Welcome to the Q&A Forum

If I were to remove Google Analytics completely, what would happen with my Moz campaign?  What wouldn't I be able to see or use?

I ask this on the back of the recent changes to EU 'cookie law'.  It's getting to the point now where GA will no longer be a viable option unless you want to rely on consent from those awful cookie popup notices - the ones everyone hates and just clicks on to see the content.

Myself and a friend (who is a competitor) both had the same problem.  Doing a URL Inspection in Google Search Console - specifically the Test Live URL thing - fixed it immediately.

Myself and a friend (who is a competitor) both had the same problem.  Doing a URL Inspection in Google Search Console - specifically the Test Live URL thing - fixed it immediately.

Myself and a friend (who is a competitor) both had the same problem.  Doing a URL Inspection in Google Search Console - specifically the Test Live URL thing - fixed it immediately.

Err, when did this happen?  Although you can still enter a Title in the WP image library, when inserting into a post the Title tag is not implemented.  Alt text is there OK but not Title.

There was a plugin around that restored this basic seo functionality but it's no longer available.

I mean - honestly!

Thanks Donna,  I've already tried switching back to the default theme and no difference.

However your link does show that Wordpress itself adds the canonical link to every post and page by default so that'll be where it's coming from, rather than the theme.

Thanks.

A rel="canonical" is being added to every page and post on my Wordpress site - not tag results, not category results.  Not a major problem, right?  Except that I don't know where it's coming from.

I've tried tracking it down - change the theme back to a default one, turn off all the plugins - it's still there.  Is it coming from .htaccess perhaps?

The only issue it is causing is that it has causes me to have to turn off the canonical option in Platinum SEO  as that was resulting in two identical rel=canon on each page.

It doesn't seem to be causing problem but I'd like to get a better understanding of what it going on.

Simple question - how much of an SEO impact does NOT having a physical address on your site make?

I run a photography business based from home.  For security reasons I don't really want our home address easily available to the public.

I have a Google Maps listing (actually seem to have two at the moment, but that's a different matter) and the full address is logged there but is not viewable publicly - just the surrounding area.

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

OK that's good to know.  We do inadvertently have a lot of our pics on GI so I was obviously doing something right all these years.

Thanks

Yes, I've taken that very approach with a re-write this afternoon.  if the venue is relevant to the picture then I've left it in, otherise I've removed it from Alt but kept in Title.    I've changed up the Title tags too so they're in blocks - first for this place, then this place, then this place etc rather than them all having a global value.  It's probably a bit more balance now.

Thanks for the replies.  Moz do need to correct that help page.

Yes, I'm wary of 'keyword stuffing' but I'm not sure what would actually constitute that.

If I've got : " Bride and groom exchanging vows during wedding ceremony at so-and-so-venue "... then that venue name is going to get mentioned in most images - after that is where the image was taken and is completely relevant.  Would that be considered stuffing?  It's difficult to judge what is and what isn't.

I've been doing SEO on my business's site for years and have got good results.  I've always used image Titles and Alt Text text.  Our blog posts are image-intensive, often with 100-200 pictures (not surprising since we're photographers).  For any given blog post, I've tended to have a uniform image Title for each image and then a more specialised Alt Text tag giving a description.

A typical image on one of our blog posts would be like this:

Image filename: wedding-photography-at-so-and-so-venue-001.jpg   .... 002, 003 etc

Image Title Attribute: Wedding Photography at So-And-So-Venue by Our-Company-Name - this would be the same for every image in the blog post.

Alternative Text: Bride and groom exchanging vows during wedding ceremony at so-and-so-venue - this would be tailed for each image.

So my question is - is this right?    The Moz help page for image SEO is actually incorrect in one aspect:

https://moz.com/ugc/10-tips-for-optimizing-your-images-for-search

"Alt text (short for “alternative text”) is used to highlight the identity of an image when you hover over it with your mouse cursor. It also shows as text to all users when there are problems rendering the image."

This is not the case.  Hovering over the image in Firefox, Chrome, Edge and Opera ALL display the Image Title, NOT Alt Text.

Thoughts?

That is very useful, thanks Zack.

Thanks Robert.  I suppose really I'm a bit frustrated that Moz doesn't do a bit more when it comes to competitor information. Majestic and a couple of other FREE tools list quite a few backlinks (though less than ours) while Moz reports... zero.

Thanks for your response.  Is it possible to send URL privately?  Distinct possibility that the other person is on here!

On our campaign, I have three local competitors which I like to keep an eye on.  Two have been around for years but the other is pretty new.  According to Moz, he has a Domain Authority of 1, has no backlinks and ranks lower on every keyword I keep track of.

How then is he getting ahead of us for certain search terms?  Can Moz not give any more information?