Welcome to the Q&A Forum

As long as you're using the same Schema in both places I don't think it would hurt to have them both - JSON-LD in the HTML header and as structured data markup in the HTML where that entity exists on the page. You can play around with JSON-LD here to see what it would look like: http://json-ld.org/playground/

We have found adding Schema via JSON-LD pretty straight forward and easier than inline, see: https://developers.google.com/schemas/formats/json-ld Normally we would put this type of schema in via GTM but Squarespace has issue adding custom code in the body tags. That being said you should be able to add your JSON-LD script of schema directly in the head with no issue. Good Luck

I think that Google will consider the trust and the authority of the linking website. Google will also consider the context and relevance of the page and the paragraphs and the sentences that are associated with the link. So a link to a privacy site from a privacy page is relevant in my mind.  Nobody knows what Google really thinks about these things, but to me the value of this link ranges somewhere between good and superb.

Hi Rosemary, Apart from the basic route suggested by Kristen, you might just try this: https://moz.com/community/q/have-you-used-twitter-for-google-my-business-support Hope it helps!

You're right - I'm worrying about something that isn't yet a problem. Thank you

I think Mueller's main point may be that if you treat your subdomains separately from your main site, Google will treat them differently as well. For example, if you have three subdomains - www, blog and cloud - but all of them have different navigation, css and limited interlinking and little keyword theme commonality, Google will treat them as separate sites and you will suffer the dreaded subdomain issue. BUT if you integrate the three domains well - same nav, same look & feel and lots of good contextual anchor text interlinking, Google will treat it as the same site and the subdomain issue will become moot. Has anyone done any testing with those variables?

Thanks for your input!

This has been a common question from several of my clients.  I'm shocked that Google hasn't done anything to segment this local traffic since it's coming from one of their own products.  Google insights on the GMB panel isn't enough to cut it when our client has thousands of local listings.

Yes, there are 4 Schema.org objects: https://schema.org/SubscribeAction https://schema.org/RegisterAction https://schema.org/JoinAction https://schema.org/FollowAction There is only one issue - on all of them there is "agent" that we're talking about. Like "John join ACME", "John registered to ACME", etc. And without agent codes can be verified w/o issues but look meaningless "join ACME", "registered to ACME", etc. I also try to implement Join/Subscribe/Register as SiteLink: https://developers.google.com/structured-data/slsb-overview but can't pass validation because "query-input". If exist it's unknown for subscribing, if i delete it it's missing and required. So consider both ways as broken currently. Anyway - you can markup emails: https://moz.com/blog/markup-for-emails and make them little bit actionable.

Hi Rosemary! Did Everett's response help, or could you provide a link? Thanks!

I do a lot of link audits and most of the sites that I am working on do not have a penalty. Some have been suppressed by Penguin and some are sites that are trying to avoid a future Penguin hit because they've had low quality link building done for them in the past. When a site is affected by Penguin, the algorithm can act like an anchor that pulls the site down and keeps the site from ranking at their full potential. But, it's often difficult to know whether Penguin is affecting you or not because Google doesn't give you any notification or warning of the fact. As such, if there are possibly low quality links present then yes, by all means, disavow! I want to caution you though to not rely blindly on Link Detox data. I have reviewed many disavow files that have been created after using this tool and they are horrendously inaccurate. I've seen automated link auditing tools recommend disavowing fantastic naturally earned press links from highly authoritative sites. And, what usually happens more often is that the tool classifies many unnatural links as good ones. I think that these tools can be helpful when it comes to putting your links together in a manageable form, but you absolutely must look at each link individually. You can probably go straight to disavow for some links such as ones that come from sites that are obviously just for links such as freelinkdirectory.com or something like that. But, in most cases, a critical human eye needs to be used to look at each link and determine if it exists just for SEO purposes or has legitimate purpose outside of SEO. So, to answer your questions: Yes...go ahead and disavow even if there is no penalty. But as mentioned above, manually check these links first before disavowing. And don't worry that filing a disavow is going to put you on Google's radar. That's not true. 2)Yes, a 301 redirect passes link signals to the redirected site. So, if you purchased a site that has spammy links pointing to it and redirected that site to your main site you will have spammy links pointing to the main site. You'll need to file a disavow on the main site that contains the domains that are linking to the site you purchased and redirected. With that said, if there are a LOT of spammy links, you may want to assess risk vs reward. It's possible you won't be able to find and disavow all of the unnatural links and could invite Penguin issues on the new site. If the domain is one that could get a lot of type in traffic and you really want to redirect it there are ways you can redirect without passing on any link equity such as redirecting through an intermediary page that is blocked by robots.txt. If the links you are asking about are now pointing at 404 pages then they are essentially removed and you don't need to disavow those links. Hope that helps! Marie

Hi there. I haven't dealt with such problem before, but here is an idea - what if you "user upload" new nice images, which will get +1s and shares - in theory this should push unwanted images down, out of sight. Or at least out of first glance sight This might help a little while you wait for google to remove bad images. Hope this helps

First i'm on Mac since 2008/09 and i missed Windows7,8 and 10. But i have experience since Windows 3.0 somewhere in 91/92. So longs story short - you should do routine website testing in Edge just to see that everything is correct and works perfect. You shouldn't see any impact if you don't follow their suggestions. Actual all web developers and designers have long and difficult partnership with IE. IE6 trying to break W3C standards and implement own version of them. This is described here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Explorer_box_model_bug IE7 fixes them but add new "bugs", and IE8 add new portion of them. This is described here: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2009/10/css-differences-in-internet-explorer-6-7-and-8/ http://code.tutsplus.com/tutorials/9-most-common-ie-bugs-and-how-to-fix-them--net-7764 https://css-tricks.com/ie-css-bugs-thatll-get-you-every-time/ and in many other articles. So all devs finally was little bit pissed off and stop supporting IE at all. They just make some IE specific hacks for specific versions user just to see something almost correct. Later Webkit and Firefox join the party in CSS and add their own versions of CSS styles. Each of them start with webkit- or moz- as prefix. Opera also joins the party with o- preffix. But they fix almost all vendor prefixes within years with CSS3 and finally all agreed to abandon them. But all "vendors" comes with autoupdated browsers so they push new versions to users. You can't imagine today working with other than current version of Firefox, Chrome or Opera. Safari is different because actual version is only on current version of OSX. And in this world only IE is outdated... Just MS refuses to push new versions to old OSes. So today as Bob Dylan sing "Times have changed" everything is different. And Microsoft is trying to bring back support of all standards they lacking in past. But web here is different than web before and bringing support for IE is hard. That's why they sent mails about "possible problems". Honestly mine site works in IE 6,7,8,9,10 and 11 (tested, no joke!) and should works in Edge too (not tested). So that's why they sent you mail about "possible issues". In all web companies are jokes about IE6 or IE7 support: http://www.smashingmagazine.com/2011/11/but-the-client-wants-ie-6-support/ http://www.sitepoint.com/how-to-stop-wasting-time-developing-for-internet-explorer/ And if today Microsoft warn us about "standartds" we should ask them where have they are all over years NOT supporting standards?

Hope this helps : https://developers.google.com/app-indexing/introduction?hl=en

Hello Rosemary, I would suggest checking out the following post which links to schema markup for embedded youtube content, but there is also a great response from Tammy Wood on applying this via an iframe. https://moz.com/community/q/schema-org-and-youtube-videos Hope it helps Tim

I second Rosemary's request. I'm looking to better understand schema and tend to learn better through instruction. If anyone's willing to teach a course, I'd definitely consider attending. Kevin and Tim, thanks for the resources.

We are already doing FB syndication and publishing on our blog.  I'm just trying to find more avenues to promote this content (safely).  My client has 5 blog posts a week.

Hi Rosemary, I think you'll find this article from Local SEO Guide to be totally on-target for your client: http://www.localseoguide.com/seriously-track-your-google-my-business-pages/

Excellent thorough response.  Thanks Ruth!