Welcome to the Q&A Forum

You're going to recommend that someone permanently redirect someone (user and search crawler) to an irrelevant interstitial?

If you made the choice to redirect a user, why wouldn't you temporarily redirect a user, 302? That is if you made the decision to redirect the user.

<noscript><img class="photo-icon" src="http://www.wired.com/opinion/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/photo_icon4.jpg"></noscript>

is one simple fallback

Really good questions. This is something that is taking on another aspect per recent updates to Google's webmasters guidelines: https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/66356?hl=en&ctx=NCUI and https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2721312

My initial though is to separate each piece to make them unique, but then we have five to ten wimpy little posts. Not to mention that these types of posts add value to the end user with related and relevant context in the links that make it to these link round ups.

Another thought that might prevent a site from getting pinged for negating the above guideline links is to make that content appear in the source like you might with comments - loaded via JavaScript/AJAX so it never really load. But that is a whole other violation that might hurt your site in the long run.

What to do? Great question!

Good questions. I would like to be able to run my campaigns similarly to how I manage my GA and WMT accounts, by granting access to my various profiles to allow my team to work on them, while not divulging my account's access.

Considering the price you pay for even basic PRO this should be an option.

Good questions. I would like to be able to run my campaigns similarly to how I manage my GA and WMT accounts, by granting access to my various profiles to allow my team to work on them, while not divulging my account's access.

Considering the price you pay for even basic PRO this should be an option.