{"id":25633,"date":"2026-09-05T02:46:54","date_gmt":"2026-09-04T23:46:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/alienroad.com\/google-bilgi-bankasi\/november-2022-google-seo-office-hours\/"},"modified":"2026-09-05T02:46:54","modified_gmt":"2026-09-04T23:46:54","slug":"november-2022-google-seo-office-hours","status":"publish","type":"ar_kb","link":"https:\/\/alienroad.com\/google-bilgi-bankasi\/november-2022-google-seo-office-hours\/","title":{"rendered":"November 2022 Google SEO office hours"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

This is the transcript for the November 2022 edition of the Google SEO Office Hours<\/a>. For site-specific help,
\n we recommend posting your question in the Google Search Central Help Community<\/a>. <\/p>\n

Can we use multiple values in one schema markup field using comma separation?<\/h2>\n

Lizzi<\/b>: Abhishek is asking, “Can we use multiple values in one schema markup field using
\n comma separation? For example, GTIN equals value one, value two”. <\/p>\n

Well, as always, you should check the documentation for the particular feature because some
\n of the guidance might differ from feature to feature. But in general, it’s a good markup practice
\n to specify one value per field. In the case of GTIN, there should only really be one value, since
\n this is a unique product identifier. If you’re specifying a GTIN and ISBN, then use the GTIN, and
\n then the ISBN property, so that we know which value applies to which property.<\/p>\n

What are the options to use the disavow feature in Search Console for domain properties?<\/h2>\n

John<\/b>: Pierre asks: “The disavow feature in Search Console is currently unavailable for
\n domain properties. What are the options then?”<\/p>\n

Well, if you have domain level verification in place, you can verify the prefix level without
\n needing any additional tokens. Verify that host and do what you need to do. Also, keep in mind
\n that disavowing random links that look weird or that some tool has flagged, is not a good use
\n of your time. It changes nothing. Use the disavow tool for situations where you actually paid for
\n links and can’t get them removed afterwards.<\/p>\n

How bad is the helpful content update for sites accepting guest posts for money? <\/h2>\n

Duy<\/b>: Hello, this is Duy recording for SEO Office Hours. Latha asked, “How bad is the helpful
\n content update for sites accepting guest posts for money?”<\/p>\n

Our systems can identify sites with low value, low quality content, or content created just for
\n search engines. Sites accepting guest posts for money without carefully vetting content and links
\n risk ranking lowering service results, not just because of the helpful content update, but also
\n because of the other systems that we already put in place.<\/p>\n

What to do when Google does not detect the canonical tag correctly?<\/h2>\n

John<\/b>: “What to do when Google does not detect the canonical tag correctly?”<\/p>\n

So taking a step back, canonicalization is based on more than only the link<\/code> rel=\"canonical\"<\/code> element.
\n When Google discovers URLs that are significantly alike, our systems try to pick one URL that best
\n represents the content. For that we take into account not only the link<\/code> rel=\"canonical\"<\/code>, but also
\n redirects, sitemaps, internal links, external links, and more. If you have strong feelings about
\n which URL should be used, then make sure that all of your signals align. Keep in mind that canonicalization
\n is mostly about which URL is shown. It’s not something that affects the ranking of the content.<\/p>\n

Is Google more likely to crawl and index the pages if the content is short?<\/h2>\n

Gary<\/b>: “If a site has a directory covering on each topic, which isn’t searched for very often,
\n is Google more likely to crawl and index the pages if the content is short, and so it’s cheaper
\n to store it in the index.”<\/p>\n

This is an interesting question. The length of the content doesn’t influence how often we crawl
\n and whether we index it. It also doesn’t contribute to the crawl rate of a URL pattern. Niche
\n content can also be indexed. It’s not in any way penalized, but generally content, that’s popular
\n on the internet, for example, many people linked to it, gets crawled and indexed easier.<\/p>\n

Could dynamic sorting of listings be a reason for not indexing product images? <\/h2>\n

Alan<\/b>: Paul asked, “Could dynamic sorting of listings be the reason for not indexing product images?”<\/p>\n

It is unlikely that dynamic sorting of listings would be the reason for product images not being
\n indexed. Your product images should be referenced from your product description pages, so we know
\n the product the image is for. If needed, you can create a sitemap file or provide a Google
\n Merchant Center feed so Google can find all your product pages without depending upon your listings page.<\/p>\n

Is there a timeframe for the site migration?<\/h2>\n

Lizzi<\/b>: Sergey is asking, “Is there a timeframe for the site migration? We’re migrating a
\n large site to a new domain at the moment. After four months, there is still no signs of the new
\n domain getting SERP positions of the old one. So what should we do?”<\/p>\n

With a big change like this, it’s totally normal to see ranking fluctuations, especially while
\n you’re still in the middle of the migration. There’s no set timeframe for when things will settle
\n down, and also keep in mind that only moving one section of your site is not necessarily
\n indicative of a whole site move when it comes to Search. If you’re still moving things around,
\n you’re going to continue to see fluctuations. It’s hard to say what you should do next without
\n seeing the site itself. And for site specific help, we definitely recommend posting in the forums
\n so people can see your specific situation and give more specific advice. <\/p>\n

Could the use of HTTP\/3 improve SEO because it improves performance?<\/h2>\n

John<\/b>: Flavio asks, “Could the use of HTTP\/3, even indirectly, improve SEO, perhaps because
\n it improves performance?”<\/p>\n

Google doesn’t use HTTP\/3 as a factor in ranking at the moment. As far as I know, we don’t use
\n it in crawling either. In terms of performance, I suspect the gains users see from using HTTP\/3
\n would not be enough to significantly affect the core web vitals, which are the metrics that we
\n use in the page experience ranking factor. While making a faster server is always a good idea,
\n I doubt you’d see a direct connection with SEO only from using HTTP\/3. Similar to how you’d be
\n hard pressed to finding a direct connection to using a faster kind of RAM in your servers.<\/p>\n