cusrev

Ok, thanks! One of our support representatives will review and respond to your ticket.

Thanks for using our plugin!

Can you please share a screenshot of the error message?

Thanks for using our plugin and reporting this issue!

Yes, it is indeed related to the update of the website. Please accept our apologies for this problem. We took the website offline until the issue is fixed. I will provide further updates here as soon as the problem is resolved.

Please refer to this solution article: How to Disable Additional Fonts.

Thanks for highlighting this issue!

The notice will be shown only on the Google feeds page and only when at least one of the feeds is enabled. This correction was implemented in the version 4.38. Please update the plugin and let us know in case of any issues.

Sorry for the slow response!

I disagree that specific examples of duplicate content are not important. They are essential to confirm if your theory about duplicate content is based on facts or is just an opinion.

Copyscape is a tool for checking duplicate content that I know. Maybe there are other ways to check it – please share if you know any better ones. After checking the link that you posted above I see the following result (still no duplicate content): https://ibb.co/HxtYCfv

If I look at this duplicate content theory purely from the logical point of view, it doesn’t really make sense to me as well. The content of the product page on a store’s website is significantly different from the content of the page with reviews corresponding to this product on cusrev.com. The page on cusrev.com features much less content than the store’s website and has a chance to rank only for the ‘{Product Name} Reviews’ keyword. If somebody is looking for the ‘{Product Name}’ keyword, the store’s website will be the first in the ranking.

The fact that there is much less content on cusrev.com’s page compared to the store’s product page also means that they should not be linked with the canonical relationship as you recommended.

The purpose of displaying verified copies of reviews on cusrev.com is not to gain brand exposure for CusRev (as you suggested) but to let online shoppers read authentic reviews and increase the probability of them buying a product at the store’s website.

Having said that, we understand that SEO is a highly subjective and opinionated area because search engines do not tell how their algorithms work. People will believe in what they want to believe when there is little clarity about ranking factors.

Therefore, I will not try to persuade you in my arguments. Instead, we will introduce an option to add ‘noindex’ tags to cusrev.com’s pages in the upcoming updates of our website (we are working on a new design now). The ‘noindex’ tags will enable store owners to block search engines from indexing cusrev.com’s pages, if they prefer to do so.

In summary, the duplicate content theory doesn’t seem to be logical from my point of view. Also, it could not be confirmed by facts (so far). Nevertheless, we will add the ‘noindex’ tags option in the upcoming update of the website to let everyone decide for themselves what should be the indexing settings for pages with verified copies of reviews.

I hope this answers your questions!

No worries! Actually, this CSS rule is already included in the plugin’s files. Please make sure that you have the latest version installed and clear all the caching on your website.

Thanks for trying our plugin!

Can you please deactivate our plugin and check if it resolves the problem?