Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi There Few things; They are no longer ranking for me on "caliber signs and imaging" set to Irvine, CA. I think they are ranking still for "caliber signs and graphics" because it's an exact title match, and the domain is carrying a large part of the ranking Their site is really messed up - like phenomenally messed up - looks like they still exist as of last year on facebook but they either don't use their site or it's just not updated. I don't think there was anything malicious, it's just bad. The blog - strange! The "author's" profile IS in fact "martin" - I wonder if it somehow got hijacked. I think it DID get hijacked actually. All the posts 2011 and prior are real (like this one) - then the spam starts. Now, if the word "caliber" is not commercial (like a "caliber sign" is not a thing, right?) - then they are still going to rank very easily for things like "caliber" despite their bad site and geographic location. So essentially, they are ranking because they are super low-competition terms, they actually haven't done anything malicious on their end - and now we know Google can process iFrame sites

Awesome, any thoughts on what I can check or do to see if there are any other potential issues with Google.  I'm a bit concerned that there is a penalty on this site. -jack

The same thing happens to me, and I check my rankings in an inkognito Chrome window. Does anyone know why I am seeing discrepancies?

The Mozscape data is what's used to populate the data in your campaigns, VI. As far as I know SEOMoz doesn't provide a pre-filtered api of just your campaign data. You'd have to put in a ticket to ask about that. help@seomoz.org Otherwise, it's a mattter of downloading the CSVs of the different reprots and manipulting the data that way. (Annie Cushing has written a terrific piece on formatting the downloaded data to replicate the SeoMoz reports, if you're interested.) Paul

Ah, this is a very good question. If you're looking to measure links by pure link count, then OSE will never match the number of links you find in Google Webmaster Tools. On average, OSE accounts for anywhere between 20-60% of links typically recorded in GWT. But GWT is a terrible way to measure link building campaigns. The problem is, Webmaster Tools records "junk" links equally with high value links, and there's no guarantee or seeming degree of consistency with the links they do choose to report. I have 1000's of links in many of my Webmaster Tools accounts, and most of them aren't worth anything. On the other hand, OSE assigns a "weight" to each link, in terms of different metrics such as MozRank and Domain Authority, so you can get a feel for how much value is passed by that link. And OSE tends to focus on links and those areas of the web that actually pass ranking value, while ignoring many of the less valuable, spam and garbage links. OSE metrics are highly correlated with a site's ability to rank, and are often adjusted according to Google's algorythm through correlation analysis. So if you build more links, they will show up in GWT, but you'll never know how much they are worth. On the other hand, if you raise your domain authority, this is likely correlated with a rise in rankings (assuming  your site is well optimized) Hope this helps! Best of luck with your SEO!

OK, I learned something today. I looked closely.  Linked in is using a temporary redirect, that apparently results in the same as a nofollow.

Thank you both for getting back to me.

This would be another issue. I would need to look at the code to give you more insight. But off the bat I assume that this is an issue regarding mislabeling the rel=next and rel=prev. They can be kind of tricky to work with on a broad based update due to the fact that they are intended to refer to specific pages. If you do not have the end page labeled Google says : "When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content." I would look into this first. If the answer is still elusive to you the next option would probably be finding a different set of eyes on the code to see if there are any minor oversights that you may have overlooked.