Changes made to a 'child' theme will not be overwritten if or when the parent is updated, that's one of the reasons they are recommended to be used instead of modifying the default themes. When you clone the parent into a "child", you 'inherit' all the functionality of the parent at the time it is cloned. After that, modifications to the parent or the child do not propogate either way.
Are you a Google Analytics enthusiast?
More SEO Content
Wordpress Attachment Id's ?
Posted 28 May 2014 - 11:20 AM
Otherwise, you may be able to find a theme that does what you want if you're willing to live with some compromises in appearance and function.
There are several ways to manage your site. You just have to make a business decision.
Posted 02 June 2014 - 11:05 PM
There are websites with tag cloud pages that bring in organic search traffic and also have attacted a small amount of links (because it makes sense to have the tags in that case). I'm not soo fast to say that you should never use them. It can be a nice way to segregate content along side of categories, the pages basically function the same way as categories in terms of indexing and excerpts.
Edited by MarkWarner, 02 June 2014 - 11:05 PM.
Posted 15 June 2014 - 01:09 PM
Because of your last comment... I felt to dig a bit more. You mentioned you would not be sooo fast to say that you should never use them. Afterall, I found this article from Tom Ewer.
Well.. if I could understand his message. He speaks actually pretty positive about tagging and that it can be useful.
I also could not find any "Warning Signs" about Duplicates.
However, for that specific reason.. to avoid duplicates... wasn't for that reason the Canonical Link Element invented ?
Edited by reseo, 15 June 2014 - 01:11 PM.
Posted 16 June 2014 - 06:23 AM
He speaks actually pretty positive about tagging and that it can be useful.
Not all the time.
There is a great deal of confusion in the blogosphere as to exactly what tags are, and how they should be used. This has culminated in a proliferation of “tag stuffing” (the baby brother of “keyword stuffing”), which essentially renders tagging useless in terms of effective navigation and SEO.
But this is the paragraph that everybody should take note of:
The good news is that tagging effectively is not particularly difficult. The key is to tag sparingly and efficiently. By this I mean that each tag you use must be highly relevant to the content in the post you are tagging, and the tag in question should be short (ideally no more than two words) and specific.
Sparingly and effectively ARE the key words. You do not need every word, synonym, antonym, misspelling or variation of the post or page topic adding as a 'tag'.
Let the idiom of "Enough is as good as a feast" be your watchword for 'tagging'.
As for duplicates, 'fixing' it better than 'fudging' it.
Posted 16 June 2014 - 09:49 AM
TAG CLOUDS, when loaded with a lot of links, may be misinterpreted by search engines as spammy keyword-stuffed groups of links. They are trying to see what is going on but they can't always do that. Hence, the warning against using large tag clouds.
I have never seen anyone get into trouble using a SMALL tag cloud (probably fewer than 10 links) but I have helped a number of sites recover search referral traffic by removing LARGE tag clouds (dozens of links).
You can experiment with a tag cloud but you should be ready to accept any possible loss of traffic. The good news is that if the tag cloud is responsible for that you can turn it off and you'll (probably) get your traffic back. The bad news is that you may have to wait a few months to get it back.
So using TAGS, where the tag pages are not replicating whole posts or duplicating the post lists contained in archives and categories, is usually okay. Using TAG CLOUDS *may* be a little risky.
Less is better when it comes to tags but if you want to use them do so to help your visitors find more related content. Don't do it because you hope there is some SEO value.
Posted 17 June 2014 - 11:12 AM
Thank you all for your input.... I want to come back once again to the attachment ID's. Two things.
I did what Jill mentioned.. I disallowed in the robots.txt.
However, every image is still indexed as it's own page.
Is it possible to "remove" such attachment ID pages... somehow through the Webmaster tool ?
By removing.. I mean.. is there anything I can do on my end to de-index these worthless pages ?
I am also using Yoasts SEO Plugin that creates automatically the Canonical Link Element.
That plugin should actually avoid that problem.
However, when I check the source code I get this:
<link rel="canonical" href="xxxxxx/?attachment_id=271" />
In my opinion. This is nonsense. The Canonical Link Element should NOT point the worthless attachment id.
It should point to the main page with the content.
This is odd.
How can I clean up that mess ?
Edited by reseo, 17 June 2014 - 11:16 AM.
Posted 17 June 2014 - 02:22 PM
Why not simply set "link to" None when you add the image to the posts?
Set it to 'Media File' instead?
You can also do this by editing the image when you edit the post.
Posted 18 June 2014 - 04:23 PM
Yea.. I do this for all new posts... when ever I add an image.. I set it to :link" none... but what can I do for the ones that have been already indexed ?
Posted 18 June 2014 - 06:31 PM
If you edit the existing ones, search engines will pick up the changes when they re-crawl the URLS
If you want them to disappear completely, you could comment out the code in image.php (Appearance -> Editor), there may be a way to create code to redirect or mask the ID in that code, but it's not something I've actually tried.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users