Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Basically what I mean is if the validator made by Google isn't validating, that would indicate that the code should be cleaned up right?

Interesting. Could this mean that the structured data is somehow being blocked. Should the Google Structured Data tool be the gold standard? What does it mean if it can't read the structured data?

Sure, this is a typical example: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.womenshealthmag.com%2Flife%2Fthis-bride-walked-down-the-aisle-with-the-man-who-got-her-fathers-donor-heart

This link won't even get validated in the tool: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/08/10/sports/olympics/gymnastics-parents.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=image&module=photo-spot-regionion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This one is using schema.org markup but its not being recognized in the structured data testing tool: http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/olympics/hope-solos-mistake-helps-colombia-tie-usa/ar-BBvsb4J?li=BBnb7Kz

Hell, check SI.com, it doesn't even use RDF, microdata, or JSON. I don't get it.

It looks like Women's Health is using RDFa. Why they would be using this instead of JSON-LD or microdata I don't know...

They're not even doing it right according to the google structured data testing tool.

I'm using the Google Structured Data Testing Tool to test: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool

NY Times and Women's Health being two good examples.

These two reputable publishers don't seem to have the microdata they've implemented recognized. Are they doing something wrong or is there a problem with the tool?

For anybody who's curious, my editor got a link from an external source pointing to our home page. Her name, next to a link to Edwardsturm.com, must have decreased my site's relevance for the branded keyword of my name. The decrease in rank for this branded keyword happened at the same time that my editor was mentioned in this external source, so I'm assuming they're related. Kind of crazy.

Would a decrease in DA reflect the need to disavow junk links?

My branded keywords recently bumped down two spots, whereas the keywords which have been bringing me the most traffic have been unaffected.

Site: Edwardsturm.com

DA decrease of 8 over past 3 months.

Keyword "Edward Sturm" recently moved to second spot.

What's to stop a company from buying a service to click on competitors' adwords thereby frivolously spending companies' ad budgets?

For anybody wondering, the problem is stemming from me using the Photon CDN by the Jetpack plugin. Photon is great, it really enhances UX, and their support is pretty top of the line, but since I put a lot of work into my post images, I'd like them to be indexed.

I'm going to try switching to AWS, because I see that that's what Moz is using.

Thank you Matt. I meant to write meta description, completely my fault.

So you're saying Wikipedia's main reasoning, if you had to guess, for them not having a meta desc. would be just because they don't need it?

Why doesn't the Wikipedia homepage have meta tags?

Thanks Dan. I've figured out that I'm having problems because I'm using a CDN. I'm finding a workaround to this right now.

Thanks. The strange thing is that it appears that only my post images aren't being indexed. My Facebook and Twitter images are, but the images that appear in the actual post are not, making it seem like this is purely a technical issue.

I'm using Yoast SEO and have images (attachments) excluded from sitemaps, which is the recommended method (but could this be wrong?).

Most of my images are in my posts; here's the sitemap for posts: https://edwardsturm.com/post-sitemap.xml

I also appear on p1 for some good keywords, and my site is getting organic traffic, so I'm not sure why the images aren't being indexed. Here's an example of a well performing article: https://edwardsturm.com/best-games-youtube-2016/

Thanks!

This is definitely more of a discussion than a clear cut answer.

It's an amazing tool and the rest of Moz Pro is excellent, but the index is just so small. Does anybody know when we can expect it to increase?

That's true. This compiler is very reputable as well, but it's in a not super popular niche, so bloggers aren't going to be writing about it a ton. It's reputable, but undiscovered.

From my understanding, Google would like all sorts of reputable information for the KG. The question is, with things that aren't as popular, how does one achieve this?

Thanks.

Right, but the Knowledge Graph already leverages authoritative sources, such as Wikipedia, so why can't this be one more source?

Do you guys think it's possible to e-mail Google and ask to be included in the Knowledge Graph? The company that owns this compiler will likely have connections to them.

Paul, you rock!