Quote from: Microstock Man on April 09, 2013, 19:11

>There are 32 words contained in the body copy. This is far too low and should be increased.  I'm used to keeping descriptions reasonably clean and direct.  Is it better to add additional or more detailed description of what is being viewed? 
>No images appear in this page, consider adding some as appropriate.  Seems like this would be for a blog page but doesn't apply to this situation unless we could add clickable thumbnails to other images from the series. 
>No outbound links appear in this page, consider adding some as appropriate.  Again, maybe clickable thumbnails or a link to a lightbox if we could have that as a feature someday?   

....
 

You will never reach the recommended 300 words per page for image pages, unless you have HUGE descriptions!

With this plugin, it cannot tell what happens on the page after publish. For instance, Leo has coded in that the page includes an image (your photo for sale). But the plugin is looking for an image within the page, visible from the editing screen which you wont have ever, unless you manually insert an extra image (not sure why you would want to do that). So some of these things you just have to accept that you wont tick the boxes on. But that doesn't mean that Google wont index or rate your page well.

depending on the image, I add additional text for landmarks, temples, etc, with external links to my travel website where appropriate

include links to your similar images as thumbnails within the page (see my other post regarding 'contact sheets').  I keep a list of various links to country name,  city name, thumbnails, etc, so it's really easy to add links to the descriptions

Quote from: cathyslife on January 06, 2018, 05:21

OLD THREAD ALERT ... from 2015.

Why does that matter? The last contributor's post is interesting.

It matters because every time a new person joins, like this person, they dredge up old old old threads and comment. I agree, SEO is an interesting topic. Why not start a new, current and relevant thread? Or to get their required posts in, reply to something current, then start a thread? It's just basic common sense. Can you explain why new posters go back years to revive old threads?