Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I agree with all of the comments above. Your homepage is going to be a hodgepodge of keywords and phrases that catch people, and from there I tend to agree with the one keyword per page thought. If your website is only 10 pages deep, optimizing for 200 words is going to be a little crazy. If your website has 2,000 pages and hundreds of products, it's a little easier. We are still writing content for Google & for Customers. I personally think we have to aim at our customers more that at Google. There are a few things to take into account for keywords, and in my opinion this part of SEO is pretty similar to good old fashioned marketing and in the big picture you are looking at short-tail vs. long-tail marketing. I'll give 2 examples. So let's say you sell coffee. The short-tail keywords for this would be the generic keywords that every coffee company on the planet is using. Coffee Beans Coffee Cup Dark Roast Light Roast Etc. Long-Tail keywords are obviously more specific. French Dark Roast Coffee Flux Capacitor Blend #88 How Much Caffeine Should I Drink to Optimize My Website? How Many Cups of Coffee are In The Great Lakes? The difference being as follows. Short term keywords are generic, all encompassing. You will be competing with everybody and are going to be much more difficult to optimize for. The long tail keywords are much more specific and although not searched for as often, will be easier to optimize for (generally) and if someone is searching for something as specific as "Flux Capacitor Blend #88" I tend to believe they will probably convert into a sale/lead. Odds are if your writing good solid content for your website the short tail keywords are probably on there anyway! That coupled with Google's Hummingbird update have really changed how I optimize a website. Keywords are still vital for research, but I will ask you this question. When was the last time you searched for one or 2 words? So I would personally pick about 30 keywords maybe a mix of short-tail & long tail. As you progress from there you can add to the list as you climb the ranks!

Thanks Ran, It’s good to know this  isnt appearing due to an upgrade……I need to stop being a Luddite and move with the times !

Interesting that many folks still think hosting videos on YouTube help with ranking. Sure, keep your visitors on your site, but more often than not, visitors prefer to watch a larger video on YouTube. They leave your site, possibly break your analytics funnels, maybe increase bounce rate, and you even have distracting ads on the videos. I'd try something like Vzaar or host on your own server. Calculate if your bandwidth would cost anything and get all that traffic, especially if the video URL is your own domain. Add that to a video sitemap, mark it up with schema.org, and then you have something that would help you much more than pushing your video out to sites that want to earn money from people watching your branded content. But if you still wanna do that, of course all the social media sites like Google+, Facebook, etc, then there is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_hosting_services

Hey Hardley, I concur with Kevin's point below. Giving all of your traffic to YouTube isn't the best idea. Phil Nottingham's research has shown that an extremely low number of users click through to links in YouTube descriptions. Naturally, YouTube is the 2nd biggest search engine on the web and people will find you within it, but you should consider self-hosting your videos so the traffic lands on your website. Wistia is a great solution for that. All that said, YouTube pages pretty much follow the same rules as any other page on the web with regard to Google. On-page optimization with keyword-relevant copy, titles and metadata and off-page optimization in the form of links. Do those things as you normally would and your videos will rank in Google. The on-page factors and engagement metrics lead to its ranking within YouTube. YouTube also has its own Keyword Research tool so you can identify the terms that need to be placed in your tags, descriptions and titles. -Mike

pretty self explanatory really! Thanks Martijn

As Martijn said before me it's very important that the anchor text is natural. Nowadays Google also looks at surrounding text so the actual anchor text has lost it's value. I would recommend that your bloggers link better than they do now. A click here link is indeed not the best approach. The company name should be find if it's to the homepage, but for a product page it would be better to use the product name or something relevant. (Nimbus 2000 VS Broom for example) Don't over optimize though. Google doesn't like manipulators, just let your reviewers make up the anchor texts. Most you can do is to ask them to place the link in a more appropriate sentence than 'click here'.

How you are checking the rank will influence the result. Checking from your own computers that often "visit" your own site can make your own pages show up better in the rankings. Did you try using a rank checking service, or  an anonymous Google search tool like startpage.com ?

Hardley 111, NAP stands for name, address, phone number

Keri, There are some excellent profiles that can share your content, unlike other "services" that are paid to share, the people sharing the posts are actually reading and finding them interesting enough to share. Of course, there are some that click on each and every share button just to get the credits, but as viralcontentbuzz "pays" by how popular you are based on metrics (I think from Klout) those that share just for the credits can't do you no harm. I've used them for several posts and some ended up with tweets from high level profiles that got retweets, favs, etc. I am totally against their paid version as it could become a paid to share scheme, which ends up as a way of spamming the networks, but still, high end profiles won't share everything just for the points, they have a "reputation" to maintain.

Hi Hardley, I'd recommend using the search operators that Moz has built into Fresh Web Explorer (see attached). Adding quotation marks around your brand name will likely narrow down the results. Hope this helps! Tim YVIg0ob

Hi Hardley, Yes, you can! In Moz Analytics, go to Search > Keyword Rankings in the sidebar. Once that report loads, go to the Ranking tab (see attached). This will bring up a list of all your keywords. Click on one of your keywords and it will take you a report that shows the historical rankings for that keyword over the last several weeks. Tim dgwa1GG

Hi Hardly, did any of these responses answer your question? Please give us an update, thanks! Christy

Could it be that FollowerWonk is looking for just both of those words on the page, instead of as a phrase? Sorry for the delay in response, as I was out on vacation for a week.

Hi Pete! Without knowing quite a bit more, I'm going to have to agree with Peter. I took a look at your account and the site, and I'm not seeing rel="canonical" anywhere on the site. If that is how your Web company initially solved the issue, it looks like it's since been removed. I took a look at the crawl diagnostics CSV, and it looks like a lot of the issue is due to the ecommerce platform itself. This may be difficult to fix, but it also should be extremely harmful. In a lot of cases, though, it looks like there are very minor variations on the same URLs causing them to be picked up as duplicates—for example, a version of a URL with one capital letter is showing up as a duplicate version of the same URL without a capital letter. Rel="canonical" should definitely help with that. Matt

Without going into an insane amount of detail, if you have the budget, I'd try a little bit of everything.  For you, I would suggest: Retargeting: Display ads to people who have been to your site, but didn't convert. Placement targeting: Use Google ad planner, or just surf the web to find sites that are relevant to your demographic and show ads. Interest category targeting: I'd use this if there are relevant categories for you to target.  If they're too broad, cross it with some topic or keyword targeting. Keyword targeting is the oldest, and doesn't work as well as it used to for us.  You could use this to explore and find new placements, then add them to your placement targeting campaign. Topic targeting is bad on its own in my experience. Demographics is great, but will reduce volume a lot.  If it's already a weight loss site you're putting your ad on, there's probably no need to apply it here.  A lot of people reside in the "Unknown" categories for Gender and Age. If you're an existing Adwords customer and have reps, you can get into their search companion marketing beta.  We've been seeing great results from this.  For example, when someone searches for "weight loss", and clicks through to a page with Google ads, you can now target them on the display network. Remember that you can apply remarketing lists and demographics to search as well as display!  And also be wary of mobile if that's not great for you.  Now with enhanced campaigns, you're automatically opted into mobile... I've had different experiences than Dana, I've had by far the most success with Adwords, little success with Facebook, and no success with StumbleUpon.  Twitter is also another viable option, and they have their own set of targeting options (and you have to run a Twitter account already).  LinkedIn doesn't sound right for this.  YouTube could be good too, although the CPCs there tend to be pretty high. I would think Facebook should be good for you... you can target to women of a certain age who like other weight loss products.

In my experience there is not single size that is significantly better than another. It really does depend on the products your advertising and the sites they're being advertised on! It is best to get ads in as many of the supported sizes as you can, then run them all and then review their individual performance, pausing or deleting as necessary. You simply won't know which works best until you try a few different ones out If it helps, I've recently ran a display campaign and my 300 x 250 and 336 x 280 are performing very well, however I have had to pause my 200 x 200 and 468 x 80 ones as they were performing very poorly!

Just noting that this discussion continues here: http://moz.com/community/q/ongoing-duplicate

Ok, Here there could be two things, eaither the CMS you are using is keep generating suplicate content which is why this duplicate content issue rise again or someone have made some changes in the website which remove the chacnes done by your developer. Hope this helps!

Couple of reasons, check out this similar question it might help: http://moz.com/community/q/meta-description-tag-missing-in-crawl-diagnostics

Nope, these are unrelated issues. The lack of meta descriptions is an error in your code.