Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thank you for your detailed reply Dan.

Hey, something I've been thinking about lately is "where is the point of diminishing returns for keyword research detail?" I get that keyword research is important for finding out stuff like "people generally search for 'doctor' way more often than they search for 'licensed medical professional'", but what about after that? Is there much useful information to be found by sifting through spreadsheets of stats about "doctor" vs "dr" vs "doctors" vs "physician" vs "physicians" etc? Especially when Google seems to treat a lot of those as interchangable? I wouldn't worry too much about "doctor" vs "dr" vs "doctors" - those are synonyms and the intent of the user doesn't change much. Or another example: If a remodeling company did basements, do you think there's much to be gleaned from AdWords data comparing "basement remodeler", "basement remodelers", basement remodeling", "basement remodeling contractor", "basement remodeling contractors", "basement renovation", "basement renovations", "basement renovators", "finished basements", "basement finishers", "basement finishing", etc.? Should those variations be analyzed and each targeted by their own sets of pages and pieces of content (e.g. a blog post that specifically targets "basement remodeler" and a blog post that targets "basement finisher" and a third blog post that specifically targets "renovated basement") This example is different. The intent behind "basement remodeler" and "basement remodel" are rather different. The first is looking for local businesses, the second is looking for general information about remodels. To confirm this, all you need to do is look at the search results. Remodeler has a big local pack and list of local companies when I search it. When I search for the "remodel" version, I get a big photo pack, then local businesses, then People Also Ask questions, so there is clearly multiple search intent scenarios behind that example. I wrote a bunch more about viewing the SERP closely to measure and classify intent here: https://www.contentharmony.com/blog/classifying-search-intent/ in case you're interested in diving deeper on those approaches. To your point regarding targeting separate pages for it, yes and no. A local business should try and rank for one but may not be as focused on the second one. But it is worth creating a page that captures one overall intent and then figuring out which other keywords match it. Or should the takeaway be "there aren't any combinations that people overwhelmingly prefer to use, so let's just make content about basements and topics relevant to basements. Keyword research complete." Nah you need to be more specific or intentional about it than this.

Hi, What's the URL & What keywords are you tracking?

We have informational and retail websites where we put a LOT of effort into our content.   We are trying to produce the best-on-the-web.   All of this content is created and edited by people who have both formal education and deep experience in the content area. There is no way that we would allow user-generated content on these websites - even though we are not in a YMYL (your money, your life) type of industry.   User-generated content can be excellent, but a high percentage of it is deeply flawed and far, far below our editorial standards.   We have experience people in our own industry who want to submit content but we reject it because it is below our quality standards. The above is why we don't allow user-generated content based upon editorial standards. I have read information published by Google where they say that a vigorous comment section can be a sign of a quality website.  But, I believe that applies to content types where opinion, kibitzing  and prattle are acceptable.  However, medical sites (and other types of websites) are an entirely different matter.   Low quality content can result in problems for the reader - even if it is in a comments section.  Nobody knows exactly how Google views this, but I am going to protect my visitors from BS and poor-quality information.

Have had a lot of success with that kind of deeper logic in the past, you can usually quite easily create such rules using robots.txt wildcards

Whatever works for you, at times some calculation of keyword density may be required to avoid overuse.

For technical matters regarding your hosting and server, I would address a hosting company. For the rest all the speed optimizations (caching, CDN,...) are ok so I wouldn't waste too much time on that anymore. You can maybe check this mobile site tester from Google, but it won't give you much new information. The pagespeedinsights-report do show a good page speed, so this will not be affecting your rankings.

Thanks, Joe. Appreciate you taking the time. All the testing from my team and the client show no signs of fire now too. So, mission accomplished. One takeaway here seems to be that Google actually pays attention to the Feedback tab.

You are likely to choose pages, topics, and themes from your research and with input from search data, but you need to write for your (human!) readers

I'd say no as subdomain would appear to Search Engines as another, completely different website.

You are not alone: https://searchengineland.com/google-june-2019-core-update-finished-rolling-out-on-june-8-318028 Many at the moment are complaining including the Daily Mail and CNN. When I traced the Daily Mail's issue back to its root it seemed to mostly revolve around Google's E-A-T guidelines and the same could be true for your site too This may seem like old news: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaysondemers/2014/07/18/google-quality-rater-guidelines-leaked-new-insights-revealed/#5c3f798e0bde - but recently there's been an influx of people complaining about ranking drops and one common thread seems to be E-A-T adherence (whilst another seems to be a lack of value proposition - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AmRg3p79pM - just watch up until Issue #1 is outlined) Keep in mind that when quality rater guidelines were leaked in 2014, that doesn't necessarily mean that Google's algorithm(s) had adapted to incorporate those factors. It seems as if Google's algorithms(s) are now taking up more in this area (where previously a lot of it was left to Google's quality raters) We keep seeing people come on here with informational sites, blog sites, eCommerce sites - and the common thread right now is that most of the publishing-oriented sites seem to fail E-A-T whilst many commerce sites are failing to add a unique value-proposition to their arsenal A lot of people also seem very determined that updates to the Medic update are still, even now impacting webmasters (although this update is also pretty old: https://searchengineland.com/googles-august-first-core-algorithm-update-who-did-it-impact-and-how-much-303538 - the point is, when the 'core' is updated many of its internal updates and algos get re-aligned, rising or falling in prominence YMYL sites seem to be getting hit really hard across the board: https://searchengineland.com/quality-raters-handbook-your-money-or-your-life-177663 - I know, from 2013. But it seems as if a lot of this stuff around 'authenticity' of claims and statements, expertise, is really being scrutinised right now If your site revolves around cryptocurrency news then it probably qualifies as YMYL and may not be satisfying E-A-T enough, so I'd read a lot into those guidelines "3.2 Expertise, Authoritativeness, and Trustworthiness (E-A-T) Remember that the first step of PQ rating is to understand the true purpose of the page. Websites or pages without some sort of beneficial purpose, including pages that are created with no attempt to help users, or pages that potentially spread hate, cause harm, or misinform or deceive users, should receive the Lowest rating. For all other pages that have a beneficial purpose, the amount of expertise, authoritativeness, and trustworthiness (E-A-T) is very important. Please consider: ● The expertise of the creator of the MC. ● The authoritativeness of the creator of the MC, the MC itself, and the website. ● The trustworthiness of the creator of the MC, the MC itself, and the website. Keep in mind that there are high E-A-T pages and websites of all types, even gossip websites, fashion websites, humor websites, forum and Q&A pages, etc. In fact, some types of information are found almost exclusively on forums and discussions, where a community of experts can provide valuable perspectives on specific topics. ● High E-A-T medical advice should be written or produced by people or organizations with appropriate medical expertise or accreditation. High E-A-T medical advice or information should be written or produced in a Copyright 2019 18 professional style and should be edited, reviewed, and updated on a regular basis. ● High E-A-T news articles should be produced with journalistic professionalism—they should contain factually accurate content presented in a way that helps users achieve a better understanding of events. High E-A-T news sources typically have published established editorial policies and robust review processes (example 1, example 2). ● High E-A-T information pages on scientific topics should be produced by people or organizations with appropriate scientific expertise and represent well-established scientific consensus on issues where such consensus exists. ● High E-A-T financial advice, legal advice, tax advice, etc., should come from trustworthy sources and be maintained and updated regularly. ● High E-A-T advice pages on topics such as home remodeling (which can cost thousands of dollars and impact your living situation) or advice on parenting issues (which can impact the future happiness of a family) should also come from “expert” or experienced sources that users can trust. ● High E-A-T pages on hobbies, such as photography or learning to play a guitar, also require expertise. Some topics require less formal expertise. Many people write extremely detailed, helpful reviews of products or restaurants. Many people share tips and life experiences on forums, blogs, etc. These ordinary people may be considered experts in topics where they have life experience. If it seems as if the person creating the content has the type and amount of life experience to make him or her an “expert” on the topic, we will value this “everyday expertise” and not penalize the person/webpage/website for not having “formal” education or training in the field. It’s even possible to have everyday expertise in YMYL topics. For example, there are forums and support pages for people with specific diseases. Sharing personal experience is a form of everyday expertise. Consider this example. Here, forum participants are telling how long their loved ones lived with liver cancer. This is an example of sharing personal experiences (in which they are experts), not medical advice. Specific medical information and advice (rather than descriptions of life experiences) should come from doctors or other health professionals. Think about the topic of the page. What kind of expertise is required for the page to achieve its purpose well? The standard for expertise depends on the topic of the page."

If you Care about the Search Console Error ONLY It just means Google has decided to index some URLs which do not appear in here: http://www.servicesarab.com/sitemap_index.xml so add them or don't, it really doesn't matter that much and it is extremely unlikely to change your SEO performance much at all If you are Really Concerned about SEO Performance personally I think that this is quite telling: https://analytics.moz.com/pro/link-explorer/spam-score?site=servicesarab.com&target=domain According to Moz, 45% of the domains in their index which share similar features to yours, have apparently been banned or penalised by Google (not really good) You site has (according to Ahrefs): https://ahrefs.com/site-explorer/overview/v2/subdomains/recent?target=servicesarab.com 18,840 backlinks from 242 referring domains. That's a pretty crazy balance, not very diverse at all https://d.pr/i/0ROVCA.png (screenshot) It seems like end of 2017 / beginning of 2018, tons of links for the site were produced in a very artificial and obvious way In the end, old SEO tactics that try and trick Google into thinking your site is great, are not very useful in 2018/2019 It's doubtful that there is a strong technical-SEO reason for the site's problems. It is more likely that Google is just restoring your site to 'where it should be' in the rankings It seems as if the usage of older SEO techniques tricked Google for a little while: https://d.pr/i/tsiXrh.png - but in the end, the unsustainable approach was not good enough

Me too, can you upload or screenshot the actual file that you are using

I have created many news backlinks on my sites but still no changes

The short answer to your query is no. An exception could be unless the medium articles are contextual and have links pointing to www.guideyourhealth.org. Then the backlinks could enhance www.guideyourhealth.org. That said should consider comments by effectdigital above. Hope that assists.

OP is talking about the content boxed in green: https://d.pr/i/qdGFze.png (screenshot) not the ads (boxed in red). I am pretty sure there's no ad type like the carousel of tiles boxed in green, so I don't think Google Ads is the answer (could be wrong though)

Firstly (and I think you understand this, but for the benefit of others who find this page later): any user landing on the actual page will see its full content - robots.txt has no effect on their experience. What I think you're asking about here is what happens if Google has previously indexed a page properly with crawling it and discovering content and then you block it in robots.txt, what will it look like in the SERPs? My expectation is that: It will appear in the SERPs as it used to - with meta information / title etc - at least until Google would have recrawled it anyway, and possibly for a bit longer and some failure of Google to recrawl it after the robots.txt is updated Eventually, it will either drop out of the index or it may remain but with the "no information" message that shows up when a page is blocked in robots.txt from the outset yet it is indexed anyway

Thanks for your detailed answer! It's been very helpful. We will certainly review our results and do a few small tests to measure to see what the next best steps are.