Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Your gtg for the most part when it comes to images. In Rand's Image SEO White Board Friday, he states images are graded for SEO on a more traditional style. So if it gets tossed around and embedded hundreds of times in bad web property neighborhoods all is well, for the time being at least! https://moz.com/blog/seo-photos-visuals-graphics-whiteboard-friday

Hey KentH – it's such a pain to deal with linking penalties, and I'm sorry you're facing that now. Onto your problem: Google definitely prefers that you make the request of the linking website's webmaster to remove the link to your site, or at least add a "nofollow" attribute to their link (pointing to your site). That said, they understand that it's not always possible to accomplish that. Here's what I recommend: First, reach out to the webmaster/host of the website (you can find this by looking up their domain on WhoIs) Then, if they respond and have "resolved" the linking issue (either by removing the link, or adding a nofollow attribute) you can consider that link/linking root domain addressed If you don't get a response, or the webmaster refuses to alter their link to your site, you can go ahead and add their domain to your disavow file. It requires a bit of patience–don't wait too long to hear back from the webmasters (I'd personally give it no longer than a week). I hope this helps!

It's highly unlikely you'd get a manual penalty for incorrect Open Graph markup (especially since Google itslef doesn't use it for anything.) Instead of trying to test one-off pages with the data testing tool, have a look in your Google Search Console under the Search Appearance > Structured Data report. Here you'll see what Google's crawler thinks about the structured markup on all the pages of your site it is able to crawl. Much better chance that the crawler has caught and reported it than that you'll find it checking one page at a time. One of the really common types of markup that earned manual penalties recently was recipes (due to certain plugins not implementing it correctly.) Since your site doesn't include recipes, the other area to check closely is reviews/ratings. If Google thinks you're trying to use these manipulatively, they'll slap you hard, since these actually generate rich snippets in SERPS. In the brief look I had at your site, it didn't appear your reviews/rating were using markup, but that's where an exhaustive check using the GSC report would be vastly more effective than my cursory check. Hope that all makes sense? Good luck! Paul

Is the content staying the same? If the content is staying the same, and just the url structure is changing, and if the new url structure is not depriving the url of the relevant keyword for the page content... If all these conditions are satisfied, in my experience moving few websites, replacing only the url structure (theoretically improving it), nothing changed, I mean I didn't experience any traffic being lost in GWT or analytics, I didn't even notice any unusual fluctuation. Of course keep in minds the traffic is moving, from the old urls to the new ones, so depending on your report and your new url structure you will see it in different places.

I'd say do your best to get the links removed/fixed at the other end but other than that just leave it. So long as you're returning a proper 404 you're doing the right thing (on paper).

Thanks for posting the video that was exactly what I needed 

Yes ,there is a difference. Product_type is the category that you think fits best for your productand google_product_type is the product type or product category that you think fits best within the category structure specified by Google - i.e. defined in Google product  taxonomy. Here is Google's product  taxonomy: http://www.google.com/support/merchants/bin/answer.py?answer=160081 Sometimes your category might not be listed in their taxonomy, in which case you might want to list the on you think is closest to what the product is about.

My vote is to use the full url on this.  Just eliminates the possibility for confusion (although both technically work).