Struggling with Google Bot Blocks - Please help!
-
I own a site called www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au
After months and months we still have a serious issue with all pages having blocked URLs according to Google Webmaster Tools.
The 404 errors are returning a 200 header code according to the email below. Do you agree that the 404.php code should be changed? Can you do that please ?
The current state:
Google webmaster tools Index Status shows:
26,000 pages indexed
44,000 pages blocked by robots.
In late March, we implemented a change recommended by an SEO expert and he provided a new robots.txt file, advised that we should amend sitemap.xml and other changes. We implemented those changes and then setup a re-index of the site by google. The no of blocked URLs eventually reduced in May and June to 1,000 for a few days – but now the problem has rapidly returned.
The no of pages that are displayed in a google search request of www.google.com.au where the query was ‘site:wheretobuybeauty.com.au’ is 37,000:
This new site has been re-crawled over last 4 weeks.
About the site
This is a Linux php site and has the following:
55,000 URLs in sitemap.xml submitted successfully to webmaster tools
robots.txt file has been modified several times:
Firstly we had none
Then we created one but were advised that it needed to have this current content:
User-agent: *
Disallow:
-
No problem my friend. You are most welcome and here at Moz, you will not only be able to get almost all your SEO related queries addressed and solved, you will also learn a great deal about digital marketing. I highly recommend to every aspiring digital marketer to be active on a community like Moz and I bet they will be able to save a great deal of time and money as well. Wish you all the very best.
Regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Thanks Devanur - trying out everything you have suggested.
-
Hi Alex,
Sorry, if I were not clear in my previous post. I meant that in general pages with cleaner code will have an edge over similar pages with bad code when it comes to SEO.
Just an example: Page A has cleaner code compared to page B with all other SEO factors being equal. In a scenario like this, page B might not be favored by Google because of issues arising from bad code like page loading performance, poor rendering in browsers etc,.
The issue at hand might not be because your pages do not pass W3 Validation but its not a bad idea to have a cleaner code on your website
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Hi Devanur
My understanding is that Google does not have a problem with invalid XHTML or pages that are not W3C accessible. Please see a comment on this at SEOMOZ:
-
Hi Alex,
I did a code validation check for the following URL:
It gave 238 Errors and 538 Warnings!!
Search engines like Google favor pages with cleaner code. So, I strongly recommend to have the code cleaned on the website.
Here you go for validation check:
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Hi Alex,
If the underscores constitute only 4% of the total URLs, then this can be safely kept aside in purview of the current issue.
Same goes with the keyword repetition in the page titles and URLs. However, if it is possible for you to revisit your URL structure and have it like the following, you should go for it:
www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/<brand< a=""> name>/<product name="">, e.g.</product></brand<>
http://www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/floris/royal-arms-diamond-edition-eau-de-parfum-spray-100ml-34oz
Same thing with the Page titles also.
Now we are left with two things, the page performance and URL canonicalization. Please have them fixed as early as possible.
Also, I checked your IP address and you have gone for a shared hosting. This is not at all recommended if you are a serious online business owner. Your IP, 103.9.170.75 is being shared by at least 250 other domains that include some bad websites.
Though there are different views about IP bad neighborhood and its impact on SEO, I have always been an advocate of clean IP and recommended it to all my clients always. You can go in for a dedicated IP which is very cheap these days and better yet if you go for a VPS.
For more about this, please check out the "Oops, your IP is either dirty or virtual" section on the following page:
http://www.bruceclay.com/in/seo-tech-tips/techtips.htm
And also, this section, "A Strong Foundation for Your Site to Operate On" on the following page:
http://www.bruceclay.com/blog/2011/04/the-seo-bucket-list-3-things-to-do-before-your-site-dies/
Lastly, I checked your domain's DNS health and here you go for the results:
http://intodns.com/wheretobuybeauty.com.au
Though these might not be causing the current issue, its good to sort everything as we should not leave any stone unturned in making our website a better one out there.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Hey Devanur
please see our responses below:
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the info. Here are few issues that I observed with the website and I am very confident that if you can address and fix these, you should come out of the issue with flying colors:
1. URL canonicalization issue: Both the www and non-www versions of your website URLs return an HTTP header status code 200. You should ideally make all the non-www URLs to be redirected to their respective www versions via a 301 permanent redirection immediately.
**Response: We are asking the developer to correct this. **
2. Inconsistent URL structure: Your website is still using 'underscrores (_) in the URLs as word separators. There are underscores along with the recommended hyphens (-). This inconsistent usage can sometimes lead to issues. So please replace all the underscores with hyphens.
Response: This problem only occurs in a few pages where special characters have been replaced with underscores – probably in 4% of product pages. I can’t see that this has an impact on the SEO?
3. Google PageSpeed check: When I ran Google PageSpeed test on some of the URLs from your website along with the ones that you gave, I found the score varying between, 28 and 60. Please look at the recommendations that the PageSpeed tool gives and try to address the issues (especially the ones like, "Reduce blocking resources". For more: https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/best-practices/rtt#PreferAsyncResources)
I suggest you to please run Google PageSpeed check for some of the URLs.
Note: The URLs from your website that are present in the Google's index may also give similar issues when run through PageSpeed test. This should not make you not addressing these issues.
Response: We will ask the developers to improve performance specifically with the highest value things that are showing up in Google PageSpeed check.
4. Heavy pages leading to higher page loading times and response times:
Many of the pages that I checked are more than 1.3 MB in size which is very huge.This can be a really big problem most of the times that will not only impacts your website from search engines' perspective but also leads to bad user experience which ultimately affects the SEO of your website. You can use tools like gtmetrix.com and fix the issues shown by them.
Response: We will ask the developers to improve performance specifically with the highest value things that are showing up in gtmetrix.com suggestions.
5. Repetition of keywords or phrases in page titles and URLs:
This issue might look like an over optimization effort and should be fixed as early as possible.
For example: www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/acqua-di-parma/acqua-di-parma-acqua-di-parma-collezione-barbiere-shaving-cream-75ml_25oz
If you look at the above page, the phrase, 'acqua-di-parma' is present twice in both the URL and page title. This is something that you need to review seriously as it looks like keyword repetition that is not good from an SEO stand point.
Response: This occurs with approx 300 product pages out of 40,000 so a very small percentage. We will clean this up when we update our data. I can’t see that this has any impact on SEO considering the small no? Note however that every product page is constructed as follows:
http://www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/floris/floris-royal-arms-diamond-edition-eau-de-parfum-spray-100ml_34oz
Is there some risk that this will look like over optimisation?
By the way, your robots.txt file is clean and it should not be causing these issues.
Please have the issues mentioned above as soon as possible and you should be out of the woods soon after that.
I wish you good luck Alex.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Hi Alex,
Thanks for the info. Here are few issues that I observed with the website and I am very confident that if you can address and fix these, you should come out of the issue with flying colors:
1. URL canonicalization issue: Both the www and non-www versions of your website URLs return an HTTP header status code 200. You should ideally make all the non-www URLs to be redirected to their respective www versions via a 301 permanent redirection immediately.
2. Inconsistent URL structure: Your website is still using 'underscrores (_) in the URLs as word separators. There are underscores along with the recommended hyphens (-). This inconsistent usage can sometimes lead to issues. So please replace all the underscores with hyphens.
3. Google PageSpeed check: When I ran Google PageSpeed test on some of the URLs from your website along with the ones that you gave, I found the score varying between, 28 and 60. Please look at the recommendations that the PageSpeed tool gives and try to address the issues (especially the ones like, "Reduce blocking resources". For more: https://developers.google.com/speed/docs/best-practices/rtt#PreferAsyncResources)
I suggest you to please run Google PageSpeed check for some of the URLs.
Note: The URLs from your website that are present in the Google's index may also give similar issues when run through PageSpeed test. This should not make you not addressing these issues.
4. Heavy pages leading to higher page loading times and response times:
Many of the pages that I checked are more than 1.3 MB in size which is very huge.This can be a really big problem most of the times that not only impacts your website from search engines' perspective but also leads to bad user experience which ultimately affects the SEO of your website. You can use tools like gtmetrix.com and fix the issues shown by them.
5. Repetition of keywords or phrases in page titles and URLs:
This issue might look like an over optimization effort and should be fixed as early as possible.
For example: www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/acqua-di-parma/acqua-di-parma-acqua-di-parma-collezione-barbiere-shaving-cream-75ml_25oz
It could have been like: www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/acqua-di-parma/collezione-barbiere-shaving-cream-75ml-25oz
If you look at the above page, the phrase, 'acqua-di-parma' is present twice in both the URL and page title. This is something that you need to review seriously as it looks like keyword repetition that is not good from an SEO stand point.
By the way, your robots.txt file is clean and it should not be causing these issues.
Please have the issues mentioned above as soon as possible and you should be out of the woods soon after that.
I wish you good luck Alex.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
-
Thanks Devanur
I put this to my partners and he said he is addressing it but that the main issue still remains.
This is the critical issue where there are only a few pages visible to google search as almost all are blocked by the google bot. I am re-stating the problem in this email for you.
Can you please take a look at the whole problem and see if you can see what is causing this.
Is robots.txt causing this? It is the only change that we have made and at one point the problem was corrected but has now returned. I have read everything that I can about robots.txt on the google site and in forums.
Here are two examples (out of 44,000) that are blocked. It is easy to find other examples – simply test any of the product pages – only 200 out of 44,000 return any result.
Try searching using www.google.com.au and using the search query
Abercrombie & Fitch 1892 Cobalt Eau De Cologne Spray 50ml/1.7oz site:wheretobuybeauty.com.au
Second example:
Try searching using:
Acqua Di Parma Collezione Barbiere Shaving Cream 75ml/2.5oz site:wheretobuybeauty.com.au
The current state:
Google webmaster tools Index Status shows:
26,000 pages indexed
44,000 pages blocked by robots.
In late March, we implemented a change recommended by an SEO expert Harmeen and he provided a new robots.txt file, advised that we should amend sitemap.xml and other changes. We implemented those changes and then setup a re-index of the site by google. The no of blocked URLs eventually reduced in May and June to 1,000 for a few days – but now the problem has rapidly returned.
This new site has been re-crawled over last 4 weeks.
About the site
55,000 URLs in sitemap.xml submitted successfully to webmaster tools
robots.txt file has been modified several times:
Firstly we had none, then we created one but were advised that it needed to have this current content:
“User-agent: *
Disallow:
Sitemap: http://www.wheretobuybeauty.com.au/sitemap.xml”
I put this into robots.txt but was then advised yesterday that there should be no blank line between these lines and I removed them yesterday.
-
Hi Alex,
Without diving in to the issue of increased number of 404 errors being reported by Webmaster tools account, let us first look at the core issue where, 404 pages (non-existing resources) that return an HTTP header status code 200. These are called, 'soft 404 errors'. Ideally all the non-existing resources on the website should return an HTTP header status code 404 or 410 as per the situation and not a status 200 which is very confusing for search engines and a bad practice. This should be fixed immediately. Please have all such pages return 404 and not 200 as soon as possible.
Here you go for more about the soft 404 errors:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/181708?hl=en
and here to know more about when to return a 404 status code:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/2409439?hl=en
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi.
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
-
Rel canonical on other page instead of duplicate page. How Google responds?
Hi all, We have 3 pages for same topics. We decided to use rel canonical and remove old pages from search to avoid duplicate content. Out of these 3 pages....1 and 2 type of pages have more similar content where 3 type don't have. Generally we must use rel canonical between 1 and 2. But I am wondering what happens if I canonical between 1 and 3 while 2 has more similar content? Will Google respects it or penalise as we left the most similar page and used other page for canonical. Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Are we confusing Google with our internal linking?
Hi all, We decided to give importance to one of our top pages as it has "keyword" in it's slug like website.com/keyword. So we internally linked even from different sub-domain pages more than homepage to rank for that "keyword". But this page didn't show up in Google results for that "keyword"; neither homepage, but our login page is ranking. We wonder why login page is ranking. Has our internal linking plan confused Google to ignore homepage to rank for that primary keyword? And generally do we need to internally link homepage more than anyother page? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google AMP (accelerated mobile pages), can it be used for non-Google news and Ecommerce Websites?
Mozzers, I've been doing a lot of research on Google's new Accelerated Mobile Pages (AMP) https://moz.com/blog/accelerated-mobile-pages-whiteboard-friday. From what I'm seeing, these AMP version websites are only for Google News-worthy websites such as New York Times, Cosmopolitan, and the BuzzFeeds of the world. But what about Ecommerce websites like Ebay or Amazon? Will AMP versions of "scotch tape" via OfficeDepot work in the SERP's on non-Google News cards?
Algorithm Updates | | Shawn1240 -
Why would google favour overseas retailers? Really weird results..
Why would google favour results from overseas retailers for queries in the UK? It's weird since most won't ship to the UK and the same products are found at dozens of UK retailers. It's not the case that the overseas sites are necessarily bigger brands or better SEO optimised, so having asked the leading agencies in the UK and them being stumped I was curious if this was something anyone else had seen? Our theory is that this can only be a poorly disguised attempt to drive Adwords.
Algorithm Updates | | predatornutrition0 -
Google domain search
Hello all, I'm a newbie to SEO, so you'll have to bear with me. I just started a website LangleyHomeSaerch.com a few months ago and am having trouble ranking with google. When I search "Langley Home Search" with Yahoo or Bing, it comes up on the first page. However when I search it with google it doesn't seem to rank even in the first few hundred pages. The only way I can get a match from google is if I search "Langley HomeSearch" or "LangleyHomeSearch". I know due to google's newer algorithms that there is less importance put on domain name matches, but is this normal, or is there anything I can do to improve it? Thx, Colby Langley, BC
Algorithm Updates | | colbygedak0 -
Google is forcing a 301 by truncating our URLs
Just recently we noticed that google has indexed truncated urls for many of our pages that get 301'd to the correct page. For example, we have:
Algorithm Updates | | mmac
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html as the url linked everywhere and that's the only version of that page that we use. Google somehow figured out that it would still go to the right place via 301 if they removed the html filename from the end, so they indexed just: http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/ The 301 is not new. It used to 404, but (probably 5 years ago) we saw a few links come in with the html file missing on similar urls so we decided to 301 them instead thinking it would be helpful. We've preferred the longer version because it has the name in it and users that pay attention to the url can feel more confident they are going to the right place. We've always used the full (longer) url and google used to index them all that way, but just recently we noticed about 1/2 of our urls have been converted to the shorter version in the SERPs. These shortened urls take the user to the right page via 301, so it isn't a case of the user landing in the wrong place, but over 100,000 301s may not be so good. You can look at: site:www.eventective.com/usa/massachusetts/bedford/ and you'll noticed all of the urls to businesses at the top of the listings go to the truncated version, but toward the bottom they have the full url. Can you explain to me why google would index a page that is 301'd to the right page and has been for years? I have a lot of thoughts on why they would do this and even more ideas on how we could build our urls better, but I'd really like to hear from some people that aren't quite as close to it as I am. One small detail that shouldn't affect this, but I'll mention it anyway, is that we have a mobile site with the same url pattern. http://m.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html We did not have the proper 301 in place on the m. site until the end of last week. I'm pretty sure it will be asked, so I'll also mention we have the rel=alternate/canonical set up between the www and m sites. I'm also interested in any thoughts on how this may affect rankings since we seem to have been hit by something toward the end of last week. Don't hesitate to mention anything else you see that may have triggered whatever may have hit us. Thank you,
Michael0 -
Can you help with a few high-level mobile SEO questions?
Rolling out a mobile site for a client and I'm not positive about the following: Do these mobile pages need to be optimized with the same / similar page titles? If we have a product page on the regular site with an optimized title like "Men's Sweaters, Shirts and Ties - Company XYZ", should the mobile version's page have the same title? What if the dev team simply named it "Company XYZ Clothes" and missed the targeted keywords? Does it matter? Along the lines of question 1, isn't there truly just one index and your regular desktop browser version will be used for all ranking factors on both desktop and mobile SERPs? If that regular page indeed ranks well for "men's sweaters" and that term is searched on a mobile device, the visitor will be detected and served up the mobile page version, regardless of its meta tags and authority (say it's on a subdomain, m.example/.com/mens-department/ ), correct? Are meta descriptions necessary for the mobile version? Will the GoogleBot Mobile recognize them or will just the regular version work? Looks like mobile meta descriptions have about 30 less characters. Thanks in advance. Any advice is appreciated. AK
Algorithm Updates | | akim260 -
Today all of our internal pages all but completely disappeared from google search results. Many of them, which had been optimized for specific keywords, had high rankings. Did google change something?
We had optimized internal pages, targeting specific geographic markets. The pages used the keywords in the url title, the h1 tag, and within the content. They scored well using the SEOmoz tool and were increasing in rank every week. Then all of a sudden today, they disappeared. We had added a few links from textlink.com to test them out, but that's about the only change we made. The pages had a dynamic url, "?page=" that we were about to redirect to a static url but hadn't done it yet. The static url was redirecting to the dynamic url. Does anyone have any idea what happened? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | h3counsel0