Welcome to the Q&A Forum

This post from Jan 2020 seems to assume that you can still use &pws=0 https://www.business2community.com/seo/keyword-ranking-report-google-search-differ-heres-why-02275972 ... but I don't know how reliable it is!

I've personally not heard of them myself, but their site looks like a legitimate business. They probably have been doing some metacrawling of search engines which send searches to the major search engines to determine a sites rankings which they are collating or maybe even creating there own index data like moz. As it is a free to paid service it is probably a way to get people on board, e.g. you have been digging into your analytics referrals a bit more and now might try their service. I have also done a quick search and there appears to be a few blog/reviews of the service. Maybe give it a try! Here is a review from back in Sept 2014.

just an update, its seems others have had this issue too.  We have been able to change the 302 to a 301 (magento defaults to 302 by default, this can be changed under configuration, web, url options).  I think the redirect something to do with the "Redirect to CMS-page if Cookies are Disabled", even though its set to "no" its seems its redirecting to the canonical instead. Ultimately I think the solution is under the "Use Categories Path for Product URLs"  which is set to "yes" by default, this make the product urls the same at the canonical (which what google is indexing anyway)

Hi there! Setting up an alert for using the rd: parameter should pull up results for any sub domain for that domain. So rd:cnn.com would pull up blog.cnn.com, wwww.cnn.com, etc. Based on what you provided it sounds like things are set up correctly, but it's hard to dig into things like this without specific examples to review. If you're uncomfortable sharing the query here, please send in a ticket with the information so we can look into this further for you. Thanks!

Thanks for the suggestion, but I wanted to go with a managed dedicated server that's optimised for Magneto ( So I can concentrate on the website  and not worry about the server being uptodate for PCI etc)

Thanks for confirming that. As its a old partial penalty, and from a quick look at their analytics I can't see any main pages that have been penalised , is it best to leave it alone ( in the short term at least)?

Haven't heard of penalties with no messages or emails (I'd double check the email settings and spam folders just to be certain). Definitely seems like an odd situation and a less-than-ideal user situation. As for the age of the penalty, Google has only been notifying users of "partial" pentalties for a year or so, and each penalty has an expiration date. (the expiration date isn't revealed to the website owner, only Google knows this) There is a chance if you pose this question on the Google Webmaster Forum, an actual Googler may be able to answer directly.

With a follow link the link juice on that page would get recycled (depreciated of course)  thought out the site via site Nav. If the link is nofollowed then all that link juice is lost.  Am I missing something?

I completely agree with this response. No one knows 100% for sure what a search engine is or isn't going to do - probably not even Matt Cutts and certainly not Rand, particularly since they are tweaking and improving the system on a daily basis. And I too agree that you should never post content (blogs) just for the sake of posting content or just for the sake of linking to another page. Updates like Panda will come back to haunt you if this is your practice. Instead of focusing on whether or not a link in a post is going to have more authority than a link elsewhere and using that to determine whether or not you are going to post new content, focus instead on your audience and how you can provide them value. Does the article and/or link provide value to your consumer? At the end of the day, always remember that websites are for people, NOT for search engines.

Sweet! If anything else comes up again definitely let us know

On every result on the first 6 pages the domain name is in either the meta title or meta description  ( Bar the very first result which is the homepage).  The landing pages do not have the domain name in them,  So Matt's point that "site:domain.com" is really "site:domain.com domain.com"  makes a lot of sense. Also a good few of my landing pages are ranking, while 95% of the search pages ( that are on the first 6 pages) are not ranking ( 5% that do rank were once link to from the main site , which has been removed, but google is still stubbornly ranking them over the proper landing pages even though they don't have any back links anymore)

They use a ton of guest writers.  I agree w/Oliver that it's probably the writer placing the links. However, they should probably do more review/qa or else it could potentially hurt them in the long run. Great catch Paddy!

I was thinking along the same lines as you guys, just wanted to see what the general conciseness was. Thanks for your replies

Thanks for coming back and letting us know what happened. Glad it finally got fixed for you!

Trusted Stores, Viewpoints are also on the list.  I have found that TrustPilot has been pretty easy to work with, and their pricing seems to be decent as well. If you are talking about Google automatically populating reviews/ratings that will propagate to your organic and also paid listings, you should also know that: Minimum threshold for automatic seller ratings to show: 30 unique reviews within the last 12 months Average, composite rating of 3.5 or more stars (this is a new change, it used to be 4/5 stars)

I use accelerated ad serving for all clients campaigns.  It's the only way to get 100% impression share.  For example, a campaign set to standard ad serving, with a daily budget of $240, will stop serving ads when you spend $10 in an hour.  $240 daily budget is really $10 hour.

Anywhere proactively advertising that they will help your SEO profile if you pay to "advertise" with them is in my opinion a place to steer clear off ... (in their FAQ section) Their goal as an "honest product review portal" as they claim should be that, not championing selling you links. That for what its worth is my opinion

Unfortunately it seems that the e-commerce (which is closed sourced) is built around this geo IP location system. When I checked the cached version of the site it was indeed the American version, which was just the default simple version of the homepage (no keyword text) I then google searched stings of texts from our UK / Irish homepages, and no results found So I then created an American version of the homepage (just a dup of the uk/irish homepages) A week later did my search test, and got a hit. Now we are starting to rank for a few more keywords on the homepage

It would be great to show this in the web interface

I've never actually had any errors listed for non-indexable content in the HTML Improvements section of WMT. So I'm not 100% sure what would set off that notification. Though the sites I work on do have a number of pages that are NoIndex and/or NoFollow. So i guess the issue would be caused not by purposefully blocking the page but some other means that makes your page unable to be crawled properly.