Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Questions created by irvingw
-
HTTPS moz.org untrusted - invalid cert
https://www.moz.com/ has an invalid cert guys This Connection is Untrusted You have asked Firefox to connect
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw
securely to www.moz.com, but we can't confirm that your connection is secure.
Normally, when you try to connect securely,
sites will present trusted identification to prove that you are
going to the right place. However, this site's identity can't be verified. What Should I Do? If you usually connect to
this site without problems, this error could mean that someone is
trying to impersonate the site, and you shouldn't continue. www.moz.com uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is only valid for moz.com (Error code: ssl_error_bad_cert_domain) If you understand what's going on, you
can tell Firefox to start trusting this site's identification.
Even if you trust the site, this error could mean that someone is
tampering with your connection.
Don't add an exception unless
you know there's a good reason why this site doesn't use trusted identification.1 -
Is SEOmoz.org creating duplicate content with their CDN subdomain?
Example URL: http://cdn.seomoz.org/q/help-with-getting-no-conversions Canonical is a RELATIVE link, should be an absolute link pointing to main domain: http://www.seomoz.org/q/help-with-getting-no-conversions <link href='[/q/help-with-getting-no-conversions](view-source:http://cdn.seomoz.org/q/help-with-getting-no-conversions)' rel='<a class="attribute-value">canonical</a>' /> 13,400 pages indexed in Google under cdn subdomain go to google > site:http://cdn.seomoz.org https://www.google.com/#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.seomoz.org%2F&oq=site:http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.seomoz.org%2F&gs_l=hp.2...986.6227.0.6258.28.14.0.0.0.5.344.3526.2-10j2.12.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.Uprw7ko7jnU&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=97577626a0fb6a97&biw=1920&bih=936
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw1 -
What is better for SEO keywords in folder or in filename - also dupe filename question
Hey folks, I've got a question regarding URL structure. What is best for SEO given that there will be millions of lawyer names and 4 pages per lawyer www.lawyerz.com/office-locations/dr-al-pacino www.lawyerz.com/phone-number/dr-al-pacino www.lawyerz.com/reviews/dr-al-pacino www.lawyerz.com/ratings/dr-al-pacino OR www.lawyerz.com/office-locations-dr-al-pacino www.lawyerz.com/phone-number-dr-al-pacino www.lawyerz.com/reviews-dr-al-pacino www.lawyerz.com/ratings-dr-al-pacino OR www.lawyerz.com/dr-al-pacino/office-locations www.lawyerz.com/dr-al-pacino/phone-number www.lawyerz.com/dr-al-pacino/reviews www.lawyerz.com/dr-al-pacino/ratings Also, concerning duplicate file names: In the first example there are 4 duplicate file names with the lawyers name. (would this cause Google to not index some) In the second example there are all unique file names (would this look spammy to Google or the user) In the third example there are millions of duplicate file names (if 1 million lawyers then 1 million files called "office-locations" etc (could so many duplicate filenames cause ranking issues) Should the lawyers name (which is the main keyword target) appear in the filename or in the folder - which is better for SEO in your opinion? Thanks for your input!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw0 -
Allow or Disallow First in Robots.txt
If I want to override a Disallow directive in robots.txt with an Allow command, do I have the Allow command before or after the Disallow command? example: Allow: /models/ford///page* Disallow: /models////page
Technical SEO | | irvingw0