Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Eric! Our Rank Tracker can certainly show you your rankings vs. competitors. However, we don't gather that data if you're not tracking it, so if your client wants to know how they used to rank against competitors before the campaign was created, you're out of luck.

Jordan mentions SEMRush, and I believe they may have a tool that can help.

If everything is redirecting properly, you shouldn't have an issue, and the subdomain still being present will actually be helpful to any folks with an outdated link or bookmark.

You may want to add noindex to the pages on those subdomains, or block them with robots.txt. Over time, that would get them out of the search results in favor of the new, up-to-date subfolders. Removing them, though, isn't necessary.

That strikes me as a pretty massive change in rankings for a simple on-page change. Even a site-wide one, like that. Have you run any analysis on your competitors to see if anything they did might be to blame?

Hi Radi!

It looks like you're a Pro member, so one thing I'd suggest is to run a Full SERP Report on the keywords you're concerned with using the Keyword Difficulty tool. It can give you a better sense of what's going on.

Cyrus made a great video on the report here.

I hope that helps!

Hi Chase! Did Gaston and/or David answer your question? If so, mind marking one or both responses as a Good Answer?

Otherwise, how can we still help?

Hi David!

I'd just like to recommend a Moz tool that I recommend all the time for issues like this—the Keyword Difficulty tool. Specifically, the Full SERP Analysis report in the Keyword Difficulty tool. It might give you some insight into why your competitors are outranking you.

Cyrus Shepard posted a great video on how it works here.

You know, what—I looked into this a bit more, and you actually might be right about what caused this. Let me get you some more help.

Sure thing! I hope it helps.

Hi there! Just checking, are you referring specifically to your AdWords bounce rate? Or your bounce rate in organic search? Or both?

Hi there!

We've actually got a lot of materials that should be able to help you out. I'd definitely recommend you read our Beginner's Guide to SEO, and even though it's getting to be on the older side, Cyrus Shepard's How to Rank. You'll be able to find a lot more resources on our Learn SEO page, as well.

Because there's so much that can go into an SEO strategy, I'm afraid it'd really be a lot to ask community members here to guide you through every step. We have a list of recommended consulting companies if you'd like to hire a consultant, though.

Got it! There are a few possible explanations for what's going on, but the most likely is simply that the links you've gathered—primarily through social network accounts—aren't being seen by the Mozscape index, and so aren't showing up in OSE.

Mozscape's crawler focuses on breadth rather than depth. What that means is that it'll only follow links on any given site so deeply. That allows us to index more sites, but it means that some very deep pages aren't going to be crawled.

In the case of social networks and business directories, just about any outbound links to individual sites are going to be too deep for Mozscape to index. There are just too many listings, and there's a whole lot more internet out there! This generally works out, since there's little if any ranking value in those links—they're not earned—and since the purpose of them tends to be for traffic or for local SEO, rather than for building link count.

To build DA, you'll need to focus on building links from high quality, high authority, relevant sites.

Does that make sense?

I can't say for sure, but I would guess that Google is at this point familiar enough with LinkedIn to be able to pull information without much markup.

Plus, there are even ways individuals can pull information from LinkedIn. Check out Rapportive for GMail; it's pretty useful!

As Martijn said, it's also entirely possible that Google and LinkedIn work together in some capacity.

Hi Lance!

Moz Local is able to update listings on these partner directories:

Infogroup
Acxiom
Neustar/Localeze
Factual
Foursquare
Superpages
Best of the Web
Bing
Citysearch
Insider Pages

It will also alert you to inconsistencies in your listings on other directories—including GMB—though it can't update them directly. In short, that means you'll need to update GMB manually.

I'm not sure if you're also asking whether Moz Local can update your link to GMB on your site or if it can update the link to your site on GMB, but the answer is no, it can't do either.

Due to a (now-fixed) bug in Q&A, this thread is a duplicate of this thread. This thread is locked to future responses, but please feel free to continue the discussion there.

Hi there!

Looks like this was discussed a while back. This thread might help.

Does that do it?

I'm by no means an authority on this topic, but I'd definitely use .htaccess to place those redirects, myself. It won't matter that the original filenames no longer exist. That's certainly what I've done as an SEO in the past.

Hi there! Generally, no, you shouldn't have to create a new campaign, though that would definitely ensure that everything works properly. David's response here covers it: https://moz.com/community/q/http-to-https-2#reply_323889

Due to a (now fixed) bug in Q&A, this thread is a duplicate of this thread. Though I ask that future discussion be kept here, there are two responses from Peter Nikolow and Martijn Scheijbeler there that are worth your time.

Hi Cesar!

Some folks may disagree, but I'd say they're only spammy if they're spammy. Not being indexed doesn't necessarily mean they're spam.

I assume you mean they're not indexed in Google, correct? Not that they're not indexed in Open Site Explorer?

Hi Jason,

Definitely follow Bryan's advice, and also make sure to submit your updated XML sitemap—that is, without the page you want deindexed—in Webmaster Tools once that's done. That should accelerate Google's crawling of your site, and speed up the process of getting it off the SERPS.