Welcome to the Q&A Forum

The page wasn't a time sensitive query at all, it's a product page which we traditionally rank well for. I've checked out links to the page as well and i haven't seen anything out of the ordinary. I'm hoping it's testing related with the new Penguin release like you've stated. Thanks!

Not true, actually. On desktop it's just displayed differently. If you do your search, you can see that nordstrom name is actually on the right of breadcrumb names. So, that's another thing. If you can get your company name to come up like that (it usually is being pulled from Wiki), your chances go up by a lot rbSMHG1

Thanks John! I checked a few Etsy category and item pages and found the og: tag. Great answer and I'm glad you found this interesting and useful.

Google's official recommendation is just to unblock js/css and let it figure it out since it's smart enough now. I personally like to give as many suggestions/clues to follow as possible so that it doesn't get confused. IMO, the onclick/href hybrid is probably the best for user experience. With proper canonicals set up (so that Google only indexes 1 version and avoids any duplicates), it's also my suggested method for SEO.

Hi Zack, Just checking in to see if you had run any other tests to determine why this message might have appeared (e.g. a site crawl to find duplication / bad canonicalisation, etc.)? Let me know if you still need assistance. Cheers, Jane

Hey Zach- First off, I've been to uncommongoods.com a few times. Great domain name and I think it's a great site. Google is always playing around with and testing what they choose to show or not show in the SERPs, sidebar, knowledge graph, G+ area. I'm still seeing the image thumbnail for the recent G+ posts for the brands I work with, but the G+ posts I'm seeing are of an image uploaded to G+ with text and a link included in the post. I certainly wouldn't worry about it. Simply put, if you're doing everything the same on your end, it's beyond your control.

Gregory, We added the appropriate schema info and now images appear perfectly. Thanks! Rocky

In Google Webmaster tools you can use the remove button or click the little icon and total. I would definitely say there is a correlation with 404's and losing pages to the Google index. As Google does not index 404's You have nine things being blocked by robot text go to the robots.txt file in Google Webmaster tools and find out there if there's an issue and you're blocking some of your website to Google You can also use this tool to tell you exactly what your Google robots.txt file looks like right now and compared to any changes being made is very valuable tool http://www.internetmarketingninjas.com/seo-tools/robots-txt-generator/ I hope I've been of help sincerely, Thomas 4GWzkph.png

Hard to say whether it's adding any value or not at the moment, so whether or not removing it would make a difference for mobile results is difficult to guess. I generally try and keep mobile content as complete as possible, and if this snippet of text is kept at the bottom in a minor font, I don't think it's adding too much 'weight' to the page.

Thanks Takeshi thats good advice, I am going to try and figure out how to test it.

One thing I've previously wondered before is why they are not better capitalising on the place data that they have. For any given named location they have a growing collection of businesses and organisations with quite deep and unique content (their posts).  This gives them the potential to have massive numbers of "hair dressers in southampton" type pages that have far more mature content than most of the sites that sit on those SERPs. This traffic would also seem to be closely aligned with their advertising packages (plumbers in places close to southampton might want to pay to have their ads shown on that page), which makes them valuable pages in terms of direct ad revenue and also for convertising more businesses to have places pages and to become potential advertisers themselves. That would definitely be one of the first things I tackled if I were doing SEO for FB. If nothing else it would give me peace of mind and put an end to something that has been troubling me for years!

Kane, Matt,  Andrew thank you for all of your responses. After trying various tools, I found that Chris Le at SEER has definitely created the best one. If you haven't seen it, check it out below. It's super easy! http://www.seomoz.org/ugc/updated-tool-seomoz-api-data-for-google-docs#jtc179772

Google's been doing this for a while now. Here's one post about it over at Search Engine Roundtable. http://www.seroundtable.com/archives/023139.html

I know this is a late response, but thanks for your comment here. That was what I needed to hear

Thanks for the feedback. You guys are right about Youmoz. I just submitted it now after adding some screenshots, more thorough directions, etc...keep an eye out for it. -Zack

Hi Zack, I think most things have been covered, but I would just add: Start at the beginning. Your title needs to be capable of earning the clickthrough all by itself. The current title is ambiguous - is Austin a city in Texas or a guy with a name that starts with "A". Consider the difference in impact of a slight wording change. For example "Why is Austin such an angry city?". Hope that helps, Sha.

I think that is a good idea.  yes!

afew days, but there is no garentee that they will be included.

I've seen some more dramatic shifts over the past few days for UK results at least, from what I've been reading on various forums/Twitter I think there's been some algorithm updates, as a number of sites/webmasters being affected.

Ok thank you. I will email directly.