Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thank you for your question. The issue was triggered because Moz Analytics found the broken link while crawling your site, which means you still have that broken link in your content.

In this case, it is likely because the broken URL in question is still in your XML sitemap...

http://cdn.attracta.com/sitemap/4404501/0.xml.gz

Hope that helps!

The location of your servers is unlikely the cause. Google and Yandex's ranking algorithms are different enough to cause differences, but it is worth further investigation...

1. How many links do you have and do they tend to be from US sites? Do those sites that link to you block the Yandex bot?
2. What do your competitors look like on Yandex vs. Google? Are they using spammier techniques? 
3. Do you have Yandex webmaster tools set up? Are there any problems there that you don't see in Google Search Console?

These are some starting points, but you may end up having to make a decision as to whether you want to prioritize Yandex over Google. In nearly every country in the world I would advise against this, but Russia and China are close calls.

That is likely the cause of the discrepancy, although Moz Analytics crawls can be deeper than Google, unearthing more data than Google has gotten to yet.

That being said, I would be hesitant to rely on the canonical tag so much. I did a cursory crawl on your site and found that roughly 20% of the first 800 URLs crawled were duplicates (albeit with the canonical tag). You could potentially eat up your crawl budget from Google if most of the new URLs it is finding are duplicates. While you won't have problems with PageRank dispersion or duplicate content, per se, you will get a shallower crawl of your site. Google isn't going to keep digging if it keeps unearthing the same stuff.

You might want to consider using robots.txt to simply block some of the sections like the /catalog/product/view/ directory if it isn't driving organic traffic and is a source of a good deal of your canonicalized duplicates.

Hope that helps!

Thanks for the question! My guess is your international phone number isn't recognized because of its formatting. While this may be an issue with the Moz crawler to some degree, you should explicitly identify your phone number using Telephone Schema Markup.

I'm not sure on the Low Number of Pages found, will check with the team on this.

Good question...

1. If the redirects are properly in place, they will count as links towards your new site
2. Google may choose to show them in Google Search Console, but they only show a sample of links so they might not all appear
3. You may want to confirm ownership of those redirected domains in Google Search Console as well.

Well said. And on that note, I wouldn't trust the SEO advice of an email spammer

This is a clear case of needing to use the hreflang tag

Put this on the .com

Put this on the .co.uk

Preferably do this on every page, as long as the pages correspond with one another...

Put this on the .com

Put this on the .co.uk

I agree with Josh on this one. There needs to be some reason Google should believe that the ratings on your site are legitimate. I can't be certain that third party sites like Yelp or Google+ are the source of that social proof, but it seems both plausible and fairly easy to detect for Google. It would be a sound place to start.

Care to share any more about the site and/or client? Feel free to PM me.

This is generally a mix of two issues...

1. Handling 404s improperly
2. An improper relative link

9 times out of 10 this is the issue. Let's say, for example, the client's site is "client.com"

A link in their main template looks like this...

a href="client.com/"

instead of...

a href="http://client.com"

or

a href="/"

That first link will cause Google, or any crawler, to visit "http://client.com/client.com". When the bot visits this page, it finds the same a href="client.com/" link and, now tries to visit "http://client.com/client.com/client.com" so on and so forth.

Now, for this to happen, the page also needs to deliver a 200OK, otherwise Google would likely stop trying to access the page because of the 404.

Both of these issues need to be resolved.

You are not making a terrible mistake here  and styling in the header is fine. Google normally removes this. Care to share the SERP you are looking at?

This kind of PageRank sculpting has largely fallen out of fashion because Google has become so good at detecting alternate link forms and ignoring PageRank sculpting attempts that attempt to hide links. Your best bet is to work on INCREASING the number of links inside your site pointing to important pages, rather than trying to hide links to one section. I would not worry at all about having a sitewide link to your about page, for example. It is a drop in the bucket.

Thanks for helping out on Q/A! It is hugely helpful to have professionals answering questions here!

No problem!

I think you are on the right path by paying attention to this.

Of course you should start with some keyword research. I think you are correct that Brand is often searched before Type (ie: Nike Running Shoes is probably searched more often than Running Shoes Nike), and certain styles are probably not categorized at all (ie: a person searches for heels , not womens heels), while others are (ie: mens sandals, womens sandals). This, of course, can quickly lead to a problem of a confused hierarchy.

This is where tags can come into play. There will likely be some contradictions where you would have to choose one navigation style over another even though doing so will force you to be less than ideally optimized for one or another. But, if you choose to noindex,follow your navigation and use an optimized tag methodology for your content that is index,follow - you won't have to compromise. Your users will navigate through the site normally, but your search landing pages will actually be tag-based categorization.

This itself can be problematic for a number of reasons, but if you invest well enough into it, the solution can play out very nicely in the long run...

1. You will want to "seed" your tag list with keywords that match significant, unique sets of your content.
2. You will want to add unique content to each of your tag pages such that they do not overlap too much with other tag pages.
3. You will want to limit the total number of tag pages so that you dont have PageRank sprawl (the same huge index issues that faceted navigation can present)
4. You will want to try and align your tags with words and phrases for which your users search
5. You will have to tag any and all products, but often you can match a category to a tag (ie: womens-shoes/sandals/flip-flops could be automatically taged as "Women's Flip Flops"

Hope this helps put you on the right path!

I believe you might be able to use List Mode in ScreamingFrog to accomplish this, however it depends on ultimately what your goal is to check for duplicate content. Do you simply want to find duplicate titles or duplicate descriptions? Or do you want to find pages with sufficiently similar text as to warrant concern?

== Ooops! ==

It didn't occur to me that you were more interested in duplicate content caused by other sites copying your content rather than duplicate content among your list of URLs.

Copyscape does have a "Batch Process" tool but it is only available to paid subscribers. It does work quite nicely though.

If the content is going to be the same, keep them merged, don't separate. If you have sufficient content to produce truly valuable pages then you can segment them. It really is that simple.

Actually, Google's Quality Review documentation indicates it being positive that a website have an about us page with credible information on it a relative short distance from the home page. While I think it would be wrong to say that there is any clear SEO value related to putting organization schema on an about page, I think it would be considered a "best practice" and certainly wouldn't hurt.

Great question, and I certainly heard the "will this hurt my seo" thing all the time as a consultant. A couple of thoughts...

• To my knowledge, there is no specific algorithmic feature that would lower a page's rank because of too long descriptions
• Long meta descriptions, however, may be truncated (as you pointed out) or ignored and replaced altogether by Google if they find a more appropriate subsection of text on the page.
• A succinct, well written meta description may help with CTR which itself may be a ranking factor
• Google has stated that they want you to write good meta descriptions, for what it is worth.

What I try and say to clients is "are you prepared to build a top 10 website in your industry". If they are sweating good meta descriptions, they aren't ready to compete in the big leagues.

This is an awesome addition for agencies who only need 1 account but have multiple contributors to the Moz community. Well done!