Best way to handle indexed pages you don't want indexed
-
We've had a lot of pages indexed by google which we didn't want indexed. They relate to a ajax category filter module that works ok for front end customers but under the bonnet google has been following all of the links.
I've put a rule in the robots.txt file to stop google from following any dynamic pages (with a ?) and also any ajax pages but the pages are still indexed on google.
At the moment there is over 5000 pages which have been indexed which I don't want on there and I'm worried is causing issues with my rankings.
Would a redirect rule work or could someone offer any advice?
-
Gavin Since you have added the noindex in the pages, the best way is to let Google crawl those pages, see the noindex and remove them. The other option is to keep everything as is and request these parameter pages via your Google Webmaster Console. Option 1: You never know how long it takes Option 2: This should happen relatively fast I would therefore suggest keeping everything as is and doing a removal request.
-
Right... We think we've been able to get the code noindex code into the dodgy pages. The only way we could think of doing it without breaking the user interface was to put this rule into the PHP.
if(!empty($_SERVER['HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH']) && strtolower($_SERVER['HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH']) == 'xmlhttprequest')
{normal code
}
else
{echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '404';
echo '';
echo '';
}Its rendering ok for us front end, if anyone would like to test... I'm just hopeful it would work for google?
http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/cycling/cycling-clothing/protective-clothing.html?ajax=1
One thing I am not sure about is how google is going to revisit the said pages. I have put in various rules to the robots.txt files as well as the url parameter handling in webmaster tools to prevent any future pages from being followed... Would these rules need to be removed?
-
The AJAX URLs are used by the site, though, right (for visitors)? If you 404 them, you may be breaking the functionality and not just impacting Google.
Another problem is that, if these pages are no longer crawlable, and you add a page-level directive (whether it's a 404, 301, canonical, NOINDEX, etc.), Google won't process those new instructions. So, they could get stuck in the index. If that's the case, ti may actually be more effective to block the "ajax=" parameter with parameter handling in Google Webmaster Tools (there's a similar option in Bing).
If you know the path is cut and this isn't a recurrent problem, that could be the fastest short-term solution. You do need to monitor, though, as they can re-enter the index later.
-
Gavin, that's a more generic response. In this scenario, unless you can make a 404 happen, it won't work and therefore is not applicable. Noindex and / or the canonical tag are the choices and I would try and get those going if possible.
-
Thanks for all of the replies... My best option seems to be the meta noindex rule but the nature of the pages that are getting indexed are just one long ajax string with no access to the header are. I hope I have already 'prevented' google from following the links in the future by adding the rules to robots.txt but I'm now desperate to clean up (cure) the existing ones.
My next thought would be to put a rule in htaccess and redirect anything with ajax in the url to a 404 page?
I'm worried that this may have even worse side effects with rankings but its based on this article that google publish: https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=59819
"To remove a page or image, you must do one of the following:
- Make sure the content is no longer live on the web. Requests for the page must return an HTTP 404 (not found) or 410 status code
What would your thoughts be on this?
-
Definitely review George's comment as you need to figure out why they're being crawled. As Andrea said, any solution takes time, I'm sorry to say. Robots.txt is not a good solution for getting pages removed that are already indexed, especially in bulk. It's better at prevention than cure.
META NOINDEX can be effective, or you could rel=canonical these pages to the appropriate non-AJAX URL - not sure exactly how the structure is set up. Those are probably the two fastest and more powerful approaches. Google parameter handling (in Webmaster Tools) is another option, but it's a bit unpredictable whether they honor it and how quickly.
You can only do mass removal if everything is in a folder, if I recall. There's no way to bulk remove unless all of the pages are structurally under one root URL.
-
I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but I think I know why Google is indexing these pages.
Right now, you are outputting URLs into your source code of your page in the form of a JavaScript function call similar to the following:
I believe this is because your page (and this function call) is programmatically created. Instead of outputting the whole URL to the page, you could output only what needs to be there.
For example:
Then change the signature of the JavaScript function so that it accepts this new input and builds the URL from your inputs:
function initSlider(price, low, high, category, subcategory, product, store, ajax, ?) {
// build URL
var URL = 'http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/' + category + '/' + subcategory + '/' + product + '.html?_' + store + '&' + ajax;
// continue...
}
Right now, because that URL is being outputted to the page, I think Google sees it as a URL it should follow and index. If you build this URL with the function in an external JavaScript file, I don't think it will be indexed.
Your developer(s) should know what I'm talking about.
Hope this helps!
-
If they are already indexed, it's going to take time for Google to recrawl, read the tag and get them to fall out, so patience will be key. It's not a quick thing to undo.
If the pages are all in one location, you can add a disallow robots/text to Webmaster Tools command to prevent that entire folder from being indexed, but again, it's already done so you are going to have to wait for all those pages to fall out.
-
Thanks for the quick reply! I'm desperate to get these removed as soon as possible now. I've got webmaster tools access but requesting over 5,000 pages to be removed one by one will take too long. You can't do page removal in bulk can you?
I'm going to work on the noindex option
-
OMG, that does not look good. I completely understand. The best way in my opinion would be to add a noindex meta tag on these pages and let Google crawl them. Once they re-index them with the noindex, that should take care of the problem. However, be careful since you want to make sure that noindex tag does not appear on your real pages, just the AJAX ones.
Another option might be to consider the canonical tag, but then technically these pages are not duplicate pages, they just should not exist. Are you verified and using the Google Webmaster Console ? If yes, see if you can get some of these pages excluded via the URL removal tool. The best way is to add the noindex tag in my opinion.
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
-
Search Console Indexed Page Count vs Site:Search Operator page count
We launched a new site and Google Search Console is showing 39 pages have been indexed. When I perform a Site:myurl.com search I see over 100 pages that appear to be indexed. Which is correct and why is there a discrepancy? Also, Search Console Page Index count started at 39 pages on 5/21 and has not increased even though we have hundreds of pages to index. But I do see more results each week from Site:psglearning.com My site is https://wwww.psglearning.com
Technical SEO | | pdowling0 -
How to write blogs around a page you want to rank
Hey Moz Crew! So I'm not necessarily looking for the answer here but more of a where do I begin to learn more. If you guys could point me in the right direction or even just help me ask the question in a better way, I would be so thankful. Ok so there is page on my website that lives on the second page of Google. The page could be modified and I could add content to it if I wanted to, but let's just assume that this page is perfectly optimized with absolutely wonderful content and a great user experience. Now of course I would like to get a bunch of links to that page, but If I can't write anymore content on that page or update it, It will be harder to convince people to link to it (does that even make sense?). But if I can write blogs about really good subjects around that page, and those blogs do very well, how can I make sure that the actually page is getting all the juice that it can. And will it even get juice? Is this just a simple internal linking question? Am I tapping on the door of micro sites or landing pages? Oy vey where do I start!? ❤ Much love guys 🙂
Technical SEO | | Meier0 -
Don't reach to make our site back in rankings
My URL is: http://tinyurl.com/nslu78 Hi, I really hope someone can help because my site seems to be penalized since last year now. Because we were not SEO experts but doctors and wanted to do things in a white hat way so we have given our SEO strategy (on-site and off-site) to the best US SEO agencies and now we are penalized. We was ranking on the 1st page with 15 keywords and now we don't even are in the first 10 pages. I know that our sector is suspicious but we are a real laboratory and our site is 100% transparent. I understand that a lot of people can think that we are all the same but this is not true, we are not a virtual company that don't even show their name or address, we show name, address, phone number, fax, email, chat service, VAT number everything so please help us. We have spent 3 months analysing every paragraph of google guidelines to see if we were violating some rule such as hidden text, link schemes, redirections, keyword stuffing, maleware, duplicate content etc.. and found nothing except little things but maybe we are not good enough to find the problem. In 3 months we have passed from 85 toxic links to 24 and from 750 suspicious links to 300. we have emailed, and call all the webmasters of each site several times to try to delete as many links as possible.We have sent to google a big excel with all our results and attempts to delete those badlinks. We have then sent a reconsideration request explaining all the things that we have verified on-site and off-site but it seems that it didn't worked because we are still penalized. I really hope someone can see where the problem is.
Technical SEO | | andromedical
thank you0 -
2 links on home page to each category page ..... is page rank being watered down?
I am working on a site that has a home page containing 2 links to each category page. One of the links is a text link and one link is an image link. I think I'm right in thinking that Google will only pay attention to the anchor text/alt text of the first link that it spiders with the anchor text/alt text of the second being ignored. This is not my question however. My question is about the page rank that is passed to each category page..... Because of the double links on the home page, my reckoning is that PR is being divided up twice as many times as necessary. Am I also right in thinking that if Google ignore the 2nd identical link on a page only one lot of this divided up PR will be passed to each category page rather than 2 lots ..... hence horribly watering down the 'link juice' that is being passed to each category page?? Please help me win this argument with a developer and improve the ranking potential of the category pages on the site 🙂
Technical SEO | | QubaSEO0 -
What's the best way to eliminate duplicate page content caused by blog archives?
I (obviously) can't delete the archived pages regardless of how much traffic they do/don't receive. Would you recommend a meta robot or robot.txt file? I'm not sure I'll have access to the root directory so I could be stuck with utilizing a meta robot, correct? Any other suggestions to alleviate this pesky duplicate page content issue?
Technical SEO | | ICM0 -
Getting more pages indexed by yahoo and bing
Anyone has a reliable way to get more pages indexed in yahoo and bing. Please dont say to get more inner page quality links.
Technical SEO | | mickey110 -
Handling '?' in URLs.
Adios! (or something), I've noticed in my SEOMoz campaign that I am getting duplicate content warnings for URLs with extensions. For example: /login.php?action=lostpassword /login.php?action=register etc. What is the best way to deal with these type of URLs to avoid duplicate content penelties in search engines? Thanks 🙂
Technical SEO | | craigycraig0 -
How do I use the Robots.txt "disallow" command properly for folders I don't want indexed?
Today's sitemap webinar made me think about the disallow feature, seems opposite of sitemaps, but it also seems both are kind of ignored in varying ways by the engines. I don't need help semantically, I got that part. I just can't seem to find a contemporary answer about what should be blocked using the robots.txt file. For example, I have folders containing site comps for clients that I really don't want showing up in the SERPS. Is it better to not have these folders on the domain at all? There are also security issues I've heard of that make sense, simply look at a site's robots file to see what they are hiding. It makes it easier to hunt for files when they know the directory the files are contained in. Do I concern myself with this? Another example is a folder I have for my xml sitemap generator. I imagine google isn't going to try to index this or count it as content, so do I need to add folders like this to the disallow list?
Technical SEO | | SpringMountain0