Killing 404 errors on our site in Google's index
-
Having moved a site across to Magento, obviously re-directs were a large part of that, ensuring all the old products and categories linked up correctly with the new site structure.
However, we came up against an issue where we needed to add, delete, then re-add products. This, coupled with a misunderstanding of the csv upload processing, meant that although the old urls redirected, some of the new Magento urls changed and then didn't redirect:
For Example:
mysite/product
would get deleted re-added and become:
mysite/product-1324
We now know what we did wrong to ensure it doesn't continue to happen if we weret o delete and re-add a product, but Google contains all these old URLs in its index which has caused people to search for products on Google, click through, then land on the 404 page - far from ideal.
We kind of assumed, with continual updating of sitemaps and time, that Google would realise and update the URL accordingly. But this hasn't happened - we are still getting plenty of 404 errors on certain product searches (These aren't appearing in SEOmoz, there are no links to the old URL on the site, only Google, as the index contains the old URL).
Aside from going through and finding the products affected (no easy task), and setting up redirects for each one, is there any way we can tell Google 'These URLs are no longer a thing, forget them and move on, let's make a fresh start and Happy New Year'?
-
No canonical back to the main product page?
-
Both helpful replies thanks. Further investigation led me to this Magento Bug:
http://www.magentocommerce.com/bug-tracking/issue/?issue=13662
(Need to have a magneto account to see the bug report).
Seems there's a spearate underlying issue which we need to fix first - the rewrite table grows exponentially every time we index Magento and creates a new URL for every configurable product. i.e. a product that has one or more associated products that will have the same name - used for displaying different sizes and colours. This means that Google is picking up a new page for each configurable product each time it indexes: different URL, same content, same product sku - a technical SEO nightmare!
-
Hey Sean
This should take care of itself but there are a few things you can do to help.
**1. **Firstly, using webbug or some such, just make sure the page is returning a HTTP 404 or 410 code to ensure that whilst it may be displaying some kind of 404 like page, that it is actually sending the 4XX code back to Google (so they can update this and remove them).
2. Then, you can log into webmaster tools and remove URLs from your site:
Webmaster Tools > Optimisation > Remove URLs
This way you can manually remove them.
Alternatively, you could always just manually add some 301 redirects for those pages which may be the quickest way to sort this out and certainly provides the best experience for any users clicking on those links in the SERPs.
Hope that helps!
Marcus -
complex thing. Not sure if this may help you or not -
Example meta tag
Add the following meta tag in the HTML source of your page:
<meta http-equiv="expires" content="mon, 27 sep 2010 14:30:00 GMT">
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
-
Change Google's version of Canonical link
Hi My website has millions of URLs and some of the URLs have duplicate versions. We did not set canonical all these years. Now we wanted to implement it and fix all the technical SEO issues. I wanted to consolidate and redirect all the variations of a URL to the highest pageview version and use that as the canonical because all of these variations have the same content. While doing this, I found in Google search console that Google has already selected another variation of URL as canonical and not the highest pageview version. My questions: I have millions of URLs for which I have to do 301 and set canonical. How can I find all the canonical URLs that Google has autoselected? Search Console has a daily quota of 100 or something. Is it possible to override Google's version of Canonical? Meaning, if I set a variation as Canonical and it is different than what Google has already selected, will it change overtime in Search Console? Should I just do a 301 to highest pageview variation of the URL and not set canonicals at all? This way the canonical that Google auto selected might get redirected to the highest pageview variation of the URL. Any advice or help would be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SDCMarketing0 -
No-Indexing on Ecommerce site
Hi Our site has a lot of similar/lower quality product pages which aren't a high priority - so these probably won't get looked at in detail to improve performance as we have over 200,000 products . Some of them do generate a small amount of revenue, but an article I read suggested no-indexing pages which are of little value to improve site performance & overall structure. I wanted to find out if anyone had done this and what results they saw? Will this actually improve rankings of our focus areas? It makes me a bit nervous to just block pages so any advice is appreciated 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeckyKey0 -
Does including your site in Google News (and Google) Alerts helps with SEO?
Based on the following article http://homebusiness.about.com/od/yourbusinesswebsite/a/google-alerts.htm in order to check if you are included you need to run site:domain.com and click the news search tab. If you are not there then... I ran the test on MOZ and got no results which surprised me. Next step according to :https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787?hl=en#ts=3179198 is to submit your site for inclusion. Should I? Will it help? P.S.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet
This is a followup question to the following: http://moz.com/community/q/what-makes-a-site-appear-in-google-alerts-and-does-it-mean-anything0 -
Apps content Google indexation ?
I read some months back that Google was indexing the apps content to display it into its SERP. Does anyone got any update on this recently ? I'll be very interesting to know more on it 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JoomGeek0 -
Site Structure: How do I deal with a great user experience that's not the best for Google's spiders?
We have ~3,000 photos that have all been tagged. We have a wonderful AJAXy interface for users where they can toggle all of these tags to find the exact set of photos they're looking for very quickly. We've also optimized a site structure for Google's benefit that gives each category a page. Each category page links to applicable album pages. Each album page links to individual photo pages. All pages have a good chunk of unique text. Now, for Google, the domain.com/photos index page should be a directory of sorts that links to each category page. Alternatively, the user would probably prefer the AJAXy interface. What is the best way to execute this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tatermarketing0 -
How does Google index pagination variables in Ajax snapshots? We're seeing random huge variables.
We're using the Google snapshot method to index dynamic Ajax content. Some of this content is from tables using pagination. The pagination is tracked with a var in the hash, something like: #!home/?view_3_page=1 We're seeing all sorts of calls from Google now with huge numbers for these URL variables that we are not generating with our snapshots. Like this: #!home/?view_3_page=10099089 These aren't trivial since each snapshot represents a server load, so we'd like these vars to only represent what's returned by the snapshots. Is Google generating random numbers going fishing for content? If so, is this something we can control or minimize?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sitestrux0 -
403, 301, 302, 404 errors & possible google penalty
William Rock ran a Xenu site scan on nlpca(dot)com and mentioned the following: ...ran a test with Xenu site scan and it found a lot of broken links with 403, 301, 302, 404 Errors. Other items found: Broken page-local links (also named 'anchors', 'fragmentidentifiers'): http://www.nlpca.com/DCweb/Interesting_NLP_Sites.html#null anchor occurs multiple timeshttp://www.nlpca.com/DCweb/Interesting_NLP_Sites.html#US not found Could somone give us an output of that list, and which ones of these errors do we need to clean up for SEO purposes? Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BobGW0 -
Don't want to lose page rank, what's the best way to restructure a url other than a 301 redirect?
Currently in the process of redesigning a site. What i want to know, is what is the best way for me to restructure the url w/out it losing its value (page rank) other than a 301 redirect?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | marig0