Site property is verified for new version of search console, but same property is unverified in the old version
-
Hi all!
This is a weird one that I've never encountered before.
So basically, an admin granted me search console access as an "owner" to the site in search console, and everything worked fine. I inspected some URL's with the new tool and had access to everything. Then, when I realized I had to remove certain pages from the index it directed me to the old search console, as there's no tool for that yet in the new version. However, the old version doesn't even list the site under the "property" dropdown as either verified or unverified, and if I try to add it it makes me undergo the verification process, which fails (I also have analytics and GTM access, so verification shouldn't fail).
Has anyone experienced something similar or have any ideas for a fix? Thanks so much for any help!
-
That assuredly did used to be a problem and in these times I've found it hit and miss. Sometimes Google is able to reach the file directly and not be redirected, but sometimes Google still can't reach the file. In which case, you modify your .htaccess file to allow that one file (or URL) to be accessed via either protocol. I don't remember the exact rule but from memory, doing this isn't that hard
Failing that you should have access to this method:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9008080?hl=en
Ctrl+F (find) for "DNS record" and expand that bit of info from Google. That version works really well and I think, it also gives you access to the new domain level property
The htaccess mod method may be more applicable for you. Certainly make the change via FTP and not via a CMS back-end. If you break the .htaccess and kill the site, and you only have the CMS back-end to fix it - which also becomes broken, you're stuck. Modding your .htaccess file should not break FTP unless you do something out of this world, crazy-insanely wrong (in-fact I'm not sure you can break FTP with your .htaccess file)
Another option, temporarily nullify the HTTP to HTTPS redirects in the .htaccess, verify, make your changes, then put the rule back on. This is a bad method because, in a few weeks Google will fail to reach the file and you will be unverified again. Also your site may have legal reasons it must, must be on HTTPS. Also allowing HTTP again may shake up and mess up your SERPs unless you act lightning fast (before Google's next crawl of your site)
Something like this might help: https://serverfault.com/questions/740640/disable-https-for-a-single-file-in-apache or these search results: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=disable+https+redirect+for+certain+file
Hope that helps
-
Thanks very much for your response. You are exactly right about the travails of the multiple properties, and I hadn't even thought about how the new domain level access should handle the multiple versions of each site (I'm still used to having to verify four separate properties).
In the end, you were exactly right; I just had to FTP the verification file once more and it worked immediately.
A question, though: if you were trying to verify a non secured protocol (http://) of a site that is https://, and you were for some reason unable to verify through GA or GTM, wouldn't uploading a verification file automatically create a secured protocol and therefore be invalid for verification? This is (thank goodness) purely theoretical, but it seems as though it would be a rough task which I'm sure happens periodically.
Thanks again for the insight. You were a great help!
-
I have no experience with this particular error but from the sounds of it, you will just have to re-verify and that's all that you can do. One thing to keep in mind is that different versions of the same site (HTTPS/WWW, HTTPS, HTTP/WWW, HTTP, any sub-domains) all count as separate websites in Search Console
The days of that being a problem are numbered as Google have come out with new domain-level properties for Search Console, but to verify those you need hosting level access so most people still aren't using that until Google can make the older verification methods applicable
What this does mean is that, if the URLs which you want to remove are for a different version of the site (which still counts as a separate property) then you still have to verify that other version of the site (maybe the pre-HTTPS version, or a version without WWW). If you have the wrong version of the property (site) registered in your GSC (which doesn't contain the URLs you want to remove) then you still need to register the old version
A common issue is when people move from HTTP to HTTPS, and they want to 'clean up' some of the old HTTP URLs and stop them from ranking (or at least, re-direct Google from the old property to the new one properly). They delete the HTTP version of the site from their GSC, but then they can't get back to do proper clean-up. In most instances Google still considers different site versions to be different sites in GSC. As mentioned this isn't a problem for some people now, soon it won't be a problem for anyone. But if you're looking at any kind of legacy account for sites that were built and verified up to a few months ago, the likelihood is you still have to re-verify other site versions
The new domain level properties may also have bugs in, where they defer back to the non-domain level properties for some stuff. You may have just found an example of that to be honest (but I can't confirm this)
I'd advise just doing what the UI tells you, it's really all you can feasibly do at this juncture
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
-
Google Search Console not loading some resources
When I check an URL with Search Console it cannot load some page resources, even from other domains (like: ssl.google-analytics.com, www.facebook.com and www.google-analytics.com).
Reporting & Analytics | | TottiataHUN
Have any of you experienced this issue?
Steps to reproduce: open Google Search Console check an URL click "View crawled page" link select "More info" tab click "Page resources" {?}/{?} couldn't be loaded When I check the listed resources, all of them can be loaded from a web browser.
So I do not understand why Google cannot load them.
And there is no additional info why the resources could not be loaded.
Any ideas? google-search-console-other-error-1.png google-search-console-other-error-2.png0 -
SEO dealing with a CDN on a site.
This one is stumping me and I need some help. I have a client who's site is www.site.com and we have set them up a CDN through Max CDN at cdn.site.com which is basically a cname to the www.site.com site. The images in the GWT for www.site.com are de-indexing rapidly and the images on cdn.site.com are not indexing. In the Max CDN account I have the images from cdn.site.com sending a canonical header from www.site.com but that does not seem to help, they are all still de-indexing.
Reporting & Analytics | | LesleyPaone0 -
Weird visitors to my site
Hi, I am in the process of disentangling myself from a dodgy SEO company. At some point they set up another GA account on my site without consulting me. I replaced the tracking code with my original account on my wordpress site, placing the tracking code on the dashboard. There is a box in the dashboard for you to do this. For some reason the account he created is still giving me analytics but from mostly one url :forum.topic55622342.darodar.com. It has marked it as a referral? When you click it it redirects to this site : http://activities.aliexpress.com/computers_channel.php?aff_platform=aaf&sk=vV3B2RJYB%3A&cpt=1421321021096&null There have been 218 visits from this "referral" in the last month and also 2 direct visits to a clients online gallery (i'm a photographer). I am guessing the code for this new account is still on the site somewhere? Funnily enough in the first month I was getting targeted by spam using my contact form and I was a bit perplexed as to why. We had to put captchas on the contact forms which I was loathe to do as its another step for a client to have to go through causing resistance. Has this link got something to do with it? I have recently disavowed a lot of toxic links he created, so maybe they had something to do with it? Best wishes. David.
Reporting & Analytics | | WallerD0 -
Exact Match in Google Search (Not Adwords)
I was going throught the list of keywords that have sent traffic to my site over the last 7 years and cam across one "A516 grade 70" that had hundreds of variants. Now in a lot of cases search volumes were different as were SERPS. We've tested a few variants with reworked pages (70% similar to original but optimised for variant keyword) and see good SERPS and traffic results. Theres obviously some diminishing returns here for us but the interesting question is when to these variants become an exact match and when not? In some cases the variants are unique because of the spacig, periods and hyphens used. there isn't a clear correlation with exact matc though. Insight appreciated. (Sorry for spelling errors. Form doesn't play nicely with iPad)
Reporting & Analytics | | Zippy-Bungle0 -
How to safely exclude search result pages from Google's index?
Hello everyone,
Reporting & Analytics | | llamb
I'm wondering what's the best way to prevent/block search result pages from being indexed by Google. The way search works on my site is that search form generates URLs like:
/index.php?blah-blah-search-results-blah I wanted to block everything of that sort, but how do I do it without blocking /index.php ? Thanks in advance and have a great day everyone!0 -
How come de results from the old Google Keyword Tool are so different from the results from the keyword planner?
When I insert the keyword 'IT jobs' with Belgium as country and Dutch as the language, there is a huge difference between the results in the keyword planner and the keyword tool. Keyword tool says 1,000,000 local searches per month Keyword planner says 590 local searches per month This is a really big difference and I don't know which results I should trust. Can anybody help me with this?
Reporting & Analytics | | Murielleu0 -
Setting Up Google Analytic with Sub Folder Sites
What is the best way of setting up Google Analytic for a website that has many sub folders? The main site is example.com and it has 40 sub folder sites like example.com/uk example.com/France etc etc Would it be advised to track a single domain in Google Analytic then create filters for the sub folder sites. Filters > Include traffic from > Sub directories Also with this method is it possible to view overall incoming website stats for everything? Previous experience would be great with this thanks 🙂
Reporting & Analytics | | daracreative0 -
SERPS different based on location of search even with non-personalization
Hello Mozzers, Our agency's website, www.kenta.ro - ranked for a long time at #1 for "ann arbor seo" and similar keywords. For the past several (4-5) months we've been sitting around #5. My guess was that this was Google playing around with the results but I'm not sure why we have been at this position for such a long time. I have a vpn that I use for checking rankings overseas and if I connect to a server in Chicago, LA, Ontario, etc we show up as #1 - only when you search for "ann arbr seo" in our area do we get a lower ranking. All rank checking programs including seomoz show us at the #1 position because of this. What this means for us is that all of the traffic we target with this keyword sees the poor result, while the rest of the world sees the great result (should they search for it). How can we ensure that our target market finds us at #1 like the rest of the world does? Thank you in advance. weabi.png
Reporting & Analytics | | kentaro-2569290