Hi there,

Thanks for zen like patience working with me during the holidays.  Let's dig in!  I am glad that you were more satisfied with my recent answer, I am sorry that wasn't more of a expert of JS to help you alleviate the problem. JS has been historically a hard language to parse and crawl, so these are some of Roger's growing pains and I can understand that it can be a frustrating experience.  Like I mentioned, some of the reasons that your site only returned the minimum amount of links was due to embedded JS links inside the I-Box, which our crawler will not crawl in that environment because it sees the links as images rather than standard html links.  Usually if you want a view of how Roger crawls your site, I recommend turning off JS to see what your site actually looks like

Limitations like this one is why we offer a month long trial so if customers run into problems we can have time to alleviate it before it actually bills.  Hope that helps!

Best,

Peter
Moz Help Team

Hi guys,

Thanks for reaching out to us.  I am sorry to hear that your crawls are acting weird.  Currently this is an issue that our devs are aware of and will be taking time to do a full round of investigations.

In the meantime, I would definitely leave those campaigns alone as we will be doing some work to see if we can get the crawls to resolve.  If you have questions, please contact us at help@moz.com.  That way we can get a better idea of your crawl to find out if this is a systems issue or a site issue.

Thank you all for your patience, we will work hard to fix this ASAP.

Best,

Peter
Moz Help Team.

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out to us!  I'm sorry if there are any confusions regarding the way we classify duplicate content. Just clarify a few things, here is how our system interprets duplicate content vs. rel canonical:

Assuming A, B, C, and D are all duplicates,

If A references B as the canonical, then they are not considered duplicates
If A and B both reference C as canonical, A and B are not considered duplicates of each other
If A references C as a canonical, A and B are considered duplicated
If A references C as canonical, B references D, then A and B are considered duplicates
The examples you've provided actually fall into the fourth example I've listed above.

For more information on using canonical tags, check out this great post by our very own Dr. Pete:
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/rel-confused-answers-to-your-rel-canonical-questions

I hope this clears things up. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

Best,

Peter
SEOmoz Help Team.

Hi Mark,

Sorry it's taking a while to crawl your new site.

While I'm not exactly sure what the delay is, one of the possible reasons is through your robots.txt.  Here's what I see in a short snippet from your robots.txt:

# Crawlers Setup
User-agent: *
Crawl-delay: 30
# Allowable Index
Allow: /*?p=
Allow: /index.php/blog/
Allow: /catalog/seo_sitemap/category/
Allow: /catalogsearch/result/
Allow: /media/
# Directories
Disallow: /404/
Disallow: /app/
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /downloader/
Disallow: /errors/
Disallow: /includes/
Disallow: /js/
Disallow: /lib/
Disallow: /magento/
Disallow: /pkginfo/
Disallow: /report/

From here, the formatting looks a little awkward. What's going on is that you're telling Roger bot to only look at these:

Allowable Index

Allow: /*?p=
Allow: /index.php/blog/
Allow: /catalog/seo_sitemap/category/
Allow: /catalogsearch/result/
Allow: /media/

While the syntax is OK, not every crawler out there will follow the allow directive. Here's an example something you can use.

# Crawlers Setup
User-agent: *
Crawl-delay: 30
Disallow: /
Disallow: /404/
Disallow: /app/
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /downloader/
Disallow: /errors/
Disallow: /includes/
Disallow: /js/

From here you're telling the crawler to disallow nothing except these directories. Please let us know once you implement this method is that will actually fix the crawl.

Thanks for reaching out!

Best,

Peter Li
SEOmoz Help Team
```

Hi,

Thanks for the question. There is a way to do this in our tools. Basically, you can suspend a campaign and activate it on the day that you want to get ranking for. For more details, please see: http://www.seomoz.org/help/campaign-setup

Thanks!

Peter

SEOmoz help team

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out to us, I replied to you in a support ticket, but I just wanted to share it everyone since I think it might be relevant to this discussion.

I looked into your campaign and it seems that this is happening because of where your canonical tags are pointing, you can see the duplicate pages by clicking on the number to the right side of the link. These pages are considered duplicates because their canonical tags point to different URLs. For example:

http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionFlPf.html?tab=mp3(Duplicate 1) is considered a duplicate of 
http://www.virtualsheetmusic.com/score/PatrickCollectionVcPf.html?tab=mp3 (Duplicate 2)

because the canonical tag for the first page is CANON1(http://screencast.com/t/tqvDZrLsyz8D) while the canonical for the second URL is CANON2 (http://screencast.com/t/FOguPJmK0).

Since the canonical tags point to different pages it is assumed that CANON1 and CANON2 are likely to be duplicates themselves.

Here is how our system interprets duplicate content vs. rel canonical:

Assuming A, B, C, and D are all duplicates,

If A references B as the canonical, then they are not considered duplicates
If A and B both reference C as canonical, A and B are not considered duplicates of each other
If A references C as a canonical, A and B are considered duplicated
If A references C as canonical, B references D, then A and B are considered duplicates
The examples you've provided actually fall into the fourth example I've listed above.

Hope that helps,

Best,

Peter
SEOmoz Help Team.

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out to us!  I can certainly understand the need to have the UI be in your specific language. While we do our best to work on other versions of our tools, the only language version that we current support is English.  Our reports however does allow you a certain degree of customization including the content in english, you would just have to create a custom report and fill in the text in your language for the benefits of your client.  This report is custom and you would have to create it in our UI to have it sent out.  For your information, you could check out our awesome help hub at: www.seomoz.org/help/custom-reports.

Hope that helps!  Let me know if you have questions

Best,

Peter
SEOmoz Help Team.

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out to us! I think that's a great idea to have bulk submission with Rank Tracker.  Unfortunately we do not have that feature built in so you can just submit that volume of keywords to accomplish that task.  We would love to hear about how you like that feature to look like in our feature request forum: https://seomoz.zendesk.com/forums/293194-seomoz-pro-feature-requests.  There you will in touch with our project owners and if your request gets enough love, we will build it!

In the meantime, here's a few things I can suggest that can save you some time:

• Utilize the track feature, which will allow you to track 50 keywords at anytime.  So you can use this for your active keywords and never have to enter them again.
• If you have a slot to spare, you can create a campaign just to do bulk submissions.  Currently in our campaign tool, once you set up the campaign, we will allow bulk submissions up to 15 keywords at a time into the manage keyword section of the settings.
• If you have a big list of keywords, this might save you a little time. you can just create a new campaign, once you finished setting up the campaign, follow the above method. The reason is when a new campaign is initiated we do an instant pull of the rankings of the keywords you input during that time.  This process can be time consuming as you would have to delete and create a new campaign every time you do bulk submissions.

Hope that's helpful, please let us know if you have any questions!

Best,

Peter
SEOmoz Help Team.

Hi Theresa,

Thanks for writing in and sorry that your rankings are looking off in the Web App. I'm not sure why you would be getting different results in the Web App rankings than you would be getting when you run the searches yourself; it could be a lot of things. The search engines - Google, Yahoo! & Bing - all maintain multiple indices that run across multiple datacenters. This means if you query different datacenters, you can get somewhat different ranking results. Other elements, such as personalization, geography and search history (even if you're logged out of your Google/search engine account) can also influence ranking positions. Hence, there can be a lot of variation in what different people, searching from different computers/locations might see in the rankings.

Our solution has been to run searches from a variety of IP addresses and IP blocks using non-personalized, search history/location agnostic requests. In our experience, these have provided the most accurate results, showing what the "most" users see, though we know there's still quite a bit of room for fluctuation. If you have suggestions about how we might improve the technical process of fetching rankings data to get better data, please let us know and we'll pass it on to our engineering team. We're always looking for ways to get you better data.

In the meantime, I can try to see if it's a bug on our side if you can let us know by emailing help@moz.com and provide...

1. The campaign that is having this issue
2. The login email address for the account that the campaign is part of
3. The keyword and URL combination that is having discrepancies
4. The ranking that you're getting in Google versus what the Web App tells you.

This way I'll be able to check it out on my side to see if it's a bug or something else. Thanks so much!

Hope that helps!

Peter
Moz help team.

Hi there,

We now show Google Places via Universal placement, however since our tool tries to provide unbiased SERP results, we do separate out the local listings since we don't treat them as "Organic" results.  Our product team is working to introduce filters that will hopefully allow you to put more "weight" into those local results in our future iterations of the tool, however in the meantime we still record them, check this out for more information: http://www.seomoz.org/help/rankings

Best,

Peter
SEOmoz Help Team.

Hi there John,

Thanks for reaching out!  While I am not exactly sure why you are seeing that, it seems like the reason that you are only seeing 80 on the dashboard is because OSE itself displays page specific metrics, if you are logged into your PRO account and in OSE, you should be able to scroll down and see "Subdomain Specific" metrics.  From there the numbers should line up and everyone is happy!!

Thanks again for the question, please let us know if there's any additional questions!

Best,

Peter
SEOmoz Help Team.

Hi there!

Thanks for reaching out to us.  I am sorry to hear that you are having some issues with our campaign set up.  Generally our campaign will queue your site server for a response with our crawler, so sites with the dutch extension should react the same way as any other site out there.  Unfortunately due to many factors, we can let you know if our crawler is either getting blocked or the server simply isn't giving us a response back.  If you feel more comfortable talking about this in a private setting.  You are definitely welcome to send us an email at: help@moz.com.  There we can tell you a bit more indepth, since I have a feeling your url is not mydomain.nl

Hope that helps.  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Peter
Moz Help Team.

Hey MomoMasta,

Thanks for reaching out to us!  I'm sorry for the inordinate amount of time that it took for the crawl to complete (which it should be at the moment).  I will have made a note on the issue so our team can take a look at it.   I like that feature request (to cancel), you should definitely suggest it in features request forum at :https://seomoz.zendesk.com/forums/293194-seomoz-pro-feature-requests.

I am very sorry for the keyword feature being down due to the recent Google search result change. Our company has learned a lot from this last outage and will have contingency plans in next time Google releases another update.  I want to thank you for your patience and hope you will continue being our friend/customer http://screencast.com/t/XaxBDAakziS

~Peter

Hi there,

Thanks for reaching out!  I went ahead and started a ticket for you to do some digging.  I will run a few tests on my end to see where it is causing the issue.  I will get in touch you ASAP

Thanks again for reaching, hope I could talk to you soon!

Best,

Hi there Sam,

Thanks for reaching out, I am sorry that our rank tracker make-over.  We realized here that rank tracker is a very important tool for a lot of our users (some even pay just to use this one tool).  This is the reason instead of giving Roger a patch job and let him roam free, we decided we want to complete redo Roger so he could be a lot more reliable, plus Roger don't mind the beauty treatments.

In the meantime, we recommend you to use our campaign tool to utilize the rankings feature within the campaign tools, refer to www.seomoz.org/help to learn how to set it up.  Another thing to note that we do recommend an alternative to the rank tracker tool, you can read more about it here: http://www.seomoz.org/q/rank-tracker-3.

I hope this helps!  Thank you for your support of Roger, once we are done it should be better than ever.

~Peter
Moz Help Team.

Hi there!

Thanks for your time in reaching out to us.  Sorry to hear about your troubles with our tool  Without knowing anything about your campaigns, it looks like the you are trying to find where this URL shows up in the pages on your site.  To see the source of those errors, you’ll need to download your Full Crawl Diagnostics CSV and open it up in something like Excel. In the first column, perform a search for the URL of the page you are looking for. When you find the correct row, look in the last column labeled referrer. This tells you the referral URL of the page where our crawlers first found the target URL. You can then visit this URL to find the source of your errors.

For more information you can check out our help hub resource at: http://moz.com/help/guides/search-overview/crawl-diagnostics, or if you could let us know any questions you have specifically with your account at: http://moz.com/help/contact.

Hope that's helpful!  Please let me know if you have any questions.

Best,

Peter
Moz Help Team.

Sorry for the long wait, I had to tell Roger that he was a bad boy/girl/thing?  We have resolve the crawler issues and your reports should be updating and reporting as it should. I am very sorry that Roger caused some concerns, it said it won't do it next time.

Thank you very much for your patience

Hi guys!

Thanks for all the heads up we have so far regarding this.  It looks like the Q&A emails has an image on their outlook tries to pull from our servers, that process can cause outlook to appear frozen/crash if your version of the outlook is queueing the the server (AWS) for the image.  Currently you could work around that by turning off images in your settings in outlook.  You can check out this thread on MS' support hub about blocking pictures on outlook: http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/outlook-help/turn-off-blocking-automatic-picture-downloads-HP007310739.aspx

Hope that helps, I have created a ticket for you on our end, so I look forward to talking to you!

Best,

Peter 
Moz Help Team.

Hi there Christina!

Thanks for reaching out to us!  I can definitely see how something our crawl diagnostic can be a bit noisy, since our tool has to be over-inclusive of information we provide.  One thing If you are having some issues on your crawl diagnostic and you think the error is not correct, you can post some examples here, or if you don't feel like posting sensitive information you can certainly email us with your examples at help@seomoz.org.

Hope that helps, please let me know if you have any questions!

Best,

Peter
SEOmoz Help Team.

Hi guys!

Thanks for all your feedback and comments here so far  Our devs are aware of this issue and are taking steps to handle this ASAP.  I do agree that it would be easy to simply remove the avatar in the CSS design of the email, but this would impact all the non-outlook users (there's a lot of them too).  So the approach we are taking will ensure this doesn't happen to anyone, which we are hoping to test the fix soon!

Thanks everyone for their patience and using the workaround so far.  We won't disappoint!

Best,

Peter
Moz Help Team.