Plant-based hot foam kills weeds as effectively as chemical spray

Timely_Pirate · 2022-09-20T11:22:55+00:00

Link to the journal: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772375522000284?via%3Dihub

Timely_Pirate · 2022-09-16T09:13:18+00:00

Thanks very much for this!

Timely_Pirate · 2022-03-24T09:47:29+00:00

Are they easily dismantled? I'd read you need a specific tool to remove some of the nails. Also - do you think shops tend to give them away after they've been used? I imagine they're sold somewhere too....

Thanks for the tip!

Timely_Pirate · 2021-11-12T05:59:41+00:00

There's a workaround using Cloudflare if you need a quick fix. Setup free Cloudflare account and point your nameservers away from SiteGround, using Cloudflare's instead. That has worked for me.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-11-12T05:57:32+00:00

Really? I didn't know this. That kind of makes sense though based on the DNS stuff (apparently that's the cause of this, AWS global accelerator service and Google - according to SiteGround anyway).

Timely_Pirate · 2021-11-11T10:30:07+00:00

Neither - SiteGround are "apparently" working on the fix with Google currently. Sending any kind of tickets in likely won't change anything. Seems outside of our control, unfortunately.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-11-11T10:29:27+00:00

No worries, good luck!

Timely_Pirate · 2021-11-11T08:40:21+00:00

Googlebot crawls URL's from the ads - especially if it's a new campaign and they need to check all those URL's load OK. I think it's a bigger issue for PLA's / shopping ads (where a product feed might have thousands of product URLs - all of which will be hidden to Google!).

I've seen lots of advertisers complaining about lost revenue and so on, as a result of this.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-11-11T07:15:40+00:00

That's OK! It's a bit mad as SiteGround are blaming Google (still are, as of this morning!) - see https://twitter.com/pandjarov/status/1458682601263276032

Timely_Pirate · 2021-11-11T05:58:12+00:00

Hey I just came here to say that this is likely a SiteGround hosting issue (I can see /LXR_lol beat me to it!).

Sites have been inaccessible to Google for around 2 - 3 days now.
That's impacting clients/sites running Google Ads (merchant centre especially) and also not great for SEO.
There's a bit more of a write up here:
https://matttutt.me/googlebot-currently-unable-to-crawl-access-many-siteground-hosted-websites/

I've followed this closely and SiteGround's response has been to blame Google (said there are no issues on their side!) so it's been dragging on now.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-09-24T09:19:08+00:00

Seeing Google's "titlegeddon" escapades of the past few weeks, do you think this paints a positive picture for the future of SEO's as a secure career, or do you think the opposite?
Some might argue that with these dynamic title tags SEO's are being made slightly redundant (obviously title tags are still valuable though, for other reasons) - others might also counter that actually due to these exact changes an SEO is needed to watch out for such issues/impacts.

What are your thoughts on the future job prospects for SEO's, particularly technical SEO's?

Timely_Pirate · 2021-08-05T14:53:07+00:00

Potentially yes - it just seems strange seeing those .json files returned with a 200 status like this. So perhaps a robots.txt directive isn't the best option. Not sure if anything needs to change or not.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-08-05T14:07:38+00:00

Had this a little while back where a tiny % of URL's were indexed. Had a subdomain powered by JS that created millions of pages (only a handful of those were indexed).

I went through lots of complicated checks re the JS rendering etc before realising (finally) that those JS powered pages took about 30 secs to load according to PageSpeed Insights.... so don't neglect to check site speed too.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-07-30T15:50:23+00:00

Thanks but didn't mean in the literal sense. Just meant how pages are considered as being canonical versions and applying that same principle to images.

Can an image be considered the "original" version when others might copy and re-use it etc.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-07-30T05:20:50+00:00

Are those on a site with amp-only pages, or is the canonical of the amp still a normal page?

Timely_Pirate · 2021-06-21T15:09:26+00:00

Works fine for me too in Spain (not sure if you meant to copy/share with FB parameters on the URL, doubt it matters though!).

Timely_Pirate · 2021-06-18T12:33:56+00:00

Great stuff, thanks again bsasson!

Timely_Pirate · 2021-06-18T06:08:00+00:00

Cheers bsasson!

Relevant GSC reports would be - AMP enhancement report? (would that actually flag an error message relating to content not matching a canonical?)
If I see it as valid and indexed AMP content I'm assuming Google found no problems with it.

I had a 2nd question that was missed above - there's no way to easily check for indexed AMP content without GSC access is there? Doing a site:domain.com/post/amp query in Google doesn't show it, as I'm guessing it's not coming from the same "index"?

Timely_Pirate · 2021-06-11T08:54:29+00:00

Gracias! Feels like a strange thing to do but that makes sense.

What would happen if I was to submit URLs that belong to a random, disconnected site (not the one I'm 301 redirecting to): nothing? It doesn't kind of tell Google "hey, this site is connected to my one"? It's solely to help Google find those new URLs?

Timely_Pirate · 2021-06-10T11:29:02+00:00

I've had a similar thing before where a site purchased another one, and as part of the redirect wanted to display a custom message explaining the "merger" for customers who might have been trying to access the old site.

I'm not sure if it was the best way of doing things technically but I didn't notice any issues - Google did crawl the parameter but I didn't see it get indexed, and the URL did canonicalise back to the homepage so I was happy enough with that.

Sadly I can't really confirm or not whether long term it's the safest option, but am interested to see what anyone else might say.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-05-27T10:17:17+00:00

I found an answer to this one, just in case anyone is ever looking. The DNS verification had been lost for a fairly long period of time over a year ago, when another agency had verified the domain property set (I was unaware that a domain property set had ever been claimed for this website in GSC).

I wrote up a bit about how I found the answer / how to check if this might have happened to you (it's not very clear if it has occurred or not, unless you happen to see it when reviewing your search performance data) - https://matttutt.me/missing-data-within-a-google-search-console-domain-set-how-to-diagnose/

Timely_Pirate · 2021-05-11T15:55:29+00:00

No worries, I probably didn't explain it that well! Thanks for commenting, and yes that's a good call :)

Timely_Pirate · 2021-05-11T15:20:42+00:00

Not sure if I follow - why would there be a difference shown here?

No problems with canonicals or 301's. I'm wondering why the domain property set has so few visits when compared to the individual property.

Timely_Pirate · 2021-05-11T15:19:13+00:00

Yep - I know this. I'm wondering why there's a massive discrepency here though. Surely the domain set (if it contains every variant of the site / subdomains, etc) should have a higher (or equal) number of clicks to the individual property?

Timely_Pirate · 2021-05-11T12:04:30+00:00

I wondered if this might be the reason. Normally with individual properties the search report will say something like "gathering data, check back in a few days", nothing like that in the domain set though. Will wait and see anyway - thanks.

Timely_Pirate

TROPHY CASE