<head> contains a <noscript> tag, which includes an image
This means that the URL in question contains a <noscript> tag in the <head>, which includes an image reference.
Why is this important?
The <noscript> tag defines an alternate content for users that have disabled scripts in their browser or have a browser that doesn't support script.
Whilst it can be used in both the <head> and the <body>, when used inside the <head>, it must contain only <link>, <style>, and <meta> elements. As such, including an <img> tag is invalid.
This can be problematic for search engines crawlers that do not render JavaScript (i.e. most crawlers, most of the time), as the presence of the <img> tag breaks the <head>, which may cause important tags (e.g. meta robots) to be missed.
What does the Hint check?
This Hint will trigger for any internal URL that contains <noscript> in the <head>, with an invalid <img> element.
Examples that trigger this Hint
This Hint will trigger for any URL that has an <img> element, within <noscript> in the <head>.
How do you resolve this issue?
You will first need to establish what the <noscript> is and what it is doing. It may be possible to simply move the <noscript> out of the <head>, and into the <body>, where image elements are valid.
Image elements, and all other invalid elements, should be removed from the <noscript>, if it is to remain in the <head>.
This is true even for Facebook tracking code, which is a common example we see triggering this rule. The Facebook tracking pixel consists of two parts: <script> and <noscript>. The latter is designed to track visitors who have JavaScript disabled in their browsers.
Unfortunately, they include an image element within the noscript, which breaks the <head> as described above, and this case is not immune simply because Facebook said you should do it.
There are two potential solutions for this specific Facebook problem:
- Just put the <noscript> bit in the body. If you trust random users on Stack Overflow, it will work just fine.
- Just delete the <noscript> bit entirely, and ignore the fact that a miniscule amount (~0.2%) of users might have JavaScript disabled and therefore won't be included in your conversion tracking data.