Did you just answer yourself and then ask another question?

<p>It took some research but I eventually found the answer and updated but that was for images. For the posts themselves, I do not know. </p>

Do you have any links to your "research"?

<p>I searched some discussions posts by exact name and under images found it (after also ctrl + F the word Fandom). </p><p>However I could not find the discussion under All even after selecting <i>even omitted results</i>. </p>

<p>But it is disconcerting not all discussions will post an image for one and it was very specific searching (knowing the discussion title). Which makes me wonder if so much is going the discussion route it will be harder information to find compared to forums or reddit via a search engine. </p>

Have you tried the more direct Google approach with something like "site:WIKINAME.fandom.com/f"? It looks like Google may not crawl FANDOM wikis super frequently unless they are really big or popular... i.e. I don't get any 24 hr results for animanga.fandom.com whereas I get alot from starwars.fandom.com.

<p>It's about exposure to those not yet on wiki/fandom. </p><p>Some of my articles do decently (without searching the words "wiki" or "fandom") which is how I think I get my traffic (my wikis articles can range to page 1 to top 10 pages to lost in omitted) but my wiki seems to get more exposure under Images for google search which is fine/great. And even then under All, I sometimes have articles on page 1 with top beauty reviewers, the official site(s) and top retailer(s). I also have pages lost in obscurity, which is also fine. </p><p>But discussions look <i>almost</i> non-existent or hidden which was why I wondered if discussions are less efficient for exposure (or that you are fully correct and just because it isn't a big popular wiki). One test search I did was the term "urban decay wired" (both article and discussion created feb 1st and 2nd this year) my article was on page 8 (without including omitted) but to find the discussion on the topic it was page 25 under <i>including omitted results</i>. This just seems a shame cause an article is an article with just basic information no review/opinions/in depth discussions. </p><p>The long and the short of it is I was hoping discussions would actually bring <i>discussions</i> to my wiki but if it's more hidden people prolly rather reddit (which I get it that is why people go to reddit to start and discussions simply do not compete) but it's not like they are finding it either. </p>

<p>So, I'm not sure how much you know about SEO, but web crawlers don't like links that are mostly a bunch of numbers without actual words and that is what most Discussions URLs look like to web crawlers. Unless FANDOM changes this, it is unlikely that Discussions SEO will improve dramatically. </p><p>This is another reason why I don't like Discussions, but I'm not sure FANDOM designed Discussions with SEO in mind since they may not get as much advertising income from them. </p>

<p>Well that makes a lot of sense (but is a sad disappointing way). I was wracking my brain why there was a substantial gap between articles and discussion post. But name vs. an assigned number- named pages do better. </p><p>I mean I don't mind if user wall messages (since they are going to discussion format) are hidden from google search but discussions being google search elusive seems retrogressive. </p>

I recall reading somewhere that Fandom sets whatever the "do not crawl" flag is for /f pages but I can't find it again so I might be misremembering things. And if you get results when searching I ''probably'' am.