Which SEO WP Plugin?
- Thread starter GeoMal
- Start date
Upvote
0
S
Scott@KarmaContent
@fisicx has made this one that looks like it fits your requirements exactly: https://quick-plugins.com/free-things/no-fuss-seo/
Upvote
0
This one: https://quick-plugins.com/free-things/no-fuss-seo/
I built for people who just need to do as you want.
Edit : Scott beat me to it!
I built for people who just need to do as you want.
Edit : Scott beat me to it!
Upvote
0
I'm surprised to see Yoast being put down. I have used Yoast on hundreds of sites. Never had an issue. Works beautifully. Updates are issued super-fast. There has been a security issue in the past, but I believe that has been fixed long time ago.
Upvote
0
If you have a busy site Yoast can double your server load.
It loads each page internally which means everything get called twice: all your scripts, styles and content. It's a bonkers way to do anything.
It loads each page internally which means everything get called twice: all your scripts, styles and content. It's a bonkers way to do anything.
Upvote
0
Yoast has never gotten the 301's vs canonical's right, being a died in the wood canonical lover who refuses to acknowledge any of the hundreds or thousands of examples of sites whose SEO has been wrecked because of the stupid canonical tag vs 301 handling, especially now that there's sites moving from http to https.
Don't get me started on this - I've repaired more sites than I care to remember - all of which suffered the same issues with canonical signals telling search engines the source page was canonical, when in reality the redirected destination page should have been the sole canonical. It's all down to using a half-arsed tag incorrectly - just lazy, silly implementation globally.
Don't get me started on this - I've repaired more sites than I care to remember - all of which suffered the same issues with canonical signals telling search engines the source page was canonical, when in reality the redirected destination page should have been the sole canonical. It's all down to using a half-arsed tag incorrectly - just lazy, silly implementation globally.
Upvote
0
What do you do when you currently have Yoast installed? If I replace it do I have to redo all titles etc???
Upvote
0
I had a conflict issue with Yoast - it was processing a contact form twice resulting in all sorts of errors. I raised a ticket and all the support team did was tell me I shouldn't be using a properly configured WordPress function. This is when I discovered they passed the wp_loop in the background. It's a plugin that is long past it's sell by date - full of redundant features and the hopeless traffic light thing.
My easy to use plugin will import all your Yoast page titles and descriptions.
Upvote
0
No it's not.
Yoast does the same basic SEO as all the others (page title and description) - just about everything else is superfluous. And on a busy site Yoast can really slow down page load speeds as it is very resource hungry.
Upvote
0
There aren't any responses to point to. Yoast certainly won't tell you this and it was only because of a support query I discovered the double page load. If you have a busy site (high numbers of page views) install Yoast and monitor server and site performance. Then remove Yoast and run the same tests. You will see a considerable improvement. If your site only gets a few visitors each day then it won't make any appreciable difference.
Like all things webby, you have to run your own tests.
Like all things webby, you have to run your own tests.
Upvote
0
With over million installs, it's surprising there exist no reputable sources you can point us to. I mean, even if Yoast is not keen on making this public, he does have competitors. And, they would be delighted to shout about this into the world, wouldn't they?
Upvote
0
There are plenty of people complaining but they all have relatively small sites so don't notice the problems. Those who do complain are almost ignored by Yoast: https://wordpress.org/support/topic/very-disappointed-in-yoast-seo-plugin-updates-slows-sites-down/
And today on the support forum it says: "228 of 425 support threads in the last two months have been marked resolved.". But on their website they make it quite clear if you want full support you have to pay for the upgrade.
There are better SEO plugins but they don't compete - that's not the WordPress way. If you bad mouth the competition you could fine your plugin removed from the repository.
And today on the support forum it says: "228 of 425 support threads in the last two months have been marked resolved.". But on their website they make it quite clear if you want full support you have to pay for the upgrade.
There are better SEO plugins but they don't compete - that's not the WordPress way. If you bad mouth the competition you could fine your plugin removed from the repository.
Upvote
0
I saw that and few other threads. All I can say about it is that plugin conflicts are normal in WP and none of the info I have seen proves the problem is caused by Yoast.
Yes, their support on the WP forums is abysmal, but it's also completely normal that professional support is reserved for paying clients.
As for the "not the WP way" comment, there are many ways to get your message out there and avoid being traced back to a competitor...
Yes, their support on the WP forums is abysmal, but it's also completely normal that professional support is reserved for paying clients.
As for the "not the WP way" comment, there are many ways to get your message out there and avoid being traced back to a competitor...
Upvote
0
If you want to continue to Yoast that's fine. I'm just reporting the performance drop I've seen when Yoast was running.
Upvote
0
I'd be more concerned about the SEO impact from the canonical vs 301 handler that's all fubar.
It's been discussed on here over the years, so go back and read the threads. I'd bet Tin can remember some of these as well.
The problem occurs when you've got automatic canonicalisation pointing to self, then you redirect, such as a category, moved product/post or migration to https.
Google then tries to put both the canonical destination and the 301 destination into the index, despite them being different URL's, and knocks out some of your preferred content (into the dupe content/omitted secondary index), and dings you for poor quality, thus firing a torpedo at your rankings.
It leaves site owners wondering why they're on page 7 or 11 instead of 1 or 2. They then do the site command, check the omitted URL's that aren't indexed but should be, and those in the index which shouldn't be, and have to sort out the mess manually. It's a fugly mess to find, much less sort.
I've seen it, had to fix it, and complained to Yoast many times - and he couldn't give a rats !"$£! about it.
It's been discussed on here over the years, so go back and read the threads. I'd bet Tin can remember some of these as well.
The problem occurs when you've got automatic canonicalisation pointing to self, then you redirect, such as a category, moved product/post or migration to https.
Google then tries to put both the canonical destination and the 301 destination into the index, despite them being different URL's, and knocks out some of your preferred content (into the dupe content/omitted secondary index), and dings you for poor quality, thus firing a torpedo at your rankings.
It leaves site owners wondering why they're on page 7 or 11 instead of 1 or 2. They then do the site command, check the omitted URL's that aren't indexed but should be, and those in the index which shouldn't be, and have to sort out the mess manually. It's a fugly mess to find, much less sort.
I've seen it, had to fix it, and complained to Yoast many times - and he couldn't give a rats !"$£! about it.
Upvote
0
From another thread I wrote:
I'm working with a client that has thousands of daily page views. Replacing Yoast with another SEO plugin reduced server load by almost 40% which meant it could deliver more pages to more people much faster. Time to first byte dropped by about 0.5 seconds (on average over the day).
And the sitemap Yoast creates takes no account of page priorities (because apparently Gogole doesn't either). The wrong priority can kill your ranking - this has been tested many times.
The traffic light system is broken in all sorts of ways (mainly because they require a focus keyword). If you follow their advice you can kill your ranking.
If you understand the basics of SEO you will soon realise that Yoast (and other SEO plugins) aren't actually very good. Use them for your page titles and descriptions and leave everything else alone.
I'm working with a client that has thousands of daily page views. Replacing Yoast with another SEO plugin reduced server load by almost 40% which meant it could deliver more pages to more people much faster. Time to first byte dropped by about 0.5 seconds (on average over the day).
And the sitemap Yoast creates takes no account of page priorities (because apparently Gogole doesn't either). The wrong priority can kill your ranking - this has been tested many times.
The traffic light system is broken in all sorts of ways (mainly because they require a focus keyword). If you follow their advice you can kill your ranking.
If you understand the basics of SEO you will soon realise that Yoast (and other SEO plugins) aren't actually very good. Use them for your page titles and descriptions and leave everything else alone.
Upvote
0
I'm quite surprised by the Yoast hate here, not sure about bloat, as I use 90% of it's functions. But the canonical issue worries me. Does all-in-one SEO suffer from the 301 problem?
Upvote
0
It's not hate, it's just a good understanding about the services Yoast offers, 90% of which are unnecessary. And on a small site you won't notice the performance issues, it's only on sites with high traffic where problems occur.
As far as I know AIOSEO doesn't have the same canonical issues.
As far as I know AIOSEO doesn't have the same canonical issues.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
C
CreativeSeoCompanyBristol
I have used both 'All In One SEO' and Yoast and although the 'All In One SEO Plugin' is not as popular as Yoast, I do find both okay to use when it comes to editing Title and Descriptions.
It is great reading your various views, which is eye-opening on some of the downsides that one may not necessarily be aware of, so I'm keen to learn more and read up any available resources on this.
It is great reading your various views, which is eye-opening on some of the downsides that one may not necessarily be aware of, so I'm keen to learn more and read up any available resources on this.
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Where did you get that bit of conjecture from? Yoast is ALL about optimising the content. It just happens to do it badly - their traffic light system is so inaccurate it's should just be ignored.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
Latest Articles
-
Growth Britain: what's actually in it for the smallest businesses?John Healey gave his first big speech as chancellor this morning, standing in front of a row of...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
AI can do the typing. It can't sign the accounts.Back in January, a UKBF member called @Byzantium put up a complaint that'll sound familiar to a...- Lord Moore
- Updated:
- 6 min read
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read
-
How to Price a New Product or Service: We Asked UKBFOn 5 August, @Data Swami posted in the General Business Forum with a question that ought to have...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
70 years of director bans in six months: Companies House has stopped asking nicelyCompanies House published a release on August 6th 2026 that every company director should read...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read