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:
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.htmlas 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,
Michael -
Lynn,
We had a few "site:" queries that we were watching as the full URLs came back replacing the truncated ones, for example: site:eventective.com/usa/Georgia/Atlanta. When we discovered the original problem, almost every listing page in those SERPs had a truncated URL, but by the start of last week it had gradually cleared up to only 6 or 7 listings with truncated URLs while all others had the full URL. Then suddenly we had 5 pages (50 listings) of truncated URLs and now almost 300 of them for that one query have the truncated version indexed. It appears to be continuing.
Another detail I noticed was in Webmaster Tools. All of our listings are in our sitemap with the full URL. When we had this problem before only about 50% of our pages listed in our sitemap were indexed, assuming that is because the truncated ones were in the index instead of the full URLs that were in the sitemap. As the truncated URL problem cleared up that ratio improved to the point where it was pretty steady at about 96-97% of our pages in our sitemap were indexed. Once this problem started to reappear that number dropped down to 90% and kept going down to the point where it is at 77% now.
The only real change we made was an upgrade to our server hardware at our hosting company.
I've considered disallowing the truncated URL pattern in the robots.txt, but I really shouldn't have to do that with the 301.
I'm starting to wonder whether google is sending us a signal that they like the shorter version of the URL better.
Thanks for taking the time to take a look at it.
Michael
-
Hi Micheal,
When you say you started noticing it again, this is through webmaster tools or through your own monitoring? I ask because having a look at the site I can see no technical reason why those truncated urls would be getting indexed again at first glance. Maybe it is just a matter of waiting a bit more for the last of them to get removed? If all of a sudden they have started creeping up again, it suggests some variable in the mix has changed again, but I cannot see anything that stands out.
-
Lynn,
Thanks again for helping us out with this back in May. After we made the corrections you pointed out it cleared up over the course of a few months. There were just a few truncated urls left until suddenly this week we noticed it starting again. I've looked at our 301s, our canonical/alternates, and made sure we are not linking to the truncated version anywhere, yet google continues to index the truncated version. I'm tempted to disallow the truncated version in my robots.txt file, but hesitate to do that because of the possibility of some unexpected side effects.
Do you or anyone else reading this have any idea why google would index:
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/
rather than:
http://www.eventective.com/USA/Massachusetts/Bedford/107/Doubletree-Hotel-Boston-Bedford-Glen.html
when all links point to the latter and the former is even 301'd to the latter.
Any and all help is appreciated.
Thank you,
Michael
-
Lynn,
You nailed it. That's exactly what the problem was. Since we were using the same URL pattern for m. and www., we had created the canonical by swapping the "m" out of the current url and replacing it with "www". Since the truncated versions for mobile were in the index, they were all pointed to a truncated version for desktop.
As you pointed out, this should resolve itself over time. Now I can focus on just the ranking issue.
Thank you both Lynn and Jesse for your help.
Michael
-
Hi Micheal,
I suspect the mobile site might be responsible for the indexed urls issue. Your mobile site has loads of indexed pages with the shorter urls: https://www.google.com/#output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=site:m.eventective.com&oq=site:m.eventective.com&fp=9861fb8dc6b3e7c
Before the 301 redirects on the mobile site were created, were the rel canonical links pointing to the truncated urls on the main site? Seems to be the case on this random page I grabbed:
So a kind of odd mixture of 301s on the main site, and a well indexed mobile site saying the rel canonical on the main site is the shorter url. Seems maybe the rel canonical won! Are you sure this is a recent issue? Maybe it has been like this for a while and just not noticed much?
I would think that with the 301s and rel canonicals now properly implemented on the mobile site then the index will slowly sort itself out. I suppose you could put a rel canonical on the main site page also referencing itself, might speed up the process a bit more.
Agree with Jesse that it is not likely a major worry and wouldn't think this alone would cause a ranking issue.
-
I'm responding to this in a semi-rushed matter as something is coming up but I just want to mention that the most likely reason for Google to index this version of your URL is because of the links pointing to it. Those which caused you to put a 301 in place, those that were 404ing prior... They are clearly demonstrating to be the authoritative URL to Google.
I'm not sure why you're worried about what the customer/user sees for URL. They are most likely looking more at the Title/Description in the SERPs well before the URL string. Most people only read the domain portion of a URL string and it's more used for the search engines purposes.. (my opinion) Also, once the user clicks your title or page they are taken to the redirect and the full URL string will be visible in the address bar of their browser.
As for why your rankings are affected... I'd be surprised if it had anything to do with this, honestly. If anything redirecting should help especially if you had links pointing to a broken page. The only exception would be if those links were poison, of course.
Okay got to run hope I was helpful. Good luck!
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
-
Site titles / descriptions change - Google Algo Change ?
Hello, During the weekend 4 of our sites automatically changed their search titles and descriptions at the same time.
Algorithm Updates | | lordish
They are not picking up the real pages: Title, Description. Our ranks are dropping because of this. can you please tell if it happened to you as well or if you recognize a problem here? sites:
http://www.robinhoodbingo.com
http://www.gossipbingo.com
http://www.moonbingo.com in the attached examples:
for the kws searched - the results show different titles and descriptions. results for these pages:
moon bingo - http://www.moonbingo.com
mobile bingo - http://www.robinhoodbingo.com/skin/mobile.php rhMzURw.png 2tRL5dZ.png0 -
Is it possible that Google may have erroneous indexing dates?
I am consulting someone for a problem related to copied content. Both sites in question are WordPress (self hosted) sites. The "good" site publishes a post. The "bad" site copies the post (without even removing all internal links to the "good" site) a few days after. On both websites it is obvious the publishing date of the posts, and it is clear that the "bad" site publishes the posts days later. The content thief doesn't even bother to fake the publishing date. The owner of the "good" site wants to have all the proofs needed before acting against the content thief. So I suggested him to also check in Google the dates the various pages were indexed using Search Tools -> Custom Range in order to have the indexing date displayed next to the search results. For all of the copied pages the indexing dates also prove the "bad" site published the content days after the "good" site, but there are 2 exceptions for the very 2 first posts copied. First post:
Algorithm Updates | | SorinaDascalu
On the "good" website it was published on 30 January 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 26 February 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 30 January 2013! Second post:
On the "good" website it was published on 20 March 2013
On the "bad" website it was published on 10 May 2013
In Google search both show up indexed on 20 March 2013! Is it possible to be an error in the date shown in Google search results? I also asked for help on Google Webmaster forums but there the discussion shifted to "who copied the content" and "file a DMCA complain". So I want to be sure my question is better understood here.
It is not about who published the content first or how to take down the copied content, I am just asking if anybody else noticed this strange thing with Google indexing dates. How is it possible for Google search results to display an indexing date previous to the date the article copy was published and exactly the same date that the original article was published and indexed?0 -
Profile Picture Display Next to Map on Google Search
On a recent Google search, I noticed that the top result also displayed the Google map of the location next to it but aside from that, it also displayed that business' Google+ Profile picture. I'm wondering how that is done. We have a Google+ account as well with an image associated with our business. At this point, the map doesn't even display for our business, but how does one get the map and the profile picture to appear on search results? Here's a link to the search result in question:
Algorithm Updates | | atuomala
http://www.google.com/search?q=tech+squad&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS511US511&aq=f&oq=tech+squad&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#hl=en&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS511US511&sclient=psy-ab&q=tech+squad+wi&oq=tech+squad+wi&gs_l=serp.3..0l2j0i30l2.6041.6590.0.6592.3.3.0.0.0.0.79.158.2.2.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.4.psy-ab.DoA-PSlyt-A&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.42768644,d.cGE&fp=b5d841bb1ab219dc&biw=1440&bih=785 tech_squad_serp.jpg0 -
How to show your ratings in the Google SERP
I've noticed that some organic search results are showing ratings just above the meta tag. How are these sites doing this? Example: If you search "cash advance", there is a result between #4 and #6 in the organic results. The site is "goldcashadvance.com". It's showing a 5-star rating in the result.
Algorithm Updates | | sparagi0 -
How to Recover Ranking from Latest Google Panda and EMD Update?
We have 7 websites with the exact match domains. Our Website has been affected by Google recently updated (Panda and EMD Update). we don't want to do any changes in our existing domains. What should we do? So, What is the exact solution for that. Help Us out! Website Names: http://www.hamptoninndenverairport.com http://www.wingatehotelcolumbia.com http://www.fairfieldinnhotelaurora.com http://www.hamptoninnhotelcrestwood.com http://www.laquintahoteldavenport.com http://www.redroofinnhotelcedarrapids.com http://www.hamptoninnhotelcarolstream.com Thanks in advance.
Algorithm Updates | | CommercePundit1 -
Proper Way To Submit A Reconsideration Request To Google
Hello, In previous posts, I was speaking about how we were penalized by Google for unnatural links. Basically 50,000 our of our 58,000 links were coming from 4-5 sites with the same exact anchor text and img alt tags. This obviously was causing our issues. Needless to say, I wen through the complete link profile to determine that all of the links besides this were of natrural origins. My question here is what is the accepted protocol of submitting a reinclusion request; For example, how long should it be? Should I disclose that I was in fact using paid links, and now that I removed (or at least nofollowed) them? I want to make sure that the request as good as it should so I can get our rankings up in a timely manner. Also, how long until the request is typically aknowledged? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | BestOdds0 -
301 Redirect has removed search rankings
As per instructions from a SEO , we did a 301 redirect on our url to a new url (www.domain.com to subdomain xxxx.domain.com). But the problem is we lost all the google rankings that the previous url had gained. How can we rollback this situation. Can we retrieve the rankings of the previous url if we remove 301 permenant move redirection ? The new url does not figure in the google search for the keyword that use to fetch the previous url at no 3 in the results Please help ...
Algorithm Updates | | BizSparkSEO0 -
Shortened Title in Google Places/Local Results in SERPs
I've been doing some local SEO lately and noticed something today. When I do a search for "State/town name Cat Toys", I see the title tag of the website in the local results as opposed to the business name. I'm happy they are showing up above the normal results, but I wonder if having the brand name at the end of the site title impacts clicks. For example: Site name: New Hampshire Cat Toys and Accessories | Cats R Us But in the places results the title is cut short because they show the address, so all they see is: New Hampshire Cat Toys and.... Do you think branding is especially important in local results? Or less important? I could hear arguments for both sides. I realize the site URL is shown in green below the title, but it's not the same as having a brand in the title portion. It also looks like some of the competition has just their name show up as opposed to their website title. Is this something I can fix in Google Places, or is something Google does on its own? Cheers, Vinnie
Algorithm Updates | | vforvinnie1