Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Yes, but I would take it easy and go relatively slowly on this over the next few weeks:

1. Start by excluding the pages from search engines by adding them to your robots.txt.
2. Wait until this is picked up by search engines and you slowly start to see the pages disappear from their index.
3. Remove them in batches from your site (you can do them all at a time, but not sure what your risk is here in terms of overall traffic).

Same as Mazen, I only see a few warnings for the Product schema on the page. A few other structured data pieces to think about for this page:

• ItemList
• WebPage/Website
• Organization

Pages that are behind a login or need authentication don't really add up any additional logic for SEO as Google can't see them either. So that's why I usually would focus most of my attention on the public pages.

Very simple: It's just not available for that site. It basically means that the site is not in the index from Moz.

Agreed, these are terrible recommendations and if your competitors would have these links you would likely report them.

Hi

Check the Google Search Console forums, to see if there is a bug or delay in reporting data. Sometimes the data falls flat and will be restored within a few days.

Martijn.

Hi John,

It depends on how much content they're planning to report there and if they're going to be using a canonical tag or not. In most cases at a small scale I wouldn't worry too much about duplicate content. Especially as they're sometimes rewriting the articles. Duplicate content is usually an issue in my opinion if you're actually stealing the content and if you're doing it at large scale (dozens of articles weekly).

Martijn.

1. So for the first one what you want to do is a redirect and add the trailing slash. The .htaccess lines that you want to put in for that are:

RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !(/$|.)
RewriteRule (.*) %{REQUEST_URI}/ [R=301,L]

You could go that route, but I would honestly ignore it and focus on some other issues ;).

Hi Katherine,

I think you can simplify the Schema as you're making items for every URL but, in the end, they're not necessarily separate objects. I'm not sure if that's actually causing the issues, but I do know that you for sure can't list the same URLs in there multiple times. So try this format:

Martijn

1. Report it, but if they're getting caught they won't' have any luck.

2. Ignore the Moz metrics on this, clearly Moz didn't catch it.

I agree with effectdigital. It's near impossible that the number of subscribers is going to help you rank better. But indirectly it could obviously provide you with a lot more abilities to get links and mentions that will help your authority-building efforts. Everything related to that will help push your rankings upwards.

Hi Ken,

While you might be able to not see any issues with this when you would implement it I would say it's far from recommended. In the end, you're basically then telling Google that all internal links can also not be followed. So if you would, in the blog post, link to other internal sources you wouldn't pass any value around from there either.

Martijn.

It's the DOM Content Load Time or Total Load Time that you see in the console of your browser (usually under Network in your console). That number gives a good representation of how fast your site could be. That's usually what people are referring too. What I would want to add to this is that you should measure this based on the First Page Load as otherwise it could be affected by pages that load cached assets.

Hi Jonathan,

I agree with you, I'd say it's complete overkill for most sites that only have 1 country & language that they're targeting. If it could be a country that covers multiple languages then I would reconsider this. But with most companies that I've seen work with HREF Lang it's already a lengthy and intense process that usually is only worth it when you focus on creating content for multiple languages.

Martijn.

Within Google Search Console the actual errors are highlighted for the pages that you're running into, in the end it doesn't apply in most cases to all your pages. Have you looked into these pages and put them through the Structured Data Testing Tool?

It could be, but if you don't have any crawl data available from your log files you likely can't say with certainty that the two are related.

Set it manually on where it lives best, or programmatically let them pick the one that is most relevant. I would not implement any logic based on where users are coming from. You're likely well of by spending your engineering resources better than doing that for SEO.

Hi!

In this case Moz, isn't the smartest with their tool. What they're doing here is just checking the total source code apparently for the number of keyword matches in there. But what this does is that it's also checking all your META tags in the head. In your case I see at least another 4 mentions in there from OG:Description, OG:Title and Twitter:Title and Twitter:Description.

Another 4 mentions are currently happening in your Schema.org at the top for Organization, that's where I just stopped looking for more instances as they're probably just hidden somewhere else in either ALT tags or other snippets.

So I would, in this case, go with your own calculations for just using the number of mentions that is on the page and ignore the number that Moz is reporting here. Hopefully, Moz will change this over time and only check the occurrences in the actual BODY content.

Martijn.

It could, I would say it's depending on how large of a brand you are in the space that you want to rank for. In tons of cases for bigger brands, it makes more sense to add their brand name to the title of the page in the SERP as it will have a higher awareness of people who are already familiar with it and that's why it'll increase their CTR. In most cases, I would say that it's better to test this assumption at a larger scale to see what the actual impact is of removing/adding the brand name.