Thank you.
I did, and all, like you said.
I have always requested, even if it declined at the start, but I am a little bit unsure about Bing.

But with the situation like it is now it is even more important.

As I said, a sitemap is correct.

I was suggesting re-trying. I am aware of this. Thank you for noting it.
Abie

Sorry, I didn´t say it clearly enough; my fail; I have done that at least twice.

I do not have the blocks, or at least not find it.

I am talking about if for example you wrote 100 word summary about what is in the article.

Set it like on the top. Have it in a box and yes, have a colour in the background.

Yes, using the block editor that’s very easy to do. Are you using the classic editor? If so, that wouldn’t be so easy 👍🏼

Yes, I have used it.

So can I change it when I want to use block and change it back when I have finished that?
Or do I need to keep either one?

So if I remove the classic editor, I guess I click on disable it and then use Gutenberg for the block? I mean, after reactive the classic editor.

Thank you for your help. I tried to find it, but it was not easy!

I changed it. But now I remember why I was getting mad at Block Editor and kept using Classic! :)

We’re all resistant to change, but at this point, not using the block editor is like shooting yourself in the foot. You have sooooo much more available to you via the block editor. It’s time to take it head on and not get left behind!

Yes, I have seen your video. But when I do it myself, it takes soooo long time and makes a lot of mistakes.

But I think about it.

Get your hands dirty!

I know that. But I was wondering if it is AI which is used or other software.
If it is other doftware it is more realistic like they used before.

I'd check this info with Kyle :)

Thank you! I did a lot of research yesterday and was not sure.
Because this idea is well known and I would not be using their material, only showing the title and link, I thought it was legal, but now I am not sure.

If you look at the link I had with the post, it does exactly that.

But if there is doubt, I don´t do it. But I know because the only one that had a site with the idea stopped a few years ago, and because of that, I and a decent/hundreds of thousands are in huge work to research.
So it was a really good gap, finding after my own experience how badly this was needed.

Gray and black hat tactics will only get sites penalized in search engines, Johann.

They may rank well for a month... maybe even a month... but... once that site is labeled by a search engine as using these tactics... well, good luck getting out of that box.

You'd need to start with a brand new domain and pray the search engine did not note WHOSE site that was penalized, as I'm betting... if they're not already doing that... that search engines will take notes as to WHO owns what domain.

Search engines are trying to be more and more transparent to their users and only serve up quality content that is not copied from others... information sourced from other site, yes... not copied from other sites.

I have never used a black hat, and mostly very light gray.

But this would have helped so many, so it would be against the idea behind a helpful site, especially because there are only links to click, no text, etc.

But if it is doubtful, I will not. Again, this is very sad because it would have been a huge benefit for all, readers and owners of the sites. And there has been a huge demand for this.
But Google is Google, and about this method, unfortunately, only Google counts.

Thank you for the help.

Thank you for your patience with me, Johann, as I try to clarify what I stated previously.

It is up to the individual website owner to decide whether to use gray hat tactics or not.

Personally, I prefer to list my sources at the end of my posts, just like I was taught to do when writing an essay in school.

Did you know that Google even credits a domain when you only mention them in a post and NOT link to them?

Google does!

However, linking to a site under 'Sources' provides a reader with a professionally acceptable means of crediting a writers sources.

I understand you are complete.

I have a BA as a sociologist, so I am very used to working with sources.

But I didn´t see it as I was taking cope from this sites only using their link and link title to their post. Which in this case are very important information about basic things in many cases.

I know Google credits them, but when Google tries to make it difficult for huge searching groups (in this case, pro and very ambitious players who would, in all cases, bookmark the site, so ranking doesn´t count), it is in my opinion against their so-called helpful policy.

I know, like I said, how big the gab is for a site like this, as I am in this group and have needed to spend days looking for the necessary information.

So I must admit, but I am thankful that you let me know. I am very disappointed to have wasted a week searching for this idea and not managed to be a big help to so many, plus curse side effects I could have used.

But I threw this idea in the basket now; thank you again for the help. Now I can focus in my limited time about other things.

Johann, you didn't waste time at all.

You learned, right?

That's part of your 'learning on the job'

So, instead... chalk this up as a lesson learned... and not wasted time.

Normally, yes, but not in this case. I lost a time that I do not have much of.
But I normally absolutely agree.

I guess you misunderstand me. I will not have other things than exactly like this site, which is a news site, but I would be about badly needed sites for info.
So, nothing but the link, but it opens for traffic, which opens another door.

You may have issues ranking websites as the news is old by the time they rank.

I will not do it because it looks dubiously for Google, which is against their helpful method, and that is another story.

The ranking is no problem at all; this is for a separate group of pro or ambitious sports players who need basic info to find the time and the home page of the tournament they are planning for the next months and years.
I am in this group, so I know how huge help it would be. Instead of trying to find what you need, search for days to find it.

But anyway, this idea is out.