Ok, that still doesn't mean that they're not personalized. But I'll skip on that part for now.
In the end, the changes that you're seeing aren't triggered by what you're doing with Fetch as Google. I'll leave it up to some others to see if they'll shine a light on the situation.

Hi Luke,

It's a long time, unfortunately. Most of the 404 errors that I usually see in our Google Search Console properties are the ones that have been in there for ages. As you're dealing with bigger sites (+ 1 million pages) usually this is something you can't easily get rid of. For now I mostly tend to ignore them and try to focus on the crawl errors that come up during crawls via ScreamingFrog or Deepcrawl.

Martijn.

Based on your response and the idea that you only have 50 pages that you actively care about. Likely it's not the right tool for you. You're probably better off with a tool that is way more focused on on-page optimization for the keywords that are important to your business. I would start worrying about crawl behavior on a site that is scalable and have over 10.000+ pages that regularly change.

Hey David,

Depending on if you're using a custom template or not, you might want to look into this blog posts which is talking about that you can basically register files & styles to be inserted but they don't always have to have the version number: http://wpcrux.com/blog/wordpress-enqueue-functions-version/ . I've dealt with this once before, although it's a super tiny issue that is usually something that I would put on my roadmaps ;).

Martijn.

Don't add nofollow to them, I'm also assuming that these are not original links but actually just link to an anchor # on the page itself (at least they should). If not, then I would advise you to make them work like that. In the end, I would never add nofollow to these links. The number of links doesn't matter that badly and in this case, it's actually helping users. I would say, there is many more other things to worry about in SEO than the number of internal links on your site.

@frazashfaq11 Hi! I think the Lighthouse output tells you that while you might have resized the images correctly in Photoshop, the width & height attributes aren't added to your image tags in HTML. So what is happening is that the browser can't reserve the actual space for the image upfront as it has to wait for the image to be loaded.

Sometimes the cached pages aren't the actual representation of the page that you're looking for as some of the assets can't be loaded. What I do is go into Google Search Console and try to Fetch as Google for the same page you just tried to look up as the cached version. Then check what the response is and if that matches, often it's not the case and the page will fetch just as you see it as a user. With some of the more modern techniques it's possible that the page wont' render correctly in a cached version versus the live version.

Hi,

You should be able to just change this in the permalinks. It's good to be reminded of some of the things that you need to take care of: redirects, making sure that all old links are pointing the new right way. But most of all, I want to make sure that you're aware of the different internal structures in URL depth. That's probably why most people would advise you not to go this way.

Martijn.

Correct, I would usually advise adding in a self-referencing canonical tag to make it easier for audits and search engines to understand what the actual content is on the page.

Uhh, that's not what the requester is looking for and could actually cause tons of problems if you would apply this on a site that you're unaware of. I would always go with the most limiting robots.txt that you can and in this case, I would go with: /?filter=

You can no-index these pages usually, I wouldn't say that Google considers them thin content pages though as they can be found on any website on the web and they can probably guess that the page isn't relevant for the user anyway. Some pages like thank-you can be no-indexed but in the end, Google shouldn't even be able to visit them as they require you to fill in a form. Overall I would mostly look at the priority of this task, in the end, there is likely a 100+ other things that I would do first in my strategy over no-indexing pages that have low relevance.

I must admit, you did a great job hiding the anchor text in this post

Very much a site-wide link it seems, it could be that they're linking this from their top or footer navigation. It's a regular practice for certain partnerships. It's something I'd encourage people to do, but not from an SEO point-of-view as you should aim to drive actual traffic instead of just getting 200K links (with likely barely any value at that scale) out of a partnership.

Test it out, or try to get some more local links that will help you rank for the other cities. What I've noticed over the years with Google is that they're pretty good at figuring out the local intent but still serving the same landing page for different cities. Or the opposite way of ranking the local city page for a generic keyword term. With this, you can try to position a few pages to focus on the specific cities and see if it works or if Google is still ranking your main pages. That might save you some headache of having to create dozens of pages but meanwhile could help you see what signals are being picked up.