Why is my office page not being indexed?
-
Good Morning from 24 degrees C partly cloudy wetherby UK
This page is not being indexed by Google:
http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let-leeds/1st Question
Ive checked robots txt file no problems, i'm in the midst of updating the xml sitemap (it had the old one in place). It only has one link from this page http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/Site-Map/
So is the reason oits not being indexed just a simple case of lack if SEO juice from inbound links so the remedy lies in routing more inbound links to the offending page?
2nd question
Is the quickest way to diagnose if a web address is not being indexed to cut and paste the url in the Google search box and if it doesnt return the page theres a problem?
Thanks in advance,
David
-
-
It is indexed : https://www.google.com/search?q=http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let-leeds/
-
Yes that is good way to go about it . You can also jump in to Google Webmasters tools and try to fetch the page as Google : that way you can see if that page can be crawled
update : You seem to have
www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let/Leeds/ and
www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let-leeds/
and you could type in nay thing at the end of http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let/ and the site throws out a page
http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let/fghfghfghfgh/ ( i did not add a live link as i did not want that page to show up in the SERP )
not a good sign mate .
-
-
You seem to have at least one other link to that page, but that is from http://www.sandersonweatherall.co.uk/office-to-let/ which also doesn't seem to have been indexed. This page doesn't seem to be linked in, although I haven't crawled the site.
So - 2 links. 1 from low down on a very long sitemap page with 1200 links on it. The other from a page that in itself isn't indexed. That is your answer.
However I think it is sympomatic of a potentially wider problem - your structure is rather odd. The structure in navigation and on page links doesn't seem to match that in your sitemap. Your structure is also deep - what is that 6 levels?
In all honesty it looks like loads of pages have been created hoping to pick up long tail search and those are are only really being linked from the site map and each other. I haven't spent long on it but the instant thought was that it felt like 2 sites: one for the public and one for search - which probably isn't a great idea. Some of that content is rather thin too.
It's all actually an approach that worked pretty well up until the end of last year. Wouldn't be surprised if you were were struggling a bit now though.
If you really just want to get that page indexed then get it linked from a page that is indexed (and doesn't have 1200 other links on it).
If you want to improve further I would start looking at the content on your site and figuring out whether it all deserves to be there, if it does whether it is good enough and whether it is structured in the best possible way.
On an unrelated note I'd also look at the choice of font in the main menu. I really struggled with that.
I think you have some good stuff there. Your case studies could be really good content - move the picture in to the main page, consider broadening each one with a few bullet points. Likewise your people profiles- you've created them, but only linked them in from the sitemap (i think) - seems a missed opportunity.
-
I can see it in the index...
Maybe it just took google a while to find it. How old was the page? Did you do anything to prompt Google to index?The other option to try if you've got a page that's stubbornly refusing to get indexed is to submit the page via google webmaster tools. (Fetch as googlebot and then submit to the index)
Failing that try spidering the site yourself using something like screaming frog or take a look at your server logs to see how google is trawling your site.
In this case I don't see you've got a problem. I can see the page in the index!
-
If there are no links to a page then it is very unlikely it will be crawled. As there is only one link to your page then again it is unlikely to be crawled and thus indexed.
I would recommend creating more internal links as a starter and then if that does not work then begin external link building.
Question 2 - that is the quickest way.
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Should I "no-index" two exact pages on Google results?
Hello everyone, I recently started a new wordpress website and created a static homepage. I noticed that on Google search results, there are two different URLs landing on same content page. I've attached an image to explain what I saw. Should I "no-index" the page url? Google url.JPG In this picture, the first result is the homepage and I try to rank for that page. The last result is landing on same content with different URL. So, should I no-index last result as shown in image?
Technical SEO | | amanda59640 -
Purchased domain with links - redirect page by page or entire domain?
Hi, I purchased an old domain with a lot of links that I'm redirecting to my site. I want all of their links to redirect to the same page on my site so I can approach this two different ways: Entire site
Technical SEO | | ninel_P
1.) RedirectMatch 301 ^(.*)$ http://www.xyz.com or Page by page
2). Redirect 301 /retiredpage.html http://www.xyz.com/newpage.html Is there a better option I should go with in regards to SEO effectiveness? Thanks in advance!0 -
Does Google index internal anchors as separate pages?
Hi, Back in September, I added a function that sets an anchor on each subheading (h[2-6]) and creates a Table of content that links to each of those anchors. These anchors did show up in the SERPs as JumpTo Links. Fine. Back then I also changed the canonicals to a slightly different structur and meanwhile there was some massive increase in the number of indexed pages - WAY over the top - which has since been fixed by removing (410) a complete section of the site. However ... there are still ~34.000 pages indexed to what really are more like 4.000 plus (all properly canonicalised). Naturally I am wondering, what google thinks it is indexing. The number is just way of and quite inexplainable. So I was wondering: Does Google save JumpTo links as unique pages? Also, does anybody know any method of actually getting all the pages in the google index? (Not actually existing sites via Screaming Frog etc, but actual pages in the index - all methods I found sadly do not work.) Finally: Does somebody have any other explanation for the incongruency in indexed vs. actual pages? Thanks for your replies! Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Why is Google Webmaster Tools showing 404 Page Not Found Errors for web pages that don't have anything to do with my site?
I am currently working on a small site with approx 50 web pages. In the crawl error section in WMT Google has highlighted over 10,000 page not found errors for pages that have nothing to do with my site. Anyone come across this before?
Technical SEO | | Pete40 -
Does adding subcategory pages to an commerce site limit the link juice to the product pages?
I have a client who has an online outdoor gear company. He mostly sells high end outdoor gear (like ski jackets, vests, boots, etc) at a deep discount. His store currently only resides on Ebay. So we're building him an online store from scratch. I'm trying to determine the best site architecture and wonder if we should include subcategory pages. My issue is that I think the subcategory pages might be good from a user experience, but it'll add an additional layer between the homepage and the product pages. The problem is that I think a lot of user's might be searching for the product name to see if they can find a better deal, and my client's site would be perfect for them. So I really want to rank well for the product pages, but I'm nervous that the subcategory pages will limit the link juice of the product pages. Home --> SubCategory --> Product List --> Product Detail Home --> Men's Ski Clothing --> Men's Ski Jack --> North Face Mt Everest Jacket Should I keep the SubCategory page "Men's Ski Clothing" if it helps usability? On a separate note, the SubCategory pages would have some head keyword terms, but I don't think that he could rank well for these terms anytime soon. However, they would be great pages / terms to rank for in the long term. Should this influence the decision?
Technical SEO | | Santaur0 -
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
Google Indexing
Hi Everybody, I am having kind of an issue when it comes to the results Google is showing on my site. I have a multilingual site, which is main language is Catalan. But of course if I am looking results in Spanish (google.es) or in English (google.com) I want Google to show the results with the proper URL, title and descriptions. My brand is "Vallnord" so if you type this in Google you will be displayed the result in Catalan (Which is not optimized at all yet) but if you search "vallnord.com/es" only then you will be displayed the result in Spanish What do I have to do in order for Google to read this the way I want? Regards, Guido.
Technical SEO | | SilbertAd0 -
GWT indexing wrong pages
Hi SEOMoz I have a listings site. In a part of the page, I have 3 comboboxes, for state, county and city. On the change event, the javascript redirects the user to the page of the selected location. Parameters are passed via GET, and my URL is rewrited via htaccess. Example: http:///www.site.com/state/county/city.html The problem is, there is A LOT(more than 10k) of 404 errors. It is happenning because the crawler is trying to index the pages, sometimes WITHOUT a parameter, like http:///www.site.com/state//city.html I don't know how to stop it, and I don't wanna remove it, once it's very clicked by the users. What should I do?
Technical SEO | | elias990