Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Parked domain is first in search results
-
We have several brand related domains which are parked and pointing to our main website. Some of these websites are redirecting using a 302 (don't ask, that's a whole other story), but these are being changed.
But it shouldn't matter what type of redirect they are no? Since there has never been any traffic and they are not indexed?
But it seems that one of them was indexed: exotravel.vn. A search for our brand name or the previous brand name (exotravel and exotissimo) brings up this parked domain first! How can that be? The domain has never been used and has no backlinks.
exotravel.vn is redirecting and I submitted a change of address weeks ago to Google, but its still coming up first in all brand name searches for exotissimo or exotravel.
-
Hi,
I pointed out that Google is a web registrar to elude to the fact they can search registered domain names and return those as results. Google can WILL also use anchor text and links from any site they find a link to your site. Even if you disallow crawling via robots.txt. If somebody is linking to you and Google finds it, and there are no more appropriate results they will return it when somebody searches those keywords.
I would say first your main issue is the redirect. Second you must not have a strong enough keyword profile or you just launched and have not given Google enough time to get an updated SERP out. Either way fixing the redirect should be your primary focus.
To answer your question sorry for being blunt here, the reason the parked domain is out ranking your live domain is because as far as Google is concerned it is the most relevant result. There is social media, it is registered and there is a cache of anchor text that is out ranking your live domain right now. You need to fix the redirect, build a link profile on new domain and give it time.
It may not make much sense if you look at it from only your side. But Google isn't a magic genie that can update billions of SERPs every minute. The best thing you can do is help them help you.
By fixing the redirect you tackle the issue 2 ways. 1. Even if Google returns your parked domain the user is sent to the correct domain. Second Google will see the redirect and index it appropriately thus removing the ranking from the parked domain.
I hope this helps and I didn't mean to sound rude if it came off that way,
Don
-
Hi Don, thanks for the input. The IT director had tried to point the DNS to a new web host so we can control the redirect correctly, but it doesn't seem to be propagating, thus we returned it to the default registrar redirect of a 302. Further background and context and actions below...
-
My apologies, but while I was outlining the problem in the original post, our IT director had updated the DNS to point to a host, wherein we have placed the 301 in an htaccess file. Thats why the lookup failed... and continued to fail, so it looks like the registrar also has a propagation problem, so we returned to the default 302 redirect for now...
The issue appears to be complex:
The DNS registrar for .VN domains seems to have a variety of issues with their DNS hosting, not least of which is that their URL redirect entry type will only function as a 302 redirect, not a 301.
This however does not really address the core problem. How is it that this domain is ranking first for all of our brand name searches?
- The domain has no wayback history
- It has never been actively used or linked to and has no backlink profile, outside of junk domain listings and the odd random backlink
Whereas our main domain has history and a very large backlink profile, albeit inherited through a change of address and 301's from the established name which we changed November last year.
Timeline:
November 2014 - all is well, business as usual, good search volume, successful recovery from a manual penalty... things are looking rosy. Company plan to change domain name is activated...
November 13th 2014 - Domain change goes ahead, all done according to guidelines with full 301s and Google Domain Name Change request
13th November - 19th November 2014 - 40% drop in search traffic! Argghhh.
20th November 2014 > So begins the research and recruitment of various SEO people to investigate. Nobody can see anything specific as to why the impact would be so huge as a result of the domain change. General consensus is that the following have played a part:
- Full re-evaluation of the site according to updated Panda and Penguin algo's, results in % loss: recoverable through fixing backlink profile, technical SEO and DMCA requests.
- Domain age and trust change would result in traffic loss, nobody has said how much or if it really happens.
- 301 redirects have an implicit reduction in value of between 0% - 15%, depending on who you believe.
4th January 2015 > overnight searchs for our previous and current brand names return exotravel.vn though we do not notice this for a couple of weeks. The domain itself is one of many local domains that have been parked for years and not in use.
end Jan 2015 > We realise the indexing of all brand names is now returning exotravel.vn.
- Feb 3rd - we set up GWT for the new domain and submit a change of address
10th Feb > Try updating the DNS to 301, cannot do it in the regstrars DNS management, and their support is non existent/unresponsive
17th Feb > Try pointing the domain to web host, doesn't work, DNS does not propagate. Added the 302 redirect back until FPT Telecom are back from Chinese new year holiday (they don't answer the phone and have an autoresponder saying they will be back next Tuesday! Seriously.)
What now? Any insight appreciated as this has me completely stumped! How can this parked domain now be ranking higher than our established and publicised domains!?
-
My apologies, but while I was outlining the problem, our IT director had updated the DNS. Further feedback below.
-
A couple things.
First Google is also a Web Registrar so they have the ability to know what domains are registered. It appears that Google has a cached version of the domain exotravel.vn indexed. It also appears to have Social Media exposure.
The redirect if setup is not correctly working. A ping and Whois search on http://exotravel.vn/ brings up no response from the server. Check the mxtoolbox entry here
Once you fix your 301 redirect issue, and have content ready for those keywords submit a site map to Google and give it some time to update.
Hope this helps,
Don
-
HI,
I doesn't look like exotravel.vn is redirecting right now, I get a 'page is not available' message so first thing to do is make sure the 301 redirect is set up and working as you expect it so that anybody clicking on that result will get to the right page. A look at the page cache shows that a coupe of days ago the site seemed to be returning normal content (it wasn't parked in other words but was actually serving html content). So between the redirect not working as expected and the site returning content until recently it is likely a bit confusing to google in regards what results it should/should not be showing for a branded search. If the redirect is implemented properly I expect the .vn site should fall out of the serps pretty quickly.
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
-
Dynamic Canonical Tag for Search Results Filtering Page
Hi everyone, I run a website in the travel industry where most users land on a location page (e.g. domain.com/product/location, before performing a search by selecting dates and times. This then takes them to a pre filtered dynamic search results page with options for their selected location on a separate URL (e.g. /book/results). The /book/results page can only be accessed on our website by performing a search, and URL's with search parameters from this page have never been indexed in the past. We work with some large partners who use our booking engine who have recently started linking to these pre filtered search results pages. This is not being done on a large scale and at present we only have a couple of hundred of these search results pages indexed. I could easily add a noindex or self-referencing canonical tag to the /book/results page to remove them, however it’s been suggested that adding a dynamic canonical tag to our pre filtered results pages pointing to the location page (based on the location information in the query string) could be beneficial for the SEO of our location pages. This makes sense as the partner websites that link to our /book/results page are very high authority and any way that this could be passed to our location pages (which are our most important in terms of rankings) sounds good, however I have a couple of concerns. • Is using a dynamic canonical tag in this way considered spammy / manipulative? • Whilst all the content that appears on the pre filtered /book/results page is present on the static location page where the search initiates and which the canonical tag would point to, it is presented differently and there is a lot more content on the static location page that isn’t present on the /book/results page. Is this likely to see the canonical tag being ignored / link equity not being passed as hoped, and are there greater risks to this that I should be worried about? I can’t find many examples of other sites where this has been implemented but the closest would probably be booking.com. https://www.booking.com/searchresults.it.html?label=gen173nr-1FCAEoggI46AdIM1gEaFCIAQGYARS4ARfIAQzYAQHoAQH4AQuIAgGoAgO4ArajrpcGwAIB0gIkYmUxYjNlZWMtYWQzMi00NWJmLTk5NTItNzY1MzljZTVhOTk02AIG4AIB&sid=d4030ebf4f04bb7ddcb2b04d1bade521&dest_id=-2601889&dest_type=city& Canonical points to https://www.booking.com/city/gb/london.it.html In our scenario however there is a greater difference between the content on both pages (and booking.com have a load of search results pages indexed which is not what we’re looking for) Would be great to get any feedback on this before I rule it out. Thanks!
Technical SEO | | GAnalytics1 -
Domain Masking SEO Impact
I hope I am explaining this correctly. If I need to provide any clarity please feel free to ask. We currently use a domain mask on an external platform that points back to our site. We are a non-profit and the external site allows users to create peer-to peer fundraisers that benefit our ministry. Currently we get many meta issues related to this site as well as broken links when fundraisers expire etc. We do not have a need to rank for the information from this site. Is there a way to index these pages so that they are not a part of the search engine site crawls as it relates to our site?
Technical SEO | | SamaritansPurse0 -
Inurl: search shows results without keyword in URL
Hi there, While doing some research on the indexation status of a client I ran into something unexpected. I have my hypothesis on what might be happing, but would like a second opinion on this. The query 'site:example.org inurl:index.php' returns about 18.000 results. However, when I hover my mouse of these results, no index.php shows up in the URL. So, Google seems to think these (then duplicate content) URLs still exist, but a 301 has changed the actual goal URL? A similar things happens for inurl:page. In fact, all the 'index.php' and 'page' parameters were removed over a year back, so there in fact shouldn't be any of those left in the index by now. The dates next to the search results are 2005, 2008, etc. (i.e. far before 2013). These dates accurately reflect the times these forums topic were created. Long story short: are these ~30.000 'phantom URLs' in the index out of total of ~100.000 indexed pages hurting the search rankings in some way? What do you suggest to get them out? Submitting a 100% coverage sitemap (just a few days back) doesn't seem to have any effect on these phantom results (yet).
Technical SEO | | Theo-NL0 -
Clients domain expired - rankings lost - repurchased domain - what next?
Its only been 10 days and i have repurchased the domain name/ renewed. The who is info, website and contact information is all still the same. However we have lost all rankings and i am hoping that our top rankings come back. Does anyone have experience with such a crappy situation?
Technical SEO | | waqid0 -
Rel canonical between mirrored domains
Hi all & happy new near! I'm new to SEO and could do with a spot of advice: I have a site that has several domains that mirror it (not good, I know...) So www.site.com, www.site.edu.sg, www.othersite.com all serve up the same content. I was planning to use rel="canonical" to avoid the duplication but I have a concern: Currently several of these mirrors rank - one, the .com ranks #1 on local google search for some useful keywords. the .edu.sg also shows up as #9 for a dirrerent page. In some cases I have multiple mirrors showing up on a specific serp. I would LIKE to rel canonical everything to the local edu.sg domain since this is most representative of the fact that the site is for a school in Singapore but...
Technical SEO | | AlexSG
-The .com is listed in DMOZ (this used to be important) and none of the volunteers there ever respoded to requests to update it to the .edu.sg
-The .com ranks higher than the com.sg page for non-local search so I am guessing google has some kind of algorithm to mark down obviosly local domains in other geographic locations Any opinions on this? Should I rel canonical the .com to the .edu.sg or vice versa? I appreciate any advice or opinion before I pull the trigger and end up shooting myself in the foot! Best regards from Singapore!0 -
Correct linking to the /index of a site and subfolders: what's the best practice? link to: domain.com/ or domain.com/index.html ?
Dear all, starting with my .htaccess file: RewriteEngine On
Technical SEO | | inlinear
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^www.inlinear.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://inlinear.com/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteCond %{THE_REQUEST} ^./index.html
RewriteRule ^(.)index.html$ http://inlinear.com/ [R=301,L] 1. I redirect all URL-requests with www. to the non www-version...
2. all requests with "index.html" will be redirected to "domain.com/" My questions are: A) When linking from a page to my frontpage (home) the best practice is?: "http://domain.com/" the best and NOT: "http://domain.com/index.php" B) When linking to the index of a subfolder "http://domain.com/products/index.php" I should link also to: "http://domain.com/products/" and not put also the index.php..., right? C) When I define the canonical ULR, should I also define it just: "http://domain.com/products/" or in this case I should link to the definite file: "http://domain.com/products**/index.php**" Is A) B) the best practice? and C) ? Thanks for all replies! 🙂
Holger0 -
Issue with .uk.com domain
hi i have rockshore.uk.com which is not indexing properly. the internal pages do not show up for the text they have on them, or the title tags. the site is on aekmps shops platform. I understand that a .uk.com is not a proper TLD but i think i have a subdomain of .uk.com Can anyone help? thanks
Technical SEO | | Turkey0 -
Delete old site but redirect domain to a new domain and site
I just have a quick query and I have a feeling about what the answer is so just wanted to see what you guys thought... Basically I am working on a client site. This client has a few other websites that are divisions of their company. However these divisions/websites are no longer used. They are wanting to delete the websites but redirect the domains to their name main website. They believe this will pass on SEO benefits as these old division sites are old and have a good PR and history. I'm unsure for DEFINITE, which way is correct?
Technical SEO | | Weerdboil0