Forum Replies Created
Sorry Michael, no we won’t hand out login details – or would you please securely release yours?
Of course you won’t either, and you aren’t allowed either. What a question, I know!
Hence why it amazes me everytime anyone I haven’t even ever met in life dares to ask for “your login details please”.
And those I HAVE met, you wonder?
Again, simple answer: Would you give the Rankmath login details say to your grandma, sister, friend, priest, or taxman?
LOL. Let’s have a laugh together, the SEO plugin world is tough enough, isn’t it?
My point of view? Only noobs ask for login details. While employees and contractors get them as per: contract. Together with all law-enforceable obligations. Right.
Maybe you have more success with individual “bloggers”. Not my business though.
Oh, I even have a suggestion HOW:
Why not simply write the alt tag as title tag?
– it’s the only thing that is image-specific (after all we are talking about images here)
– it’s way better for SEO than repeating the post/page title countless-image-times
– AND you could even reuse the alt tag for those who have “Add missing ALT attributes” turned ON.
I don’t know how good your feature “Add missing ALT attributes” is, WHAT it inserts: I haven’t tried it, our images always have alt tags. But it will be way better for SEO than the present (unless your alt tag too is always repeating the page/post title)
It’s no problem, even good, to have title tag the same as alt tag for each image.
It’s bad and useless, to have title tag repeat the post title for each image.
Anyway, it’s just my input. To make the greatest SEO plugin greater. 🙂
Yes I did check that as well, thanks Todd. It isn’t the cause though.
Look: Your option there clearly says: “Add missing TITLE attributes”.
Further clarity: The help text says: “Add TITLE attribute for all images without a TITLE attribute automatically. The attribute is dynamically applied when the content is displayed, and the stored content is not changed.”
Can you see why I called this thread “Greatest SEO plugin: another error? found: suggestion”?
IMHO it’s an error that needs to be resolved. You agree now?
there is now a detailed solution here: https://support.rankmath.com/ticket/solved-must-dos-to-prevent-rankmath-seo-contradictions/
in case anyone else finds this (by myself) badly named thread
As expected the software changed some of the sql command characters, sorry I don’t know how to prevent that.
Either way, the point is that say for example menu pages and sub-pages and sub-sub-pages (lol, if you have such detailed menus too)
should NOT be indexed
– they do not aim to attract visitors: no lengthy quality content, just a menu
– meta tags etc for menu pages are suboptimal for user search queries anyways
– and random google searches shall find the ultimate gems that are IN THE MENU, not the menu itself.
Example: Dog Food Menu page: https://mygermanshepherd.org/food/
which itself (obviously) is a sub-menu of dog care: https://mygermanshepherd.org/care/
neither should be indexed.
And I just checked: now all such pages indeed have the new meta tag combination: <meta name=”robots” content=”noindex,follow,noarchive,nosnippet”/>
It worked! 🙂
Now this is consistent with RM’s post exclusions under: “Sitemap Settings” > “Exclude Posts”
and since our robots.txt doesn’t make exclusions, now all *should be* consistent. (fingers crossed)
RM is extremely powerful, and I am glad to have found it, hence why I didn’t give up. IMHO RM is way better than yoast and AIO SEO and SEO Framework and SEOPress, but that’s just my personal opinion after reviewing/using these. (non-affiliated with any)
Todd: We needed the id of EVERY post/page/customposttype already just to enter them in your field “exlude from sitemap”, you remember now? That was a hassle yes but it’s sunk cost now. We have all ids.
Also, no we wouldn’t need to run hundreds of queries in sql: If only your team finally were to say HOW/WHERE these 6 tickmarks get saved then we’d likely run ONE smart sql query to change it for ALL ids in a flash. Like, 3 weeks ago, so fast. 😉
So: “It is much, much easier to just edit the post” doh, no. Have you ever tried editing the RM SEO settings for hundreds of pages via wp editor?? Takes like forever just to LOAD them. Regardless of server. No sensible person works these things in the EDITOR.
“Which is why I think this type of query…”
JUST the place WHERE/HOW the 6 tickmarks get saved?
They absolutely DO get saved in the db, ask Bhanu maybe?
(I haven’t emailed yet as it wouldn’t look good on you)
Again: Instead of posting yet ANOTHER reply here, why didn’t you simply answer the easy question instead?
I don’t get it!
Nor would you if you were at the user end…
Of course there is, you answered: “use “rank_math_robots””
And though that’s NOT in the db, SOMETHING saves the six tickboxes in the database SOMEWHERE, else you wouldn’t even offer the six tickboxes. 😉
There may be a guru here for this young plugin who knows, let’s see if he jumps in?
PS: Don’t get this wrong, I totally appreciate all your effort here. THANK YOU.
It’s just that it hasn’t yielded anything for … is it 3 weeks now?
That’s what is “disturbing”. Hope you understand.
Besides: The entire database is void of “rank_math_robots”!
Now I am getting really angry. WHAT A TIME WASTE!
I’d be ashamed.
But that’s me.
Thanks. Well you would have. Easily. Simply answering the user 😉
>> which was: WHERE/HOW IN THE DATABASE can we change those 6 tickbox settings
No idea why for 7 messages you don’t answer this simple question, but you will have your reasons not to answer what users ask, for sure.
As I mentioned earlier your “global settings” suggestion helps only those little sites OR where the settings needs to be the same for most posts/pages.
While here, with thousands of pages, and so with hundreds that need Either be indexed OR not, “global settings” isn’t helpful, you will admit.
I am giving up now here, and try to find the ANSWER myself. It’s a shame, after two weeks waiting, with Rankmath caused google indexing errors…
Or maybe I email Bhanu, he may know the answer and share it.
Oh Todd, this back and forth costs TIME 🙁
No one asked you “improve on it”.
What I did ask (five times now): WHERE in the database can
set those 6 tickmarks (value=1) of the “Additional” tab?
Note that thanks to this loong back and forth the installation of Rankmath now STILL costs us valuable traffic and hundreds of discrepancies in google console!
pages set to Index by RM <> pages excluded from sitemap (for good reason)
So I trust we can ultimately resolve this shortcoming today?
PLEASE. (fifth Please and Thank you)
Thanks so much Todd.
“For example, you could have a new Taxonomy called “Unimportant” and it will only contain posts you don’t want to have indexed.”
This isn’t really feasible, an extra taxonomy for that kind of thing.
Again, would you be so kind please and share with us users WHERE in the database we can set those 6 tickmarks?
I say “in the database” because our past communication suggests that this is the quickest way (at least until Rankmath offers a frontend way).
FYI: I am thinking to use an “Update” command to bulk set those tickmarks.
Likely will be six commands because likely you use 6 custom fields for that.
Thank you. Yes it may help SOME for sure, in my case however I cannot seem to understand how “taxonomies” could allow to set those 6 tickboxes shown earlier?
Again, could you pl share a way (backend is fine, database query for example) how we can “tick” those six under “Additional” for hundreds of pages WITHOUT having to open and edit each one individually?
Again, your brilliant “bulk edit” option unfortunately does NOT allow these tickmarks on the front end.
Todd, isn’t ignorant, happy to help: AIOSEO, Yoast, SEO Framework, even SEOpress.
“On a usual website with 1000 blog posts, 10-20 of those posts might be worth noindexing. Not the other way around.” 🙂
I leave you with your belief, no point to argue.
“With that said, Rank Math does have an option to noindex a particular type of taxonomy.”
Could you share a link to kb clearly showing that process you’re thinking of?
Would help EVERYONE 😉
@everyone: I solved the problem per firefox re-install. Now the error is gone. 🙂
The long list of sensitive data I posted, no clue?
Because else I can only reply the same way you did:
“If you could share your WP logins” I could look why it does work at your end?
You’d never gonna share those, so how on earth can you expect I share ours?
This will NEVER get into my head: No sensible person would ever “share their login details”!
If you disagree, go ahead and share yours first.