Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I would personally be more willing to trust in your rank tracker as it's independent data and you know how it works. With GSC in particular, you can have things like a knowledge graph image being hot-linked (by Google) counting as a ranking when actually no one can visit your site through it. For ranking data GSC can be very 'iffy' indeed

Sounds really shady to me. Search engine traffic comes from a search engine, like Google. Google don't give you any options to sell your search engine traffic to someone else, so this immediately makes me think it's bad practice

Even if you disable JS the cited elements are there, so it must be a Moz crawler bug!

That's what I would do! I'd also keep scanning implementation with Google's schema tool to check for errors

Just interested to hear everyone's thoughts. Personally I think that, even though voice search is already pretty big - it's about to get much, much larger and this may even entirely change the infrastructure of the web. What are your thoughts for changes in search 2020?

I think with this being such a niche query, we'd really need to see an example of a page which is triggering the error - to even attempt to help!

I would not advise starting from scratch, unless you want to lose all your followers and all the progress which has been made so far!  If you possibly can redesign and alter the name / URL of the profile, doing that would be a much better idea. The only exception to this is if, your profile has never previously performed well for you and has seen a lot of bot traffic (which may be perceived as negative by IG). If your profile has anything remotely positive going for it, keep it.

Pretty sure you need this:  https://developers.google.com/search/reference/robots_meta_tag#data-nosnippet-attr . With "data-nosnippet" you can "designate textual parts of a HTML page not to be used as a snippet. This can be done on a HTML-element level with the data-nosnippet HTML attribute on span, div, and section elements"

This echoes what Thomas said but I'll weigh in anyway. This is your old URL:  https://www.dcacar.com/dulles-limo-service.html. You say it has been redirected to the new page with a 301, which is only partially accurate. You need to install this Chrome extension which will allow you to inspect redirects and chains: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/redirect-path/aomidfkchockcldhbkggjokdkkebmdll?hl=en. Visit the old URL (http://www.dcacar.com/dulles-limo-service.html) and you will see that it redirects no less than four times (instead of just once). Google probably didn't follow your redirect all the way through. This is your page's redirect path: https://www.dcacar.com/dulles-limo-service.html (301) -> https://dcacar.com/dulles-limo-service.html (301) -> https://dcacar.com/dulles-limo-service.html/ (301) -> https://dcacar.com/dulles-limo-service (301) -> https://dcacar.com/dulles-limo-service/ (200) .  Redirects should be A to B, simple. They shouldn't chain up like this

The page you have linked to (https://www.fitness-china.com/dummbbell) is not a product page, it is a category page. Google doesn't really like paid or forced links, so the only way to really ascertain links to product pages (which Google will count towards their algorithm) is to ensure you have the best product in the market. If you have the best product (think USPs: is it the cheapest? Does it use some new technology which makes it better? Does it last longer? Is it healthier in some way than what came before?) then you can spread awareness using paid advertising. Word will get around and links will start to form naturally to your products. Keep in mind though, many people believe that their stock or products are the best - it's not always true. Your web audience will decide, one way or the other

The steps you have suggested seem correct to me. You are right not to plaster your whole site(s) with the specified schema, as it could lead to rich-snippet spam penalties. The homepage for each store makes the most sense, you could also include the contact pages if you wanted to

Could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that insecure content is when you link to full pages on HTTP rather than HTTPS. Mixed content is when you have a page on HTTPS, but it links to insecure resources (e.g: a PDF or image on HTTP)

Those URLs don't index because they result in 301 redirects. Google only indexes the redirect destination URL, this is to cut down on people clicking SERPs (Search Engine Ranking Positions) and then getting redirected (slow) instead of heading straight to the web-page

https://www.vulyplay.com/en-AU/swingsets (no hyphen) 301 redirects to https://www.vulyplay.com/en-AU/swing-sets (with a hyphen)

https://www.vulyplay.com/en-AU/trampolines (ends with "s", pluralised) 301 redirects to https://www.vulyplay.com/en-AU/trampoline (non-plural)

You can see Google has indexed the redirect destination URLs here

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Avulyplay.com%2Fen-AU%2Fswing-sets

and here

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=site%3Avulyplay.com/en-AU/trampoline

This is the best response. Others have cited using robots.txt, that's a bad idea IMO. Robots.txt will stop Google from crawling pages, Meta no-index directs Google not to index a page. If Google can't crawl a page (due to robots.txt) then they won't be able to 'find' the no-index directive. As Jordan says, no-index should come first. When all pages are de-indexed, then OP can begin to think about robots.txt as suggested by Rajesh. OP could also combine Meta no-index with status code 410 (gone) to make it a stronger signal - though this is inadvisable with OP's situation (where the site will remain live for users, but be gone from Google). In the end, Jordan's reply is the best one which has been left here

A final note might be that, instead of editing the HTML of all OPs pages, OP could fire no-index though x-robots via the HTTP header (which is often more scaleable)

Not a problem!

I'd serve status code 410 (gone)  and Meta no-index on all the affected URLs. You might think that's a tall order as you probably can't edit the HTML of the pages any more for the no-index directive. You can actually use no-index without using HTML! Fire it through X-Robots, through the HTTP header instead

https://developers.google.com/search/reference/robots_meta_tag

Scroll down to "Using the X-Robots-Tag HTTP header"

It probably will. Linked or embedded resources (files, PDFs, images) should be accessed via HTTPS rather than HTTP. This remains true, even if your HTTP links then redirect to HTTPS

I'm wondering if for some reason, you haven't received the penalty notice yet, or the penalty notice has been placed in another version of your site's Search Console properties. Most sites should be registered at least four times in Search Console (e.g: https://www.klayschools.com/, http://www.klayschools.com/, https://klayschools.com/ and http://klayschools.com/) - unless you have the new domain-level Search Console property (most people still have 4+ separate properties instead of the new domain one, as it's harder to register)

The reason I'm still considering a penalty is this:

https://d.pr/i/3mtYmf.png (screenshot from Ahrefs) - which looks really unnatural in terms of link destruction and growth

Possibly Google is processing all of that and deciding upon a manual action, or has already applied one which you aren't seeing if you are looking in the wrong version of Search Console. If someone made loads of links to an old architecture of your site, the penalty would likely appear in _that _version of your Search Console (rather than the active version). One step you should take is to register all four basic site variants in GSC (Google Search Console) just to be sure and rule this out

Most of the steep link increases _seem _to have occurred between 1st September 2019 and 5th October 2019

I have exported this data for you, to CSV format, which can be opened in MS Excel:

https://d.pr/f/dy8zWI.csv (data sheet)

What I can tell you with a basic pivot of linking domains is:

https://d.pr/i/unzCd6.png (screenshot of chart)

... between 1st September 2019 and 5th October 2019, your domain gained thousands of backlinks and 97% of them were from the same site (parentedge.in). It might even just be one link that replicates itself thousands of times (like a footer link or something). In general, Google doesn't like 'site-wide linking' very much, as it skews their algorithms

I can tell you that these links have been left 'followed' (meaning they could impact Google's rankings) and most of them are image-based links

This might be the one causing you some problems:

https://d.pr/i/44TBrk.png (screenshot of link)

Hope that helps

Check your messages in search console under 'legacy', see if you have a penalty. If one of our sites completely bounced out like that overnight, I'd firstly check for manual actions from Google!