How do you check the google cache for hashbang pages?
-
So we use http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x.com/#!/hashbangpage to check what googlebot has cached but when we try to use this method for hashbang pages, we get the x.com's cache... not x.com/#!/hashbangpage
That actually makes sense because the hashbang is part of the homepage in that case so I get why the cache returns back the homepage.
My question is - how can you actually look up the cache for hashbang page?
-
I was actually trying to give you the tools to figure out what's cached and indexed. You can just run a site search for the content and look at the cache, though. For example:
If nothing shows up it's probably not indexed.
-
Thanks Carson but that wasn't the question.
The question was how to check the cache.
-
Generally I'd avoid hashtags or hashbangs if you have large amounts of content you want indexed behind a hashbang. Use pushState instead whenever it makes sense for the user to actually change the URL.
The general rule is that if you can see the content in your page source (ctrl+u version), it's probably being indexed. That means that client-side AJAX behind hashbangs is generally not indexed, where server-side will generally get indexed.
If for some reason you must use hashbangs, AND you must use client-rendering content, create an HTML snapshot of your page for Google. Generally, though, that's more effort than changing one of the above.
-
I think google has stopped responding to cache requests on hashbang pages all together.
See here... **I'm just playing with random urls and don't see google cache 404'ing as it should **http://recordit.co/XBlo3U2A73
You can really put anything there it won't work.
-
Searching for indexed & duplicate content. I put a line or two in quotes and Googled it. I found most of the UTMs that way. Once you do that, it's a simple change to site:yoursite.com inurl:UTM
-
Thanks a lot, Matt.
I'm curious.. how did you exactly find the version with the utm codes that are being cached?
-
Strangely, browseo sees it correctly: http://www.browseo.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplaceit.net%2F%3F_escaped_fragment_%3D%2Fstages%2Fsamsung-galaxy-note-friends-park
I'm not 100% sure why this is happening on your site specifically. Normally the #! isn't too big of an issue for cache but I've seen it have a few hiccups. These pages seem to be indexed fine but they aren't generating cache.
I did find a few working but only those with UTM codes:
This doesn't look like it's working but view the source code - the content is actually there. I found it by Googling the content in " marks.
-
What you're saying make sense and our urls are setup like this but we still don't see just the homepage come up when looking up the google cache with the esc fragment version
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://placeit.net/?escaped_fragment=/stages/samsung-galaxy-note-friends-park
https://placeit.net/?escaped_fragment=/stages/samsung-galaxy-note-friends-park
homepage - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://placeit.net/?escaped_fragment=
-
Let's use a Wix example site (not a client, just a sample from their page) as my example. Say you wanted to check:
http://www.kingskolacheny.com/#!press/crr2
In the source code I see the escaped fragment URL. This is the one you can find a cache for:
http://www.kingskolacheny.com/?escaped_fragment=press/crr2
That leads me to: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.kingskolacheny.com/?escaped_fragment=press/crr2
If your #! URLs are not setup this way, you will struggle to see it. One page websites are ... one page. But if you have escaped fragment URLs setup, you should be able to submit those and go from there.
The easiest way I know to find these is Screaming Frog, Ajax tab, Ugly URL field - try that one.
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
-
Paginated category pages still showing in Google
Despite our blog using rel=next and rel=”prev” we’re still finding paginated pages getting impressions in Google, suggesting they are taking up unnecessary crawl budget. An example is: https://www.theukdomain.uk/seo/page/2/ What steps would you recommend I take to most benefit my sites SEO? Thanks, Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sjefferies0 -
Will google merge structured data from two pages if they have the same canonical?
Will google merge structured data from two pages if they have the same canonical? The crawler should be able to get to the tab through an ahref. The tab in question is "Cast & Crew." Thank you in advance for any insight! szmOmj8.jpg uM8qUfi.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | catbur0 -
Google indexing wrong pages
We have a variety of issues at the moment, and need some advice. First off, we have a HUGE indexing issue across our entire website. Website in question: http://www.localsearch.com.au/ Firstly
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | localdirectories
In Google.com.au, if you search for 'plumbers gosford' (https://www.google.com.au/#q=plumbers+gosford), the wrong page appears - in this instance, the page ranking should be http://www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Plumbers I can see this across the board, across multiple locations. Secondly
Recently I've seen Google reporting in 'Crawl Errors' in webmaster tools URLs such as:
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Saunders-Beach,QLD/Electronic-Equipment-Sales-Repairs&Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA This is an invalid URL, and more specifically, those query strings seem to be referrer queries from Google themselves: &Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA Here's the above example indexed in Google: https://www.google.com.au/#q="AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA" Does anyone have any advice on those 2 errors?0 -
We are switching our CMS local pages from a subdomain approach to a subfolder approach. What's the best way to handle this? Should we redirect every local subdomain page to its new subfolder page?
We are looking to create a new subfolder approach within our website versus our current subdomain approach. How should we go about handling this politely as to not lose everything we've worked on up to this point using the subdomain approach? Do we need to redirect every subdomain URL to the new subfolder page? Our current local pages subdomain set up: stores.websitename.com How we plan on adding our new local subfolder set-up: websitename.com/stores/state/city/storelocation Any and all help is appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEO.CIC0 -
Product with two common names: A separate page for each name, or both on one page?
This is a real-life problem on my ecommerce store for the drying rack we manufacture: Some people call it a Clothes Drying Rack, while others call it a Laundry Drying Rack, but it's really the same thing. Search volume is higher for the clothes version, so give it the most attention. I currently have 2 separate pages with the On-Page optimization focused on each name (URL, Title, h1, img alts, etc) Here the two drying rack pages: clothes focused page and laundry focused page But the ranking of both pages is terrible. The fairly generic homepage shows up instead of the individual pages in Google searches for the clothes drying rack and for laundry drying rack. But I can get the individual page to appear in a long-tail search like this: round wooden clothes drying rack So my thought is maybe I should just combine both of these pages into one page that will hopefully be more powerful. We would have to set up the On-Page optimization to cover both "clothes & laundry drying rack" but that seems possible. Please share your thoughts. Is this a good idea or a bad idea? Is there another solution? Thanks for your help! Greg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GregB1230 -
What's the best way to check Google search results for all pages NOT linking to a domain?
I need to do a bit of link reclamation for some brand terms. From the little bit of searching I've done, there appear to be several thousand pages that meet the criteria, but I can already tell it's going to be impossible or extremely inefficient to save them all manually. Ideally, I need an exported list of all the pages mentioning brand terms not linking to my domain, and then I'll import them into BuzzStream for a link campaign. Anybody have any ideas about how to do that? Thanks! Jon
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JonMorrow0 -
Does Google crawl and spider for other links in rel=canonical pages?
When you add rel=canonical to the page, will Google still crawl your page for content and discover new links in that page?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ReferralCandy0 -
Meeting Google's needs 100% with dynamic pages
We have bought into a really powerful search, very exciting We can define really detailed product based 'landing pages' by creating a search that pulles on required attributeseghttp://www.OURDOMAIN.com//search/index.php?sortprice=asc&followSearch=9673&q=red+coats+short-length Pop that in a link Short Red Coats on a previous page and wonderful, that gives a page of short red coats in price ascending order, one happy consumer, straight to a page that meets their needs Question 1 however unhappy Google right? Question 2 can we meet Google's needs 100% with a redirect permanent in an .htaccess file E.G redirect permanent /short-red-coats/ http://www.OURDOMAIN.com//search/index.php?sortprice=asc&followSearch=9673&q=red+coats+short-length
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GeezerG
Many thanks
CB0