Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I'm happy for this change because I think one thumbs down would lead to more. For instance, let's say I make what I think is an important (but possibly controversial) comment.  It gets 1 or 2 thumbs down then another then another then another just because people like to pile on. Then, because I got 7 thumbs down, maybe I'm angry. And I take it out on the rest of the comment stream by downing every other comment just so we're "even."  It happens - I am 100% sure of that.

Now, let's say you want to encourage discussion. What does thumbs down do? It makes everyone yes-men & women. Let's just agree, maybe someone will like my comment. Big whoop. lol  I'd rather make the honest critique rather than tell someone what they want to hear.  When I first came back to Moz after a few months off, I almost immediately got 5 very quick thumbs down. It was a reminder that the system in place suggested that I was supposed to just agree with everything everyone says.

Let's put it this way - one of the most discussed, necessary posts on Moz last year had more thumbs down than any I've ever seen on Moz. Yet, it was a necessary conversation no matter which side of the debate you fall on. Negative commentary doesn't have to be a bad thing. I think Moz should encourage more posts like Josh B's, not fewer. If people are less "afraid" to post controversial things for fear of being knocked back, that is good for Moz.

Actually, I'm pretty sure your problem is in your link profile.

http://www.highonseo.com/examples/ahrefs1.jpg

The first image shows your ahrefs backlink profile.  You nearly-instantly gained a couple thousand backlinks. Then lost a bunch quickly as well

So my next question was "are these legit?"

Now look at image 2.

http://www.highonseo.com/examples/ahrefs2.jpg

Out of 92,293 backlinks, you have over 90,000 dofollow links, including over 80,000 sitewide links.  1600 .govs, which is nearly more than your nofollow links.

My brain can't process a link profile that looks like this.  I would love to pull it into a link profile tool to check the DA of your backlinks but because you're https, I can't.

Just speculation on my part but if someone told me they had over 97% dofollow links, as many edu as nofollow and had a huge gain and then watched those links falling off, I'd quickly believe something was wrong.  I always assume Google is two steps ahead of me.  So if I think this backlink profile looks wonky, they must think it's worse.

Majestic Historic Index shows 207 links from 23 domains. You have links out there but OSE hasn't picked them up.  This is mainly a matter of discovery and index size.  The OSE index simply is about 10% of Majestic.

I had a lengthy reply to Rand about this here: http://moz.com/blog/spam-score-mozs-new-metric-to-measure-penalization-risk#comment-328141

What you're seeing is a combination of having only a few live links and OSE's limits.

Yeah, you need to setup either canonicals or a custom robots.txt for this. Unfortunately that's not super easy in Weebly.

I believe some of their templates have a "header code" section that you can edit. If you have that for each blog post (NOT the overall site settings) then just add your canonical to each one.  The canonical should be the main blog post permalink.  This will tell Google that all the other versions aren't the ones you want to "count."

I'd have to find a client with a Weebly to login & check it myself but I do believe you can edit these page by page. Let me know if you want me to take a deeper look.

This question was recently asked over on Inbound and someone linked out to this: https://wordpress.org/plugins/read-metrics-for-google-analytics/

It seems to be brand new so this may be the best at the moment.

It's a display bug.

"We are aware of this issue and are looking into it; you do not need to take any action. We hope to have the normal data shown again in the near future. The data shown there is informational and does not affect your site's crawling, indexing or ranking."

Google commented on it here.

Search Engine Land had a post about it as well - same answer.  It's a display bug, it's not affecting anything.

Hope that helps!

Keyword difficulty tool is brilliant but the 500 limit is too low for agency use. If you even put it up to 1000, we'd be able to use it for pretty much every client but 500 gets us about 5 hours into the day before we're out. I know 500 would work for most people most of the time - but you're missing those who are obsessed with the tool and would write about it, talk about it more, etc. if we could use it as a full time thing like we used to.

Hi Li,

It looks like some of your pages changed in a site move.

The easiest way to do this is to use Xenu or Screaming Frog (programs) to find them and then fix them.

For instance, I found this one: http://www.fashionably-yours.com.au/sizing.php

This one is broken on your site a number of times.  These 3 pages (at least) link to it:

http://www.fashionably-yours.com.au/leigh_dress_lilac/
http://www.fashionably-yours.com.au/bjc-blue-tier-chiffon-mother-of-bride-dress/
http://www.fashionably-yours.com.au/black-mariska-knee-length-chiffon-gown-xs-xl/

The theme seems to work fine, it's the internal linking that seems to be the biggest issue.

I am assuming they have hardcoded it themselves into their site using the same idea as the plugin does. When you said you wanted to copy it, that plugin I linked is probably the best way unless you get a developer to hard-code it for you like SEJ appears to have.

Really??  That's strange - if you PM me the domain, I can do a bit more digging.

A lot of these pages 301 to Odin. Another big lot 404 to errors. None of those would have titles from OSE.

So the other ones - almost everything that still resolves 301s in some way or other. Even http://www.parallels.com 301s to the /eu, /en, /de or /au version.

The static pages that don't redirect, such as http://www.parallels.com/fr/ actually show a title in Open Site Explorer.

All that said, I don't think there's a problem other than your main parallels.com site has a ton of redirects & 404s which are skewing your data. I don't see these pages as a problem, though, because they all direct somewhere else and those pages do have a title.

I would start by implementing hreflang tags:

https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en

Hreflang should take care of these type of issues as Google will associate the right country domain with the content. You may see some overlap for awhile - we've seen hreflang take a bit longer than we'd like to get fully set but once it is, it usually works well.

Short of that, you have 3 options.  1) change the content on all sites to be (somewhat) unique. 2) deindex all but one as you said, 3) canonical, as you said.

1, 2 & 3 all have problems so that's why I would start with hreflang.

Like Deacyde I use the content in quotes in Google itself "to test if this is duplicate." But I also use a couple tools:

• http://www.copyscape.com/
• http://www.siteliner.com/
• http://www.webconfs.com/similar-page-checker.php
• http://www.plagspotter.com/ (undergoing a bit of renovation currently)

If you wanted to build this into your own tool, PlagTracker has an API

http://www.plagtracker.com/api.html

(As do a few of the ones above.)

I'm confused. Assuming your site is at www.site.com and site.com, the duplicate is coming from a file, usually index.html or index.php, yes?  But it's the same index.html file.  So if you setup rel=canonical in index.html, both site.com and www.site.com will have a canonical on it.

(Or I'm missing something.)

Wow, you have a LOT of spam in your backlinks. Have you done a disavow or had a penalty with this site?

I think Peter adequately answered your question - PageRank isn't an accurate measure of anything - but keep in mind that DA & PA can be manipulated as well ... with a backlink profile like yours you will probably see a higher DA than you "deserve" because DA doesn't really take spam into account nearly as much as Google does.

If you don't use the site in Google, you should noindex it just to clear up any potential issues (especially if the domains link together in any way.)

• Bonus: How does one go about going through hundreds of pages with thousands of links, built with raw, plain text HTML to change things to nofollow? =/

Download the full site and open all the pages in Notepad++.  Find & replace.  Save, reupload.

I think search engines will do what they do: continue to get smarter.  They'll take into consideration author rank, definitely agree on rich snippets, but I doubt they'll pull away from G+ - the data is too much for them to ignore.  I think we'll see G+ grow, actually.

I think SEOs will continue to talk about: content marketing, snippets, brands, big data, negative SEO, disavowing links, guest posting, author rank, citations.

The biggest thing I see changing now is that SEO is becoming a part of a bigger thing, call it "digital marketing" 2013?  I dunno.  People are starting to understand you need more than SEO or more than Facebook ... so we put social, SEO, email marketing, ppc - all into one bubble and do "that" for our clients.

No shock, I also think we'll see video & multimedia use grow.  Mobile, tablets, phone searches, SoLoMo, etc.  I think we'll see the beginning of the end of some spam as it stops working.  Blog comment spam, forum profile spam, article spam - hopefully those 3 first.

These are the things we're starting to prepare for here.  I'm interested in what others think will change and what will grow.

Have you looked into Buffer?  There is a photo of the multi-user end here:

http://blog.crazyegg.com/2012/08/02/review-buffer-app/

I haven't looked too far into it because I am happy with Hootsuite but I've thought about it for another account and it looks really great for what I need.  Hope it helps!

It depends on what the user's search is.

If a user searches "cars in boston" and you have a massive amount of anchors to "cars in boston" that page isn't necessarily going to benefit from those anchors, at least nowhere near as much as they used to.

I think Cyrus' WBF and the other link both should give you some idea though. Don't control anchors. That's 2013.

This specific page has either been copied to or from lots of other pages around the web. (Maybe 15-20 I saw?)

I would change the content some, make it unique and get it recached. If it's still not ranking I would start with everything Patrick suggested. But getting the duplicate content off first is important because if Google sees 10 versions of the same thing they may rank your page one day and the other version the next - they simply don't know which one to rank as often as they should (original content, not authority, in my opinion.)

http://bit.ly/1Edmyxw

http://bit.ly/1e9Oq0H