Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I would imagine it is due to the results being driven from two seperate indexes. Moz will be returning error results from its set and Google from theirs. There will also be differences due to the regularity of being recrawled and indexed.

Ah, so you already have something in place, from the initial question it sounded like you had list but not grid view. In that case I would definately run a bit of a split test that defaults 50% to list and 50% to grid, you can then measure a series of selected metrics to see which variant is the most likely to return further engagement etc.

I did a few things like this from my time at VOW, Caboodle and the Post Office Shop. It is really more of a user preference thing than either selecting one over another.

What works best for your content - is it text or image intensive when it comes to your product listings, I often found if there was more image than text - a grid worked better, and vice versa if there was more text.

Also consider mobile - a list solution may be the best option on a smart phone and grid on a tablet.

The optimum solution in my opinion would be to allow the consumer/user to select their preferred layout. You could implement this as a checkbox/button that simply switches the css to display in either grid or list format.

Maybe also serve them from a CDN (Content delivery network) for added speed and performance gains to go with your Alt tag edits.

As a side note, I would also look to make sure all images have been compressed via something like lossless compression to reduce their file size and hence speed up your site for another boost.

A cool online free tool I use is compressor.io. In general the quality remains, but you can often reduce filesize by anything up to 50%.

Again this might be lengthy but should help users when visiting your site etc.

I would seriously think again when it comes to blocking/no-indexing your CSS and JS files - Google has in the past stated that if they cannot fully render your site properly then this could lead to poorer rankings.

You will also likely get notifications in your Search Console as errors for this too.

Check out this great article from July this year which goes into more details. 

Cheers for the heads up. To be fair it does make sense to have it as a seperate element, much like the knowledge graph panel which despite being in prime location is not really part of the serps. Cheers for this and will look forward to the new tweet serp feature coming soon.

Do you often get this - see image for loading popup in outlook.

As you have posted in product support someone at Moz will no doubt look into it - it has been like this for a few months for me, i originally thought it was just a firewall issue. but now looks a little more wider spread.

CHd1DYt

This also applies for me everytime I click on a response from a moz post it locks up my outlook for a period of time before opening the preview etc.

I think it is due to an image issue on the responses - the user thumbnails  being delivered from CloudFront are not showing and is trying to connect but fails taking some time. - it opens in browser fine.

Hope this helps - is it the same issue for everyone else?

Could it be due to the email trying to pull an image from a HTTPS source location?

C9S4qPR

I read up on this today, like Peter and Dmitri suggest you may want to point your customers to a new location when requesting reviews, but despite not showing on the G+ local page the reviews should still be available elsewhere on the maps and search results. There was an article on it from SEORoundTable yesterday too.

Apparently there has been quite a bit of activity, but according to a post from Barry Schwartz there has been no update from Google. - https://www.seroundtable.com/google-update-no-21225.html

However the Moz metrics and others all pointed to something happening. I would suggest monitoring all yours sites closely for the time being.

Knowing Google they probably did do something!

Alternatively, I suppose the changes could also be tied to the timeframe in which yours sites have been crawled by Google, as such some of your changes could also have had an impact.

Although adding a no-index will no doubt remove the page from the index, my suggestion would be to implement a canonical tag which you can use to point to the original/best source page. This way any links from the page will still be used for internal site crawling etc.

This way you are actually telling google that you have similar pages but one is the best that you want for indexation purposes.

rel="canonical" href="/original-or-page-you-want-to-rank-and-be-the-source.html" />

Have you read the following post from Rand/Moz about the recent index changes. This is likely the main reason behind the change in your PA and any fluctuations you have seen.

I would suggest looking at your competitors who have similar content and pages to see if they too have also seen this same drop as in many cases the change is relative to others in your niche/area etc.

You need to place the canonical tag into your area.

The canonical tag looks like so and should include the name of the page you are wishing to canonicalise as the original source file.

rel="canonical" href="/nameofpage.html" /> That should do the trick.

Absolutely as seoman10 stated, you may get a few links back, however if there are a few dodgy links now would be a good time to look into having them either redirected or elect for them to considered a 404 and request that the urls be removed from the index.

If some of the 404s have a relevant page on the new site, consider redirect  the old link via 301 to a similar new page.

redirect 301 /oldpagelink /newpagelink

I would not disavow the link at all. If you want the /some_product page to be seen as one stand alone product simply implement a canonical meta tag to the page which in effect tells google what page is the original source file.

rel="canonical" href="/some_product" />

Hope that helps.

Haha, I've already had three

After you have checked out any possible WP issues suggested by Tymen, also look into Moz Local and check to see how many of the local ranking strong signal sites you have connected to your client. This will hopefully give your clients site an added boost by having additional confirmed NAP data to organically connect with their site.

Is the site appearing from branded keywords?

The code is definately a bit of a mess.

Due to the second rel being rel='nofollow' this link will likely be a no follow.

Secondly in order for it to be accurately used as a follow it should be rel="follow" not rel="dofollow" as this does not exist. For a link to be a naturally followed link you do not even need to use the rel="" tag.

anchor text - FOLLOW
anchor text - NO FOLLOW

Here is a bit more on use of nofollow

Hope this helps.

Tim

Absolutely, in that case How many people have access to the moz account?