Google Index Status Falling Fast - What should I be considering?
-
Hi Folks,
Working on an ecommerce site. I have found a month on month fall in the Index Status continuing since late 2015. This has resulted in around 80% of pages indexed according to Webmaster.
I do not seem to have any bad links or server issues. I am in the early stages of working through, updating content and tags but am yet to see a slowing of the fall.
If anybody has tips on where to look for to issues or insight to resolve this I would really appreciate it.
Thanks everybody!
Tim
-
Hi dude, thank you so much for taking time to look at this site. It is really kind of you. I will be taking a look at all the points raised over the next week to see what we can achieve. Thanks, Tim
-
Thank you for taking so much time to look at our site. I really appreciate it. I will dig in to the points to see what we can achieve. Thanks again, Tim
-
Thanks dude, I will take a look at this. Really appreciate you taking time to respond.
-
Hi Tim,
I agree with Laura on the canonical tags. I've worked on several large Magento sites and I've never seen any issue with the way Magento handles it - by canonicalizing product URLs to the root directory.
In fact, I actually prefer this was over assigning a product to a 'primary' category and using that as the canonical.
As Laura said, a reduction in the total number of indexed pages might actually be a really big positive here! More pages indexed does not mean it's better. If they are low quality/duplicate pages that have been removed from index, that's a really good thing.
I did find some issues with your robots.txt file:
- Disallow: /media/ - should be removed because it's blocking images from being crawled (this is a default Magento thing and they should remove it!)
- Disallow: /? - this basically means that any URLs containing a ? will not be crawled and with the way pagination is setup on the site, this means that any pages after 1 are not being crawled.
This could be impacting how many product pages you have indexed - which would definitely be a bad thing! You would obviously want your product pages to be crawled and indexed.
Solution: I would leave Disallow: /? in robots.txt because it stops a product filter URLs being crawled, but I would add the following line:
Allow: */?p=
This line will allow your paginated pages to be crawled, which will also allow products linked from those pages to be crawled.
Hope this helps!
Cheers,
David
-
I would be interested in seeing examples of where this has happened. Were the canonical tags added after the URLs were already indexed or were the canonicals in place when the site launched?
-
However, the canonical is only an advisory tag. I've had few cases where people have relied on their canonical tag when their site has numerous product url types (as above with category in the url and just product url) which has many references to these different urls elsewhere (onsite and offsite) and they are now indexed as both versions, which is not always ideal. It also means that reporting tools such as Screaming Frog only show the true URLs on the site. It's also saving crawl budget as it doesn't have to crawl the category produced url and the canonical url.
Whilst it's not a major issue, it's something I would look at changing.
-
If I understand you correctly, you are referring to the following two URLs:
https://www.symectech.com/epos-systems/customer-displays/pole-mounting-kit-94591.html
https://www.symectech.com/pole-mounting-kit-94614.html
Both of these have the same canonical referenced, which is https://www.symectech.com/pole-mounting-kit-94614.html.
It doesn't matter what actually shows in the address box. For the purposes of indexation, what matters is what is referenced in the canonical tag.
.
-
What I've suggested will be avoiding these duplicate urls? Here's some actual examples, going via a tier two category I get the following product url:
https://www.symectech.com/epos-systems/customer-displays/pole-mounting-kit-94591.html
With a canonical of:
https://www.symectech.com/pole-mounting-kit-94614.html
Yet when going from https://www.symectech.com/epos-systems/?limit=32&p=2 (a tier 1 category) I get the canonical url.
So if there are products listed in multiple tier two categories then that's multiple urls for the same product. With the suggestion I made, there would only be one variation of this product url (the canonical)
-
A reduction in the number of pages indexed does not necessarily mean something is wrong. In fact, it could mean that something is right, especially if your rankings are improving.
How are you determining that only 80% of pages are indexed? Can you provide a specific URL that is not being indexed?
If you made changes to your canonical tag, robots.txt , or meta robots tag, these could all cause a reduction in the number of pages being indexed.
-
The canonicals appear to be set up correctly, and I would not advise listing the product URLs as their canonicals in the category as suggested above. That will create duplicate URLs with the same content, which is exactly what canonical tags are designed to avoid.
-
Just going through Laura's list as a checklist for ones that are applicable:
- Have you checked your robots.txt file or page-level meta robots tag to see if you are blocking or noindexing anything?
Nothing that I can see, that's causing a major issue.
- Is it a large site? If so, check for issues that may affect crawl budget.
The main thing I can see is that the product urls and canonicals are different, is there anyway of listing the product urls as their canonical versions in the category?
-
<a name="_GoBack"></a>Sorry for the delay in response. Website is symectech.com
We have fixed various issues including a noindex issue earlier this year but our index status is continuing to fall. However, the ranking seems to be improving week on week according to MOZ. Thanks.
Tim
-
Just to echo what Laura has said, if you can share a URL that would be great so we can help you get to the source of the problem.
Try running a tool like screamingfrog (https://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/seo-spider/) to check the issues above that Laura has mentioned, as doing a lot of those by hand can be quite time consuming.
Also, do you have a drop in rankings with your pages falling out the index?
-
Any chance you can share the URL? That would make it much easier for someone to help in this forum. Without the URL, I can offer a few diagnostic questions.
- Have the number of pages on the site remained the same and pages are being removed from the index? Or have you added more content, but the percentage in the index has decreased?
- Have you checked your robots.txt file or page-level meta robots tag to see if you are blocking or noindexing anything?
- Have you submitted an XML sitemap? If so, check the XML sitemap to make sure what's being submitted should be indexed. It's possible to submit a sitemap that includes noindexed pages, especially with some automated tools.
- Is it a large site? If so, check for issues that may affect crawl budget.
- Have you changed any canonical tags?
- Have you used the Fetch as Google tool to diagnose a specific URL?
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
-
Can Google Crawl & Index my Schema in CSR JavaScript
We currently only have one option for implementing our Schema. It is populated in the JSON which is rendered by JavaScript on the CLIENT side. I've heard tons of mixed reviews about if this will work or not. So, does anyone know for sure if this will or will not work. Also, how can I build a test to see if it does or does not work?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MJTrevens0 -
Mobile indexing and tabs
Hello, With the new mobile indexing 1 st do search engine (google) give as much value to content in tabs and no visible in the 1 st place as content which is visible on the page ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Is robots met tag a more reliable than robots.txt at preventing indexing by Google?
What's your experience of using robots meta tag v robots.txt when it comes to a stand alone solution to prevent Google indexing? I am pretty sure robots meta tag is more reliable - going on own experiences, I have never experience any probs with robots meta tags but plenty with robots.txt as a stand alone solution. Thanks in advance, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart1 -
Client wants to remove mobile URLs from their sitemap to avoid indexing issues. However this will require SEVERAL billing hours. Is having both mobile/desktop URLs in a sitemap really that detrimental to search indexing?
We had an enterprise client ask to remove mobile URLs from their sitemaps. For their website both desktop & mobile URLs are combined into one sitemap. Their website has a mobile template (not a responsive website) and is configured properly via Google's "separate URL" guidelines. Our client is referencing a statement made from John Mueller that having both mobile & desktop sitemaps can be problematic for indexing. Here is the article https://www.seroundtable.com/google-mobile-sitemaps-20137.html
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RosemaryB
We would be happy to remove the mobile URLs from their sitemap. However this will unfortunately take several billing hours for our development team to implement and QA. This will end up costing our client a great deal of money when the task is completed. Is it worth it to remove the mobile URLs from their main website to be in adherence to John Mueller's advice? We don't believe these extra mobile URLs are harming their search indexing. However we can't find any sources to explain otherwise. Any advice would be appreciated. Thx.0 -
Sitemap Indexation
When we use HTML sitemap. Many a times i have seen that the sitemap itself gets mapped to keywords which it shouldn't have got to. So should we keep the HTML sitemap as No-Index, Follow or does anyone has a better solution that the sitemap doesn't show-up for other keyword terms that actually isn't representing this page.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | welcomecure0 -
Now that Google will be indexing Twitter, are Twitter backlinks likely to effect website rank in the SERPs?
About a year (or 2) ago, Matt Cutts said that Twitter and FB have no effect on website rank, in part because Google can't get to the content. Now that Google will be indexing Twitter (again), do we expect that links in twitter posts will be useful backlinks for improving SERP rank?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Thriveworks-Counseling1 -
Google Processing but Not Indexing XML Sitemap
Like it says above, Google is processing but not indexing our latest XML sitemap. I noticed this Monday afternoon - Indexed status was still Pending - and didn't think anything of it. But when it still said Pending on Tuesday, it seemed strange. I deleted and resubmitted our XML sitemap on Tuesday. It now shows that it was processed on Tuesday, but the Indexed status is still Pending. I've never seen this much of a lag, hence the concern. Our site IS indexed in Google - it shows up with a site:xxxx.com search with the same number of pages as it always has. The only thing I can see that triggered this is Sunday the site failed verification via Google, but we quickly fixed that and re-verified via WMT Monday morning. Anyone know what's going on?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingof50 -
Why isn't google indexing our site?
Hi, We have majorly redesigned our site. Is is not a big site it is a SaaS site so has the typical structure, Landing, Features, Pricing, Sign Up, Contact Us etc... The main part of the site is after login so out of google's reach. Since the new release a month ago, google has indexed some pages, mainly the blog, which is brand new, it has reindexed a few of the original pages I am guessing this as if I click cached on a site: search it shows the new site. All new pages (of which there are 2) are totally missed. One is HTTP and one HTTPS, does HTTPS make a difference. I have submitted the site via webmaster tools and it says "URL and linked pages submitted to index" but a site: search doesn't bring all the pages? What is going on here please? What are we missing? We just want google to recognise the old site has gone and ALL the new site is here ready and waiting for it. Thanks Andrew
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Studio330