Posts on SEO.
41 posts tagged "SEO".
Technically clean, still unindexed: six pages that needed a crawl path before Google would find them
PR #153 was an ultracode review of six pages stuck at 'URL is unknown to Google' — five legal surfaces plus the stamp-duty calculator. Every technical check came back clean. The fix wasn't a technical one: it was body-prose internal links from six already-indexed articles, giving Google a crawl path to pages it had no reason to visit.
The YMYL pages weren't thin — they were stranded: zero inbound links, unnamed reviewers, and a TypeScript config enforcing nothing
Phase Q's three-lens assessment didn't flag content depth on UK Calculators' four money pages. It flagged link equity: forty-eight articles, zero internal links to the calculator set. Then reviewer attribution. Then a TypeScript config with strict: true declared and ignoreBuildErrors: true also set — which meant strict mode had never been a gate.
Googlebot had the sitemap for weeks. Six pages were still unknown. The fix was editorial prose.
Six URLs stuck at ‘unknown to Google’ for weeks after sitemap submissions, IndexNow pings, and twelve manual Request-Indexing nudges. The ultracode audit of all six pages found no technical blocker. Footer-only pages on a lower-authority site need editorial prose links — Googlebot follows editorial paths, not manifests.
AdSense returned 'Low value content' three times. The problem was the framing.
The third rejection landed on 1 August: same verdict, empty policy field, authorised ads.txt. Three rounds of compliance fixes — hub listings, SVG diagrams, trust-signal cleanup — and the same response each time. A 15-agent root-cause review against the Quality Rater Guidelines made the error plain: Google is issuing a quality judgement, not a policy verdict.
Third rejection, same verdict: the September 2025 QRG had quietly changed what low-value means
Three low-value content rejections, each with a clean ads.txt and an empty policy breakdown. The hub listings were real. The diagrams were in place. A fifteen-agent research review found what three audit cycles had missed: the September 2025 Quality Rater Guidelines had changed the criteria the audits were running against.