Facets Being Indexed - What's the Impact?
-
Hi
Our facets are from what I can see crawled by search engines, I think they use javascript - see here http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/lockers
I want to get this fixed for SEO with an ajax solution - I'm not sure how big this job is for developers, but they will want to know the positive impact this could have & whether it's worth doing.
Does anyone have any opinions on this?
I haven't encountered this before so any help is welcome
-
I think I'd have to request these. I know it's something I need to look at, but I;m not sure how high a priority I should put on it.
Do you think it would make a huge difference if they were stopped from being crawled?
-
Hey Becky, I definitely question if they're being crawled at all. Do you have access to your server logs at all? If so, you could then use Screaming Frog's Log Analyser (https://www.screamingfrog.co.uk/log-file-analyser/) to parse through them and find if Googlebot is indeed hitting those pages. It would be worth the investigation!
-
I am confused as to whether they're even being crawled if Google ignores everything after the #
Perhaps they're being crawled but not indexed...
-
Thanks, I'll do that as a starting point
-
It's a really interesting question and I wonder if they are being crawled. The link destination on them in the right sidebar goes to /#, which shouldn't let the search engines crawl these links.
Are you seeing these parameters in Search Console or your log files? That is where I would look to see if they are actually being hit by Googlebot.
If they are, then you should remove that anchor link and let the checkboxes activate the facets. Not sure how easy this is to do technically, but it's the right way to do it.
-
Hi John,
Yeh I'm just trying to understand it all Yes that's what I mean with the facet link you've shown.
I just want to ensure I'm not wasting Googlebot's time crawling facets which don't need to be crawled.
I'm not so worried about the duplicate pages as there's a canonical, but I don't think these facets are SEO friendly - I'm trying to work out how to make them SEO friendly
-
Hey Becky, I see you posting a bunch about your technical SEO and internal linking/indexation discoveries. Great to see that you're digging in deep!
When you say a "facet", do you mean a link like this - http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/multipurpose-storage-lockers#facet:-70000000000000105744949554832109109&productBeginIndex:0&orderBy:5&pageView:grid& ?
If that's the case, that page has a canonical on it back to the base of http://www.key.co.uk/en/key/multipurpose-storage-lockers, but you should take a look in your server logs (this is a good place to start - https://builtvisible.com/log-file-analysis/) to see if these are being hit by Googlebot.
Just trying to figure out what you're asking so I can try to help!
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
-
What will SEO be like in the 2020's?
Hey guys, I would love to hear your thoughts on how you think SEO will change in the 2020's. The 2010's saw some pretty cool stuff like Panda, Penguin, penalties for non-mobile-friendly, non-secure and slow loading sites. What will be more or less important for SEO's in the 2020's than today? How will machine learning and AI change SEO?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GreenHatWeb0 -
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
Syndicated content with meta robots 'noindex, nofollow': safe?
Hello, I manage, with a dedicated team, the development of a big news portal, with thousands of unique articles. To expand our audiences, we syndicate content to a number of partner websites. They can publish some of our articles, as long as (1) they put a rel=canonical in their duplicated article, pointing to our original article OR (2) they put a meta robots 'noindex, follow' in their duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. A new prospect, to partner with with us, wants to follow a different path: republish the articles with a meta robots 'noindex, nofollow' in each duplicated article + a dofollow link to our original article. This is because he doesn't want to pass pagerank/link authority to our website (as it is not explicitly included in the contract). In terms of visibility we'd have some advantages with this partnership (even without link authority to our site) so I would accept. My question is: considering that the partner website is much authoritative than ours, could this approach damage in some way the ranking of our articles? I know that the duplicated articles published on the partner website wouldn't be indexed (because of the meta robots noindex, nofollow). But Google crawler could still reach them. And, since they have no rel=canonical and the link to our original article wouldn't be followed, I don't know if this may cause confusion about the original source of the articles. In your opinion, is this approach safe from an SEO point of view? Do we have to take some measures to protect our content? Hope I explained myself well, any help would be very appreciated, Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Fabio80
Fab0 -
What's the best way to deal with deleted .php files showing as 404s in WMT?
Disclaimer: I am not a developer During a recent site migration I have seen a bit of an increase in WMT of 404 errors on pages ending .php. Click on the link in WMT and it just shows as File Not Found - no 404 page. There are about 20 in total showing in webmaster tools and I want to advise the IT department what to do. What is the best way to deal with this for on-page best practice? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blaze-Communication0 -
- Truth ? ''link building isn't considered a suitable way of promotion as per recent search engine updates''
I need SEO. A SEO consultant said: ''link building isn't considered a suitable way of promotion as per recent search engine updates'' they mention: ''Therefore we would be undertaking a range of promotional exercises such as blog postings, social book marking, press release, etc that are more effective for ensuring best possible rankings for the website.'' Do you agree? Thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BigBlaze2051 -
Getting out of Google's Penguin
Hi all, my site www.uniggardin.dk has lost major rankings on the searchengine google.dk. Went from rank #2-3 on important keywords to my site, and after the latest update most of my rankings have jumped to #12 - #20. This is so annoying, and I really have no idea what to do. Can it cause bad links to my site? In that case what will I have to do? Thanks in advance,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Xpeztumdk
Christoffer0 -
Pagination Question: Google's 'rel=prev & rel=next' vs Javascript Re-fresh
We currently have all content on one URL and use # and Javascript refresh to paginate pages, and we are wondering if we transition to the Google's recommended pagination if we will see an improvement in traffic. Has anyone gone though a similar transition? What was the result? Did you see an improvement in traffic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Ranking for our member's company names without giving them all away!
Hi, We have a directory of 25,000 odd companies who use our site. We have a strong PR site and want to rank a page for each company name. Some initial testing on one or two company names brings us to #2 after the company's own web site in the format: "Company Name Reviews and Feedback" - so it works well. We want to do this for all 25,000 of our members, however we do not wish to make it easy for our competitors to scrape through our member database!! e.g. using: www.ourdomain.com/randomstring/company-name-(profile).php unfortunately with the above performing a search on google for site:domain.com/()/()(profile).php would bring up all records. Are there any tried and tested ways of achieving what we're after here? Many Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sssrpm0