:
<virtualhost></virtualhost>
ServerAdmin webmaster@example.com
DocumentRoot /var/www/html/example.com/public_html/
ServerName example.com
ServerAlias www.example.com
AccessFileName .htaccess
The web server should only be using a single .htaccess file. The value for the AccessFileName will identify which .htaccess file your server is using. The other files (.htaccess.holding and .htaccess.live) look like they may have been previous versions of your current .htaccess file.
Whichever file is located in this configuration file is the one you will need to edit to fix your issue. From my perspective, you should then be able to delete the other .htaccess files if you want to. You could choose to save a backup in case you feel you may ever need them in the future.
Hope this helps!
Ok, maybe someone else will be able to pop in with some more info. Here's a post with a similar issue from Webmaster World:
