Welcome to the Q&A Forum

It's when someone does an image search and I don't think it's counting as a regular search as that would be counted within web.

I don't have a definitive answer on your second question but my guess is that it wouldn't be that somebody explicitly should view the image itself.

Hi,

I would recommend making sure that you block these kind of pages in your robots.txt as well in order to make sure that the bots aren't wasting their crawl budget on these kind of pages. What we included for this were the lines:

Disallow: ?s=
Disallow: /search/*

Hi Stephen,

Well obviously you haven't tagged your new posts with any Schema.org markup, otherwise it would show up there. You could look into using Schema.org/WebPage or Schema.org/Article / Schema.org/NewsArticle if you think that would be relevant to Google.

It would be so sweet if this was part of a certain Schema.org which would trigger this.

I would be very concerned but on the other side I would also be interested to see what the potential of changes is.

It's a valid concern, but if yo make sure that Google in the new scenario is perfectly able to crawl the pages again then you should be able to point them to the new pages that show up via the canonical URLs.

Then do them during the migration, but make absolutely sure that you won't launch the problem with any issues on the site.

Hi,

Moving sites with more then 10.000 pages can sometimes take up to months. Usually the biggest chunk of pages gets easily redirected and removed from the index but small pages that get less attention in your information architecture are harder to find for Google and so it will take longer for them to remove them.

Martijn.

What are your expectations for the work that has been done so far and what has been focused on so far?

Quite sure that's the case. When I'm following the URL the site also redirects me to a normal page. What is likely is that the same thing is happening to the bots of Google.

Probably a better alternative would be:

antiepileptic drug

It depends what currently is in your robots.txt. Usually it would be useful to have another one for your subdomain.

I'd say no, duplicate content is usually copying thousand or hundreds of articles of quite some length to another page. But if you are just adding the same content that could help your visitors then don't worry to much about it. If it's good for your users, Google will usually also like it.

No there is no such way to add a list of items to Google Search Console with URLs that you want have marked as fixed. Instead what you can do is filter on these URLs in the interface and then all at the same time you can mark them as fixed. Google Search Console doesn't allow you to update URLs based from the API.

Yes, they'll probably track the user data for both separate things: organic v.s. paid but they don't use the data from one side to strong arm the other side as they're two separate systems for ranking.

Try this, with this you can do the same with Google Content Experiments without creating multiple pages. You do everything through JavaScript: https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/experiments

It's unfortunately a lesser known feature of Content Experiments, although I would suggest to start using Google Optimize in the future.

Hi David,

It doesn't matter that much, but mostly from an efficiency perspective I would go for 1 plugin who handles all of it and probably even beter then having 2 plugins. There is no harm in removing the plugin you're currently using for generating sitemaps and switching over to Yoast.

Schema.org shouldn't be able to get you into duplication issues. It's meant to be duplicated in there.

I agree with the guys above, just do it because it usually can't harm anything. It's more a sign to Google that these images are out there then it's really a signal that they're of high quality. So in the end they'll still decide if they think it's worth indexing them or not.

Hi Mike,

I definitely wouldn't trust only on using the HTML Lang Tag, as that's something that isn't used a lot by sites in the end. Plus it's a vague indicator to Google that that is the actual language that is being used there. I would go with stating the different pages with the HREF Lang tag and worst case go with a canonical tag implementation.

Martijn.