Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Part of this is a layout question.  Are the More / View All links opening up new pages or are they expanding content on the page via a # mechanism?  If a user is going to a different page a common practice is to title the link to that page (a nice way to get your keywords there naturally), have a follow up blurb, and then link with a "more..." as well. Usually this is done for content / articles more so than on page expansion.  The "Our articles contain valuable..." section on CRE's home page is a good example: http://www.conversion-rate-experts.com.

This can be done on page as well depending on how you create your layout. An old blog post, but discussion around linking via # anchors can be found here: http://moz.com/blog/the-first-link-counts-rule-and-the-hash-sign.  Broadly, if your content is grouped together well both in the code and content it's easier for the search engines to define and parse. If links identify it as such, all the better.

Hi Mollie. Regarding Moz Local, the $84 charge is per location per year. If you've already created paid accounts with the sites where the branches are currently mentioned your cost will only be in hours by doing it yourself.

Regarding some of your location settings, there was a recent discussion here: http://moz.com/community/q/client-says-no-local-phone-number-all-locations-no-directing-to-centralized-call-center about the policy (Google's) around using a call center number versus branch specific numbers.

Listings in general need to be as specific possible in order for people to interact with locations. When you're talking abut mobile users, not having listings that are individualized would likely result in poor map listings and poor walk-in-mobile traffic. You'll likely want to do a cost-benefit analysis of whether or not having your branches listed individually and ranking well would bring in more than $252 / year. Cheers!

If you can, get that 301 redirection issue solved first as it's definitely not the type of one you want to use for this behavior. Google specifically recommends, "... to automatically serve the appropriate HTML content to your users depending on their location and language settings. You will either do that by using server-side 302 redirects or by dynamically serving the right HTML content." From here: http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2014/05/creating-right-homepage-for-your.html. They go further into the hreflang tags here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/189077?hl=en.

After getting the 301 cleaned up, for finding indexed pages it's better to use the "site:" search based operator in Google, Google Webmaster Tools, and Analytics.  But really, get that 301 changed.  Cheers!

It might be from you clicking on one of your URLs in Moz Analytics and visiting your site directly from there. They're likely your own visits so you could filter by your own IP to remove these along with other self-visits to your site, or filter them out via domain.  I'd try filtering by your own IP first as it will cover more areas and is a best practice, see: https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/1034840. Cheers!

Sure, you can nofollow duplicate links, but the benefits are fairly minimal. Gaining domain and page authority and making sure page load speeds are at their fastest possible levels will go a lot farther than nofollow, in terms of priorities.  Cheers!

That those links aren't showing up in your GWT profile is a pretty good indicator that there's already some awareness on Google's end about the quality of the domain and/or pages with those links.  And it sounds like you've already read through their official guide on disavow here: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2648487 as well as reading up in other places (The history of spam page is kind of neat: http://www.google.com/insidesearch/howsearchworks/fighting-spam.html). It mostly comes down to a work / insurance cost measurement.

• High effort: Finding contact information and emailing each spam link. Reward: None, until a manual action is initiated and the contact efforts are requested. Risk: Minimal, but you are emailing a spammer.
• Medium / Low effort: Finding contact information on the top ten offenders, and emailing them. Reward: Again, none until a manual action takes place, but at least you can show some effort on your part from YYYY-MM-DD date (insurance). Risk: Same.
• Medium / Low effort: Creating a disavow list per Google's instructions and sending it in. Reward: Little to none. Your rankings and site appear to be fine at the moment. Risk: The list deletes something Google doesn't consider spam and your rankings suffer, or some other issue related to using the tool.

Hopefully that helps with some clarity. If your site is growing well in referral traffic and links from legitimate sites and that's the biggest percentage of your link profile, you're probably fine.

Hyphens are a very common convention in folder names, and while too many can possibly be a negative in a domain name (it-is-a-really-hyphenated-domain.com for example) they're an accepted practice in folder / file names.

One thing I'd ask though is if someone had a hyphen in their folder name to begin with, would that cause something like /double-----dash--becomes--quintuple--dash/ ?  If so I'd ask them to try a little harder to get the dashes down to a minimum, just for the sake of keeping the URL shorter overall.

Nope. The way the search engines might "catch on" as Rand mentions in his WBF is that the search engines know when the person leaves to go look at your site and when they come back. So while you might still show a bounce because they had no interaction other than staying for 2 minutes, the search engine sees an exit >> 2 minutes >> a return. A pogo-stick behavior would be exit >> 1.2 seconds >> return, and for a LOT of users doing so.

Hi Rosalia. Keywords are typically determined at will, meaning, if you want to rank for a the keyword "lizards" you make the best page you can about "lizards". Keywords also can be determined via the search engines, meaning some people arrive to your site in with terms that might surprise you. Ideally you're trying to find a sweet spot where you're getting a decent amount of targeted visits from people that are interested in what your site has to offer.  As a working example, visit Wikipedia. Basically each page of their site relates to a keyword that is the topic of their page.  Make sense?  Cheers!

Hi Charles.  It sounds like you're on the right track with your keyword research and have taken to heart conversion data indicating the strengths of 3 & 4 word phrases.  If you do a precise match campaign on the very long phrase(s) you indicated, chances are you spend very little money in PPC. Further, you could create a landing page that is optimized for SEO as well as receiving PPC visits.  A lot of times there's a benefit in segmenting these two, but for a client with little funds there likely won't be enough resources to make multiple pages.  Still, you can acquire great tracking insights by carefully organizing your campaigns via the Google URL Builder: http://www.google.com/support/analytics/bin/answer.py?answer=55578

The phrase you suggest above can become the title tag of your newly created page.

Since you're also dealing with a brick and mortar company you may have success using highly targeted, location specific Facebook ads.

Once you show your client conversion data they'll see the point in spending advertising money to make more sales.

Best of luck!

http://moz.com/products/api/updates  "Hi All! Our next index update has been delayed to 1/28/15 due to processing times required by the size of the index..."

Hi Ethan. This is likely a case that will take more specifics to resolve unless someone else here has come across the same error as well, and ultimately it looks like you'll need someone at Alltop to change something even if that person knows the solution.

I would try using their Contact Us form instead: http://alltop.com/contact-us/.

That's very strange behavior for the admin portion of a site to not be behind password protection.  If the current developer is unable to do so, I'd ask around on that because if you block the admin portion via password protection, even if it's still indexed in Google it will rank much lower.

Are you able to contact someone at CMS Source to get some support?  That might help resolve this as well as provide guidance on getting the robots.txt uploaded and being able to add noindex to admin only.

Hi Pete.  Using rel=canonical would be a better implementation as your site showing up for a search on these articles is perfectly acceptable since they're about your site.  There are also several other design ways in which you can link back to the original published article...

1. Annotation. Instead of republishing the entire article you can quote bits from it and highlight what service/product/thing your company does in relation to the quote.  It could perhaps be an expansion like, "We also make this in custom colors..." a clarification, "This is now a permanent service..." or any other applicable detail really.
2. Screen cap. Some sites churn through articles so an archived screen grab of the article is nice to show the press you got. Photos are especially handy for when you show up in print.
3. A brand scroll. Lots of sites add the logos of well know brands that have written about them titled something like, "What people are saying" and then showing the logo of various sites: the verge, wired, tech crunch, etc. and linking to the article via the logo.

So I'd get rid of the noindex tag.  Me finding your site as a result next to the Daily Business Review site would make my user experience better as the search is returning the correlation even before I click through to read the sources.

Hi Jeff. The timeline portion is handled via the scheduling drop down at the end of the report.  The link for that would be: http://analytics.moz.com/reports/[YOUR.MOZNUMBER]/schedule/[YOUR.REPORT.NUMBER]

There you'll have the option to schedule the report generation and set the daily, weekly, or monthly time frame. Cheers!

That's always a tough spot when the numbers people care about the most are the ones that you're having the most trouble moving. From my hunch perspective, it sounds like you're targeting some pretty competitive keywords for the remaining 40 or so.  Perhaps you can show them progress on the company presence in a few different ways...

1. Report on the first page of the rankings as a whole and highlight results that mention your company in some way. This is always a nice strategy for indicating you might not have the domain at X numbered ranking but you're 57% (random example number) present on the first page in a different way.  This can also include universal search, images showing up, that sort of thing.  A highlighted screen cap is a nice visual.
2. Report on referral traffic, especially to landing pages that focus on your target keywords. This shows that you're getting the links in some way and people are getting exposed to the brand in the same way as they would (via that landing page) as they would had they come from the search engine to that page.
3. Quantify the competition. Report on numbers that should be helping you move the needle in comparison to the competition that's ranking ahead of you.  How are yours improving?  Where do you need additional lift?
4. Compare market penetration by city / metro. Are you X amount of search from New York, but significantly less from London as a percentage of population?  Report on initiatives to increase that number.
5. Report on Organic Search Value. Detail the associated value of traffic from the current rankings and the amount of expected lift from gaining the other rankings. Bonus points if you can tie it in to conversions / assisted conversions.
6. Create a new executive summary. The C Suite is looking at rankings because they're a quick and easy method of measuring success, but they might be way off in how they're evaluating your work, i.e. thinking that ranking #1 for, 'really in-depth and detailed long-tailed keyword' is the same weighting as ranking for 'tough keyword'. If that's the case, having 56% of 101 rankings that are all--in their minds--the same equals a D grade.  Create a summary that shows you're on top of the situation with A+ analysis.

Hope these points help. Cheers!

"We are continually faced by great opportunities brilliantly disguised as insoluble problems." ~ Lee Iacocca

Hi Rubén. Congrats on getting to +200!  My guess would be that the change is too recent to be in this latest crawl of OSE. It looks like you crossed the 200 threshold on 2015-01-18 and the updated data was published only 9 days after that.  Most likely moz.com was crawled earlier on in the days between these updates at a time when your link was yet to be dofollowed.  Give it some time and this should switch over to dofollow in OSE as well.  At least you know the link is now working. Cheers!

As part of the measure of impartiality, it'd be up to the reviewer to decide whether or not they link to your site with follow or nofollow. Also, in a video from Matt Cutts discussing paid links, he mentions as one measurement whether the payment would be surprising or not. As his example, he says it's not a surprise if you're a movie reviewer and they let you into the movie for free. Likewise, if the company providing a review is a firm of analysts and there's a minimum payment required in order to pay analysts for the hours involved in the review that wouldn't be surprising and is advertised up front.  The last thing to consider, is the value in this review the link or being reviewed and having your company exposed to the people who read those reviews. Matt's video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zupIbMyMfBI

If there's been a history of that from other competitors it's a consideration.  Several companies also buy common typo domains--gooogle.com for example--partially as a user friendliness feature, partly as a competitor buffer.  Domains are a low cost, so holding a few is pretty low-risk.

Hi Simon. Don has given you some good guidance.  Here's a recent Moz Dev Blog post on the subject: https://moz.com/devblog/near-duplicate-detection/.  Note their images explaining much of what Don described.  Two pages having enough shared phrases (because of the header, footer, nav, etc) can trigger the duplicate warning.  While the latter part of the dev blog post certainly gets technical, it should explain why you might be getting duplicate content warnings even further if that's your bent.

Since each tool is a bit different you can also check your pages with other tools, such as: http://www.webconfs.com. Cheers!