XF 2.2 Upgraded to 2.2.15; Google indexing error this morning

[Wildcat Media]

I don't know if it's a coincidence, but I upgraded to 2.2.15 yesterday, and this morning I get an email with an error. Search console says:



At the bottom of the page (if I view source), I find the section under <script type="application/ld+json"> and there is no "text" field.

I do see "articleBody" but that's all, at least in terms of what it seems to be looking for.

It is a "thread" not an article, if that matters. Also, viewing the source of this page here on XF does show the text field.

 

[Wildcat Media]

FWIW, here's Google's test page for rich data:

Rich Results Test - Google Search Console

search.google.com

 

[Jeremy P]

Implemented Post in thread 'Markup improvements for Google'

Feb 4, 2024

I may not be reading this thread closely enough, but did a validation on my site regarding the Missing field "author" issue and it isn't validating.

However, I'm am seeing a data-author setting in my code. I'm on v2.2.15.

Am I looking at this properly? Wondering if Google is validating against a cached page, or if I still have a problem.

This would be due to outdated (or improperly updated) templates in a custom theme. Notably, your post markup is missing itemprop="author".

Yes missing URL is due to deleted members. Also you may find missing text error, which is...

• Jeremy P

• 

 

[Wildcat Media]

Not quite sure I follow, but even if I check with an unaltered stock XF style, the text field is still missing. But articleBody contains the post text.

It should be obvious but I didn't clarify--this is while viewing a thread, with the first post a traditional thread, not an article/question/poll.

 

[Jeremy P]

They are functionally equivalent, but the rise in errors is for posts which only contain images or embedded media. The thread I linked contains more details but ultimately this is not a major concern and will be addressed in the future.

 

[nodle]

So basically Google is upset because the thread only has embeds and photos but no text, or not enough text? Is that correct?

 

[Jeremy P]

Sort of. Google is saying the posts which contain only photos or media (and no text) will not be eligible for rich results. It has no bearing on regular results or ranking and no bearing on whether the overall thread or other posts are eligible for rich results.

 

[Wildcat Media]

That doesn't quite apply to my situation, as the original post has one image. But the rest of the post, and all the replies, are text-based. So, I am thinking that maybe it's the presence of a single image (uploaded as an attachment) that is causing issues with Google? Or are they just blindly looking for a "text" field that doesn't exist, regardless of content?

Is there something we can add or edit to fix this, or should I not worry about it? Google's messages are too cryptic to be of much use, especially since they provide almost no guidance on what they are looking for. (Their one "help" link points to a generic landing page, not a link to the specific error.)

After having been removed from Google's indexing for a robots.txt entry they didn't like and didn't even use (crawl-delay), I'm wary of every message they send to me now.

 

[Jeremy P]

I can't be sure without knowing the URL, but it's almost certainly displaying the error for that one post and parsing the others without issue. It's nothing to worry about, it just means that post (and others like it) are not eligible for rich results.

 

[Wildcat Media]

I can't be sure without knowing the URL, but it's almost certainly displaying the error for that one post and parsing the others without issue. It's nothing to worry about, it just means that post (and others like it) are not eligible for rich results.

I'll update this thread if Google starts flagging a lot more of the content in the forum. For now I'm going to consider it a fluke on their end.