Tens of duplicate homepages indexed and blocked later: How to remove from Google cache?
-
Hi community,
Due to some WP plugin issue, many homepages indexed in Google with anonymous URLs. We blocked them later. Still they are in SERP. I wonder whether these are causing some trouble to our website, especially as our exact homepages indexed. How to remove these pages from Google cache? Is that the right approach?
Thanks
-
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to use "Remove URLs" tool from GSC. They have been created due to a bug in the Yoast SEO plugin. Very unfortunate and we paid for no mistake from our end.
Removing from SERP means removing from Google index also? Or Google will still consider them and just stops showing us? My intention is: Anyway we blocked them, but whether they will cause some distraction to our ranking efforts being there in results being cached.
Thanks
-
Thanks!
A agree - I have just done a similar clean up by:
1. Don't let them be created
2. Redirect all previous versions!One site I just worked on had 8 versions of the home page! lol
http
https
/index.php
/index.php/A mess!
We stopped them all being created and 301'd all versions just in case they were indexed anywhere or linked externally.
Cheers
-
It is assuredly true that, just like in any number of fields (medicine) - in SEO, prevention is better than cleanup based methodology. If your website doesn't take its medicine, you get problems like this one
I think your advice here was really good
-
Good solid advice
They can be created in any number of ways but it's normally simple enough to specify the preferred URL on the server then move any variations in htaccess, such as those with www (if the none www is preferred), those with a trailing slash at the end etc.
The self canonical on all will sort out any other duplicates.
As for getting rid of them - the search console way is the quickest. If they don't exist after that then the won't be reindexed unless they are linked from somewhere else. In such cases, they will 301 from htaccess so it shouldn't be a problem.
if you 410 you will lose any benefit from those links going to the pages and it's a bad experience for a visitor. Always 301 do not 410 if it is a version.
410s are fine for old pages you never want to see in the index again but not for a home page version.
Regards
Nigel
-
It's likely that you don't have access to edit the coding on these weird plugin URLs. As such, normal techniques like using a Meta no-index tag in the HTML may be non-viable.
You could use the HTTP header (server level stuff) to help you out. I'd advise adding two strong directives to the afflicted URLs through the HTTP header so that Google gets the message:
-
Use the X-Robots deployment of the no-index directive on the affected URLs, at the HTTP header (not the HTML) level. That linked pages tells you about the normal HTML implementation, but also about the X-Robots implementation which is the one you need (scroll down a bit)
-
Serve status code 410 (gone) on the affected URLs
That should prompt Google to de-index those pages. Once they are de-indexed, you can use robots.txt to block Google from crawling such URLs in the future (which will stop the problem happening again!)
It's important to de-index the URLs before you do any robots.txt stuff. If Google can't crawl the affected URLs, it can't find the info (in the HTTP header) to know that it should de-index those pages
Once Google is blocked from both indexing and crawling these pages, they should begin to stop caching them too
Hope that helps
-
-
+1 for "Make sure that they are not created in the first place" haha
-
Hi again vtmoz!
1. Make sure that they are not created in the first place
2. Make sure that they are not in the sitemap
3. Go to search console and remove any you do not want - it will say temporary removal but they will not come back if they are not in the structure or the sitemap.More:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663419?hl=en
Note: Always self canonicalize the home page to stop versions with UTM codes (created by Facebook, Twitter etc) appearing in SERPS
Regards
Nigel
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
-
Have you ever seen or experienced a page indexed which is actually from a website which is blocked by robots.txt?
Hi all, We use robots file and meta robots tags for blocking website or website pages to block bots from crawling. Mostly robots.txt will be used for website and expect all the pages to not getting indexed. But there is a condition here that any page from website can be indexed by Google even the site is blocked from robots.txt; because crawler may find the page link somewhere on internet as stated here at last paragraph. I wonder if this really the case where some webpages have got indexed. And even we use meta tags at page level; do we need to block from robots.txt file? Can we use both techniques at a time? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Does Google ignores page title suffix?
Hi all, It's a common practice giving the "brand name" or "brand name & primary keyword" as suffix on EVERY page title. Well then it's just we are giving "primary keyword" across all pages and we expect "homepage" to rank better for that "primary keyword". Still Google ranks the pages accordingly? How Google handles it? The default suffix with primary keyword across all pages will be ignored or devalued by Google for ranking certain pages? Or by the ranking of website improves for "primary keyword" just because it has been added to all page titles?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Google not crawling click to expand content - suggestions?
It seems like Google confirmed this week in a G+ hangout that content in click to expand content e.g. 'read more' dropdown and tabbed content scenarios will be discounted. The suggestion was if you have content it needs to be visible on page load. Here's more on it https://www.seroundtable.com/google-index-click-to-expand-19449.html and the actual hangout, circa 11 mins in https://plus.google.com/events/cjcubhctfdmckph433d00cro9as. From a UX and usability point of view having a lot of content that was otherwise tabbed or in click to expand divs can be terrible, especially on mobile. Does anyone have workable solutions or can think of examples of really great landing pages (i'm mostly thinking ecommerce) that also has a lot of visible content? Thanks Andy
Algorithm Updates | | AndyMacLean0 -
Is it me or Google?
Hi All, I'm new here so take it easy on me.. OK, basically i have had a SEO company for about 3 years, they did a wonderful job, for the last 12 months or so i have been in top 1-3 positions for pretty much every keyword i wanted... On Jan 17th, that all changed, suddenly google doesnt like something about my site... for the sake of this questions lets focus purely on the keyword "CCTV", i use to be 1st or 2nd, it varied... Since Jan 17th i am all over the place, today alone, i was 9th this morning, then 13th, then 22nd... I am working on a lot of things my SEO company told me to do, with regards my site, obviously this is going to take time... but my big concern is that google doesnt seem to know where to rank me lol, i mean, at least if they settled on a place i.e 22nd, then i have a stable base to work from... Has anyone seen this kind of thing before, and can i expect at somepoint google decides to simply remove me? Any advice welcome. regards James
Algorithm Updates | | isntworkdull0 -
How do I separate 2 Google+ business listings?
Ever since Google Places started merging with Google+, my client's business listing is now showing up in local search results incorrectly under another business name who shares the same address as them. Has anyone else encountered this problem or a way to correct it?
Algorithm Updates | | TheeDigital0 -
Google Multiple Results
With Google's penchant for listing at times many results - one on top of the other - from the same domain, is it now advisable to not worry about having multiple pages in the same site targeting the same or very similar keywords? Is this (keyword/page internal competition) one less thing that I have to worry about or worry about less or what? Thanks! Best... Jane
Algorithm Updates | | 945010 -
Has Google problems in indexing pages that use <base href=""> the last days?
Since a couple of days I have the problem, that Google Webmaster tools are showing a lot more 404 Errors than normal. If I go thru the list I find very strange URLs that look like two paths put together. For example: http://www.domain.de/languages/languageschools/havanna/languages/languageschools/london/london.htm If I check on which page Google found that path it is showing me the following URL: http://www.domain.de/languages/languageschools/havanna/spanishcourse.htm If I check the source code of the Page for the Link leading to the London Page it looks like the following: [...](languages/languageschools/london/london.htm) So to me it looks like Google is ignoring the <base href="..."> and putting the path together as following: Part 1) http://www.domain.de/laguages/languageschools/havanna/ instead of base href Part 2) languages/languageschools/london/london.htm Result is the wrong path! http://www.domain.de/languages/languageschools/havanna/languages/languageschools/london/london.htm I know finding a solution is not difficult, I can use absolute paths instead of relative ones. But: - Does anyone make the same experience? - Do you know other reasons which could cause such a problem? P.s.: I am quite sure that the CMS (Typo3) is not generating these paths randomly. I would like to be sure before we change the CMS's Settings to absolute paths!
Algorithm Updates | | SimCaffe0 -
Do we have a timeline of google, bing updates
I thought it would be handy if we had a timeline with dates of any updates to the algo's.
Algorithm Updates | | AlanMosley
Does one exists here at SEOMoz or elsewhere.
Thanks3