Welcome to the Q&A Forum

I have been trying to research using AMP to improve our mobile speed. We have a whole lot of sites on the same platform managed by a CMS. From what I have read, AMP html can only be used on static pages. Does that mean we would not be able to incorporate this into the html through our CMS?

I would like to implement this across all our homepages to test the effectiveness of it if possible, but there is no way to rebuild all our homepages statically.

Any advice is much appreciated!

It's not the process of implementing the minified code that's an issue, it's just the results we are seeing from it.

We also plan to implement browser caching, but want to do these implementations one at a time so we can more easily measure the results of each.

We haven't yet tested turning it back off yet. We only have about 20 days of data since implementing it so I would like to at least get a full month of data to analyze.

We recently implemented a plugin to minify our code on all of our homepages (800+ websites). The hope was that this would improve our page load speed. Unfortunately, the results are showing that page speed has slowed down across the board for all the homepages.

I am very perplexed by this. Any insight into why this might have happened and what steps to take from here would be much appreciated!

Thanks, this is super helpful

I have been asked to leverage browser caching on a few scripts in our code.

• http://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id=GTM-KBQ7B5 (16 minutes 22 seconds)
• http://www.google.com/jsapi (1 hour)
• https://www.google-analytics.com/plugins/ua/linkid.js (1 hour)
• https://www.google-analytics.com/analytics.js (2 hours)
• https://www.youtube.com/iframe_api (expiration not specified)
• https://ssl.google-analytics.com/ga.js (2 hours)

The number beside each link is the expiration for cache applied by the owners.  I'm being asked to extend the time to 24 hours. Part of this task is to make sure doing this is a good idea. It would not be in our best interest to do something that would disrupt the collection of data.

Some of what I'm seeing is recommending having a local copy which would mean missing updates from ga/gtm or call for the creation of a cron job to download any updates on a daily basis.

Another concern is would caching these have a delay/disruption in collecting data? That's an unknown to me – may not be to you.

There is also the concern that Google recommends not caching outside of their settings.

Any help on this is much appreciated.

Do you see any issues/risks/benefits/etc. to doing this from your perspective?

Our US version (.com) of our site is appearing above the UK version (co.uk) when using Google UK. I know Google has been giving US more priority in the UK market over the last couple years... What is protocol for fixing/dealing with this?

Also, and probably more importantly, how do we handle users who are looking for the UK site right now? Majority of our users are coming from the US so we don't want to cause them any inconvenience, but the UK users need an easy way to get to the UK version quickly.

Input is much appreciated!

My client is a physician facility with several doctors practicing at the facility. When doing a Google search for some of their practices such as "family practice" one of the doctor's profiles will display in the Google Local pack - however it is not linked to the facility website where their profile exists.

As of right now, we are using YEXT and other tools to claim Google Business Profiles for each practice, not the individual doctors. If there are unclaimed accounts for individual doctors, they are alerting Google that it’s a duplicate and should be taken down.

Is this the right process to follow for SEO best practices or should we be claiming both the business and individual doctor profiles? The reason they are not claiming individual doctor profiles is to cut down on duplicate reviews as part of the Reputation Management Program.

Advice much appreciated!

We have a whole bunch of websites that all use stock imagery. Some of the images have alt tags on them but some of them do not. To add alt tags to all of them would be a pretty lengthy process. So, would there actually be any value in adding these tags to stock images across the board?

Thanks Russ!

This reaffirms what I was thinking as well. Didn't know if someone else would find another issue.

My client's site has a directory of doctors on it's site and they are targeting weight loss surgery patients.

The problem is that when searching "weight loss surgeon richmond va" one of the doctor's profiles ranks 2nd in Google organic results while the other is not even in the first 10 pages.

Both have very similar link profiles and I have checked all the technical things like noindex tags, canonicals, etc to see if that might be the problem but it all checked out. The second doctor's profile IS indexed in Google, just not ranking.

We have done a lot of work to push his profile page up in the rankings but all efforts seem to have fallen short.

Here are the profiles:

http://advancedsurgicalpartnersofva.com/physicians/profile/Gregory-L-Schroder-MD - ranks 2 in Google

http://advancedsurgicalpartnersofva.com/physicians/profile/Matthew-Brengman-MD-FACS - does not rank

Any ideas would be much appreciated!