Site moved. Unable to index page : Noindex detected in robots meta tag?!
-
Hope someone can shed some light on this:
We moved our smaller site (into the main site ( different domains) .
The smaller site that was moved ( https://www.bluegreenrentals.com)
Directory where the site was moved (https://www.bluegreenvacations.com/rentals)Each page from the old site was 301 redirected to the appropriate page under .com/rentals. But we are seeing a significant drop in rankings and traffic., as I am unable to request a change of address in Google search console (a separate issue that I can elaborate on).
Lots of (301 redirect) new destination pages are not indexed. When Inspected, I got a message :
Indexing allowed? No: 'index' detected in 'robots' meta tagAll pages are set as Index/follow and there are no restrictions in robots.txtHere is an example URL :https://www.bluegreenvacations.com/rentals/resorts/colorado/innsbruck-aspen/Can someone take a look and share an opinion on this issue?Thank you!
-
That's hugely likely to have had an impact. No-indexing pages before they were ready was a mistake, but the much bigger mistake was releasing the site early before it was 'ready'. The site should only have been set live and released once ALL pages were ported to the new staging environment
Also, if all pages weren't yet live on the staging environment - how can the person looking at staging / the old site, have done all the 301 redirects properly?
When you no-index URLs you kill their SEO authority (dead). Often it never fully recovers and has to be restarted from scratch. In essence, a 301 to a no-indexed URL is moving the SEO authority from the old page into 'nowhere' (cyber oblivion)
The key learning is, don't set a half ready site live and finish development there. WAIT until you are ready, then perform your SEO / architectural / redirect maneuvering
Even if you hadn't no-indexed those new URLs, Google checks to see if the content on the old and new URLs is similar (think Boolean string similarity, in machine terms) before 'allowing' the SEO authority from the old URL to flow to the new one. If the content isn't basically the same, Google expects the pages to 'start over' and 're prove themselves'. Why? Well you tell me why a new page with different content, should benefit from the links of an old URL which was different - when the webmasters who linked to that old URL, may well not choose to link to the new one
Even if you hadn't no-indexed those new URLs, because they were incomplete their content was probably holding content (radically different from the content of the old URLs, on the old site) - it's extremely likely that even without the no-index tags, it still would have fallen flat on its face
In the end, your best course of actions is finish all the content, make sure the 301s are actually accurate (which by the sounds of it many of them won't be), lift the no-index tags, request re-indexation. If you are very, very lucky some of the SEO juice from the old URLs will still exist and the new URLs will get some shreds of authority through (which is better than nothing). In reality though the pooch is already screwed by this point
-
Thank you for the quick reply.
Yes, that's right (URLs and page look from 2017. The site was old and neglected. We decided to give it a facelift, sunset domain in a few months and bring site under our main site.
While pages were still in development (but migrated from staging to live site), we needed to protect them from accidental indexation and flagged every page "no index" no follow". Is it possible that google crawled pages in the past, got no index(as was set at that time) and never returned back? If that's' the case, should I manually request indexing?
-
I love these kinds of questions. You have shared a moved page URL, can you give us the URL it resided at before it was moved, which 'should' be redirecting now? That would massively help
Edit: found this one:
https://www.bluegreenrentals.com/searchresults.aspx?s=CO&sl=COLORADO
(this is what the page apparently used to look like before it was redirected, but the image is a little old from 2017 - OP can you confirm if it did look like this directly prior to redirect?)
... which 301 redirects to:
https://www.bluegreenvacations.com/rentals/resorts/colorado/innsbruck-aspen
... gonna carry on looking but this example of the full chain may help any other Mozzers looking to answer this Q
Suspected issue at this juncture, which could be wrong (not loads to go on right now) - content dissimilarity between URLs leading Google to deny the 301s
FYI: info to help OP, the no-index stuff may be relating moreso to this:
https://developers.google.com/search/reference/robots_meta_tag (may be deployed in the HTML as a tag, but can also be fired through the HTTP header which is another kettle of fish...)
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
-
Should I use NoIndex on short-lived pages?
Hello, I have a large number of product pages on my site that are relatively short-lived: probably in the region of a million+ pages that are created and then removed within a 24 hour period. Previously these pages were being indexed by Google and did receive landings, but in recent times I've been applying a NoIndex tag to them. I've been doing that as a way of managing our crawl budget but also because the 410 pages that we serve when one of these product pages is gone are quite weak and deliver a relatively poor user experience. We're working to address the quality of those 410 pages but my question is should I be no-indexing these product pages in the first place? Any thoughts or comments would be welcome. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PhilipHGray0 -
Google Indexing Of Pages As HTTPS vs HTTP
We recently updated our site to be mobile optimized. As part of the update, we had also planned on adding SSL security to the site. However, we use an iframe on a lot of our site pages from a third party vendor for real estate listings and that iframe was not SSL friendly and the vendor does not have that solution yet. So, those iframes weren't displaying the content. As a result, we had to shift gears and go back to just being http and not the new https that we were hoping for. However, google seems to have indexed a lot of our pages as https and gives a security error to any visitors. The new site was launched about a week ago and there was code in the htaccess file that was pushing to www and https. I have fixed the htaccess file to no longer have https. My questions is will google "reindex" the site once it recognizes the new htaccess commands in the next couple weeks?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vikasnwu1 -
Google Indexing Duplicate URLs : Ignoring Robots & Canonical Tags
Hi Moz Community, We have the following robots command that should prevent URLs with tracking parameters being indexed. Disallow: /*? We have noticed google has started indexing pages that are using tracking parameters. Example below. http://www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk/furniture/original-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table/1149.html http://www.oakfurnitureland.co.uk/furniture/original-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table/1149.html?ec=affee77a60fe4867 These pages are identified as duplicate content yet have the correct canonical tags: https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&site=&source=hp&q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.oakfurnitureland.co.uk%2Ffurniture%2Foriginal-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table%2F1149.html&oq=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.oakfurnitureland.co.uk%2Ffurniture%2Foriginal-rustic-solid-oak-4-drawer-storage-coffee-table%2F1149.html&gs_l=hp.3..0i10j0l9.4201.5461.0.5879.8.8.0.0.0.0.82.376.7.7.0....0...1c.1.58.hp..3.5.268.0.JTW91YEkjh4 With various affiliate feeds available for our site, we effectively have duplicate versions of every page due to the tracking query that Google seems to be willing to index, ignoring both robots rules & canonical tags. Can anyone shed any light onto the situation?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JBGlobalSEO0 -
Wordpress Tag Pages - NoIndex?
Hi there. I am using Yoast Wordpress Plugin. I just wonder if any test have been done around the effects of Index vs Noindex for Tag Pages? ( like when tagging a word relevant to an article ) Thanks 🙂 Martin
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | s_EOgi_Bear0 -
No index.no follow certain pages
Hi, I want to stop Google et al from finding a some pages within my website. the url is www.mywebsite.com/call_backrequest.php?rid=14 As these pages are creating a lot of duplicate content issues. Would the easiest solution be to place a 'Nofollow/Noindex' META tag in page www.mywebsite.com/call_backrequest.php many thanks in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | wood1e19680 -
Should pages of old news articles be indexed?
My website published about 3 news articles a day and is set up so that old news articles can be accessed through a "back" button with articles going to page 2 then page 3 then page 4, etc... as new articles push them down. The pages include a link to the article and a short snippet. I was thinking I would want Google to index the first 3 pages of articles, but after that the pages are not worthwhile. Could these pages harm me and should they be noindexed and/or added as a canonical URL to the main news page - or is leaving them as is fine because they are so deep into the site that Google won't see them, but I also won't be penalized for having week content? Thanks for the help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theLotter0 -
Thousands of 404 Pages Indexed - Recommendations?
Background: I have a newly acquired client who has had a lot of issues over the past few months. What happened is he had a major issue with broken dynamic URL's where they would start infinite loops due to redirects and relative links. His previous SEO didn't pay attention to the sitemaps created by a backend generator, and it caused hundreds of thousands of pages to be indexed. Useless pages. These useless pages were all bringing up a 404 page that didn't have a 404 server response (it had a 200 response) which created a ton of duplicate content and bad links (relative linking). Now here I am, cleaning up this mess. I've fixed the 404 page so it creates a 404 server response. Google webmaster tools is now returning thousands of "not found" errors, great start. I fixed all site errors that cause infinite redirects. Cleaned up the sitemap and submitted it. When I search site:www.(domainname).com I am still getting an insane amount of pages that no longer exist. My question: How does Google handle all of these 404's? My client wants all the bad pages removed now but I don't have as much control over that. It's a slow process getting Google to remove these pages that are returning a 404. He is continuously dropping in rankings still. Is there a way of speeding up the process? It's not reasonable to enter tens of thousands of pages into the URL Removal Tool. I want to clean house and have Google just index the pages in the sitemap.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeTheBoss0 -
Can you use more than one meta robots tag per page?
If you want to add both "noindex, follow" and "noopd" should you add two meta robots tags or is there a way to combine both into one?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0