(1) no, if you link to an insecure page it counts against you. Since a user or search engine would have to load and visit the insecure content to find the canonical (as that's where it would be), it does not mitigate this. You'll just have to hope it doesn't end up happening too much. Canonical tags only stop content duplication, they have no impact on SEO authority merging or insecure links

(2) If the HTTPS URLs are pretty much exactly the same as their HTTP counterparts and you 301 HTTP to HTTPS, the SEO authority should flow across to HTTPS instead. Canonical tags are not proven to do what 301s do, so you may end up in a mess with those. Most sites experience a slight dip moving from HTTP to HTTPS via proper 301s, however it's not large and doesn't last long if the 301s were done well. Staying on HTTP in the long term, you will lose a lot of rankings (gradually, over time). Since you will be constantly losing, it puts your site's progress 'on hold', so the small dip from moving from HTTP to HTTPS is the 'lesser of two evils' (IMO)

(3) Both. It will reduce the number of times Google crawls HTTP, but only after pages on HTTP are dropped from Google's index / recent cache

No-followed links don't usually pass SEO authority across, negative or positive. Unless you begin to notice a specific and isolated impact on related rankings, I honestly wouldn't worry too much. No-followed links usually don't affect SEO (period)

You could always just disavow the domain(s) if you really wanted to, then even if they removed the no-follow tags you'd still be unaffected. In my opinion I wouldn't do anything if the links are all 100% no-followed anyway

AFAIK since the way images are used online hasn't 'significantly' changed in decades (as Zohaib says) - there is no factual industry standard. But this technique seems like it could yield faster page-loading speeds for mobile, which we all know Google does stand behind. Google often come up with an error on Page Speed insights which says, you are serving massive resolution images with a tiny viewport. They actually can and do regard that as an error, so surely if Google documents that the technique is acceptable to them and we know it solves certain issues, it is at least 'worth a try' IMO

I personally don't think that Google handles this data exceptionally well:

https://d.pr/i/2Y562I.png (Keyword Revealer screenshot)

https://d.pr/i/El2skX.png (Ahrefs screenshot)

https://d.pr/i/Y3bQ3p.png (Google keyword planner screenshot)

... however, I do sometimes see such keywords returned from Google Search Console and / or Google Analytics under GSC's "Search Queries" (search terms) report. So it makes me wonder, if Google really has such trouble, why does it highlight and record such keywords, passing them to me for further analysis?

Maybe it's actually not a big deal, it's just that Google's keyword planner (in terms of full unicode support) is way, WAY out of date (something they should have patched and fixed 5-6 years ago IMO)

Regardless of this though, more people do seem to search by 'half' or '50%', people 'almost' never type "½" as it's so hard to type in a web browser, you almost always have to copy and paste the symbol unless you have some kind of rich-text field entry add-in / extension

Google can process the symbol as search entry text:

https://www.google.com/search?q=%C2%BD

Google often states that actually, using unicode characters (even in URLs, in UTF-8) is ok in modern times. This is a compromise they have had to make, as many foreign characters are packaged  in various unicode character sets

This is the full list of UTF-8 symbols:

http://www.fileformat.info/info/charset/UTF-8/list.htm

If you Ctrl+F for '½', it is technically in that list. As early as 2008 Google was recorded indexing UTF-8 URLs:

https://www.seroundtable.com/archives/018137.html

Much more recently, the debate has been raised again:

https://searchengineland.com/google-using-non-english-urls-non-english-websites-fine-294758

"For domain names and top-level domains non-Latin characters are represented with Unicode encoding. This can look a little bit weird at first. For example, if you take Mueller, my last name, with the dots on the U, that would be represented slightly differently as a domain name. For browsers and for Google search, both versions of the domain name are equivalent; we treat them as one and the same. The rest of the URL can use unicode utf-8 encoding for non-Latin characters. You can use either the escape version or the unicode version within your website; they’re also equivalent to Google."

Obviously Google is talking about URLs here, but usually Google becomes capable of reading characters in markup (content, Page Titles etc) first and then accepts them for valid URL usage later. I would surmise that it probably is 'ok' to use them, but it probably would not be 'optimal' or 'the best idea'

Also: "50%"

Or in NginX format which is usually faster

I don't personally think so, but some will disagree. It's existed on a functional level (Google drawing relationships between trending entities, and what images it should show) for many years. Throughout the years there have been various search experiments which make some of this information visible to Google's end users, but this is the first one in a long time which has gained any kind of usage

The technology is probably highly related to Google's "people also search for" facility on their standard results, which seems to come and go over the years (sometimes remaining accessible to JS-disabled browsers, even when standard end-users can no longer access the technology)

Some will say it's shiny and new, certainly this particular implementation is a little green. Overall though, no it's not really new technology (just a new spin on it)

This is a very solid answer. One additional point is that without a forced structure, Google can 'catch out' your secure site linking to your insecure site. Say you have a blog and a post in the blog links to one of your pages, that link is probably created as 'absolute' in your CMS. So suddenly, when you load that blog post on HTTPS, you can see a link pointing to HTTP. Google doesn't like links pointing to insecure content, so over time the situation snowballs and you lose a lot of trust

Yes there is, in fact there's a way to influence ALL of the images which are displayed, but it's usually costly and time-intensive

For  example, look at this Google search query:

https://www.google.com/search?q=frozen&tbm=isch

... this used to contain loads of pictures of frozen foods and frozen landscapes. Now it's all about a Disney movie! Another good query is "Matrix" which (for image results) used to be very technical, but for over a decade it's been dominated by the Matrix movie franchise

If you create such an online storm, that you 'become' the trend, you can 'take over' Google's image results. Sometimes this only lasts a short while, sometimes it lasts well over 10 years

The 'related' images that run along the top (which can sometimes be derivatives, e.g: 'related movies', or instead they can be search narrowing facilities, e.g: 'frozen foods' as opposed to the generic 'frozen' results) - can be influenced. Usually the related images, are 'runner up' trends that didn't quite manage to dominate Google's results, yet which still count as distinct and highly popular search entities

This one is quite a good example: https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&q=automobile - there are related images for specific vehicles, titans in the automobile industry (Henry Ford) / historic, even stuff like 'vector' which covers digital automobile art

Your best bet at influencing which things appear along the top, is to influence which commonly-related pictures people ALSO search for when they use Google. Unfortunately, that's not easy at all and often involves colossal production and / or marketing budgets which extend offline in a big way

Google doesn't seem to have a problem with this:

https://developers.google.com/web/fundamentals/design-and-ux/responsive/images

"TL;DR

• Use relative sizes for images to prevent them from accidentally overflowing the container.
• Use the picture element when you want to specify different images depending on device characteristics (a.k.a. art direction).
• Use srcset and the x descriptor in the img element to give hints to the browser about the best image to use when choosing from different densities.
• If your page only has one or two images and these are not used elsewhere on your site, consider using inline images to reduce file requests.

-

Enhance imgs with srcset for high DPI devices

The srcset attribute enhances the behavior of the imgelement, making it easy to provide multiple image files for different device characteristics. Similar to the image-set CSS function native to CSS, srcset allows the browser to choose the best image depending on the characteristics of the device, for example using a 2x image on a 2x display, and potentially in the future, a 1x image on a 2x device when on a limited bandwidth network."

This part seemed most important to me:

"On browsers that don't support srcset, the browser simply uses the default image file specified by the src_ attribute. This is why it is important to always include a 1x image that can be displayed on any device, regardless of capabilities._ "

... so basically you define your srcset as per Google's documentation, but you must be sure to include a default fallback image that could work on all browsers and devices - that's what gets used if the browser is unable to interpret your srcset (or if your srcset doesn't include anything for the specified browser)

Not 100% sure if Google even reads  AutoRental schema on web-pages, though there is some evidence to suggest that Google sees valid usage of AutoRental in emails

If you go here:

https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/product

On the left-hand sidebar, you can see a list of all the different schemas which Google documents that they support. AutoRental isn't present there. A Google search helps to confirm this. But they do list "LocalBusiness" schema, of which "AutomotiveBusiness" and "AutoRental" are valid sub types, so I assume that using AutoRental would be ok and acceptable by Google

It does seem that this site: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kayak.co.uk%2FCheap-Leicester-Car-Hire.6700.cars.ksp (Structured Data results for a car rental site) is indeed using product schema to list all the vehicles on offer, so I think it could be a good supplementary schema to go alongside AutoRental

These guys: https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool#url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.enterprise.com%2Fen%2Fcar-rental%2Flocations%2Fus%2Fny%2Fnew-york.html - are using AutoRental, and Google's structured data tool does indeed pick it up

Check more of your competitors using Google's Structured Data testing tool, if enough of them are using product schema on the vehicular product listings then I'd see no good reason to omit it

'truly' positive SEO metrics (backlinks from quality sites, high authority scores) don't count as much in less competitive query-spaces (world-wide "drug rehab thailand" has only 390 average monthly searches) and they also don't count as much in bad-neighborhood query-spaces

1. if very few users use a certain query-space, Google won't spend as much time refining it

2. if a query-space connects with bad neighborhood sites (drugs, unlicensed medicine, gambling, pornography) then Google won't spend as much time refining it

It seems that whilst 'rehabilitation' centers have noble intentions, obviously they also connect with the theme of 'drugs' and recreational drug usage, which is negative. Google is improving all the time, but it's not perfect yet. If an authoritative source talks about drugs (government initiatives and stuff like FRANK) then the authority carried over from connected reputable institutions stops the negative query-space from causing so much damage

In the instance that most of the results are from unknown institutions which may not be very reputable (like various rehab centers in Thailand) then the query-space may be much more noisy without much effort from Google in terms of cleaning it up

Google also gets into a bit of a muddle with negative query-spaces. The user wants to find something related to "drugs", but usually links from sites about "drugs" result in negative SEO authority, so how do they sort results in negative query-spaces? Clearly they have their methods but understandably this whole area of the web isn't ranked very accurately by Google

My suspicion is that, Google has a simplistic view here where they think the user is searching for drug-related sites, which is something Google usually doesn't want to condone. The query-space is noisy as the result of colliding positive and negative metrics shooting across a perceived negative query-space. You might even find that in some negative query-spaces, you could rank better with more negative signals (go figure)

I honestly think if you're going to pick one of the two (though neither is quite right), event makes much more sense than product does. It's not like someone is physically buying the actual cruise ship, instead they're paying to spend 'time' at a 'venue', the venue just happens to be mobile instead of stationary

Someone else went on a similar journey of discovery in 2017, here: https://www.webmasterworld.com/html/4844938.htm

... kind of interesting. It highlighted that Ticket schema might be one possible option: https://schema.org/Ticket. There are actually lots of references to "ticket" within Google's event schema documentation: https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/event (ctrl+F for "ticket")

Apparently lots of cruise operators do use event schema, never heard of any of them using product schema

That sounds like you could have a soft redirect issue of some kind. If the 'actual' redirects 'strip' the trailing slash, but the then non-trailing slash URLs canonical back to the trailing slash versions (which again redirect to remove the slash) then that's known as a soft redirect loop and yes it can adversely  affect SEO performance

So let's have a look, using this URL as an example:

https://www.fishingtackleshop.com.au/camping-tents-other-brands

Status Code (200 OK) - but canonical tag is like:

So when you visit that URL with the trailing slash... It does NOT 301 to remove the slash, so no you are not caught in a soft redirect loop and that is not the issue. However, be that as it may, having ALL the hyperlinks point to 'non-/' and then all the canonicals point to 'trailling-/', could be very confusing for Google. Does it go with the canonical URL, or the URL with the most links which is also a signal of, what page is legit?

I would still get it seen to

So what you are asking is, if a GA login has 100 native accounts (and thus is maxed), if you share more accounts onto it from another external login (via emails share / permissions) - can that limit be exceeded?

I actually don't know what the limits on that are or if it even has limits. I would test it for you but our main login isn't maxed so it wouldn't really prove / disprove anything. Good question though

No problem buddy just mind how you go, looks like the legal situation revolving around gambling over there is quite complex!

Just seems overly complex and like there's way more in there than there needs to be

I'd go with something that 'just' does what you have stated that you want to achieve, and nothing else

User-Agent: *

Disallow: /wp-content/plugins/

Disallow: /comments

Disallow: /*?s=

Disallow: /*&s=

Disallow: /search

See if that helps

I guess the main thing to do, if you are concentrating on giving gambling reviews - would be to focus around the terms that people are searching for right now.

It might not be bad to try for "도박" which transaltes to "gambling", which has (according to Google's keyword planner) - 3,600 average monthly Korean language searches in South Korea

If you want to be more ethical there's keywords like "도박 중독 치료 (260 avg. searches / month, S.Korea)" which is "Gambling Addiction Treatment". If you are reviewing online gambling sites, maybe giving some links and resources to help people suffering from addiction could also be helpful. Reviews are one type of 'advice', so really this is just an expansion of what you are already doing (though it may come with some legal entanglements)

This one is interesting: "단 도박". (480 avg. searches / month, S.Korea). It translates to "sweet gambling". But what does 'sweet' mean? Is it just that people think it's 'pretty sweet', or instead is it a special type of Korean gambling using sweets (confectionery)? Tailoring your content to your market and audience, is incredibly important

Tread carefully. There are lots of keywords like this one "도박 사이트 처벌"  (10 avg. searches / month, S.Korea) - translating to "punishment of gambling sites". There are lots of queries asking about 'cases' (legal assumed) of gambling addiction and gambling punishment. Although the web is free in South Korea, maybe laws on gambling are in fact stricter (needs more research)

Indeed, this keyword "도박 마" - translates to "do not gamble" (1,600 avg. searches / month, S.Korea). This is interesting, is it some kind of cryptic warning? Who knows

This keyword "합법 도박 사이트" translates to "legal gambling site" (140 avg. searches / month, S.Korea) - hinting that not all online gambling, even in South Korea, is legal

I found this which is a very interesting read: https://www.thekoreanlawblog.com/2017/02/koreas-gambling-law.html - mind how you proceed. Very murky waters

These are great additionals I am particularly interested in point #1. I had always suspected Google might try to predict, visit or penetrate URLs in other ways but I didn't know any of the specifics