404's being re-indexed
-
Hi All,
We are experiencing issues with pages that have been 404'd being indexed. Originally, these were /wp-content/ index pages, that were included in Google's index. Once I realized this, I added in a directive into our htaccess to 404 all of these pages - as there were hundreds. I tried to let Google crawl and remove these pages naturally but after a few months I used the URL removal tool to remove them manually.
However, Google seems to be continually re/indexing these pages, even after they have been manually requested for removal in search console. Do you have suggestions? They all respond to 404's.
Thanks
-
Just to follow up - I have now actually 410'd the pages and the 410's are still being re-indexed.
-
I'll check this one out as well, thanks! I used a header response extension which reveals the presence of x-botots headers called web developer.
-
First it would be helpful to know how you are detecting that it isn't working. What indexation tool are you using to see whether the blocks are being detected? I personally really like this one: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/seo-indexability-check/olojclckfadnlhnlmlekdihebmjpjnoa?hl=en-GB
Or obviously at scale - Screaming Frog
-
Thank you for the quick response,
The pages are truly removed, however, because there were so many of these types of pages that leaked into the index, I added a redirect to keep users on our site - no intentions of being "shady", I just didn't want hundreds of 404's getting clicked and causing a very high bounce rate.
For the x-robots header, could you offer some insight into why my directive isn't working? I believe it's a regex issue on the wp-content. I have tried to troubleshoot to no avail.
<filesmatch <strong="">"(wp-content)">
Header set X-Robots-Tag: "noindex, nofollow"</filesmatch>I appreciate the help!
-
Well if a page has been removed and has not been moved to a new destination - you shouldn't redirect a user anyway (which kind of 'tricks' users into thinking the content was found). That's actually bad UX
If the content has been properly removed or was never supposed to be there, just leave it at a 410 (but maybe create a nice custom 410 page, in the same vein as a decent UX custom 404 page). Use the page to admit that the content is gone (without shady redirects) but to point to related posts or products. Let the user decide, but still be useful
If the content is actually still there and, hence you are doing a redirect - then you shouldn't be serving 404s or 410s in the first place. You should be serving 301s, and just doing HTTP redirects to the content's new (or revised) destination URL
Yes, the HTTP header method is the correct replacement when the HTML implementation gets stripped out. HTTP Header X-Robots is the way for you!
-
Thank you! I am in the process of doing so, however with a 410 I can not leave my JS redirect after the page loads, this creates some UX issues. Do you have any suggestions to remedy this?
Additionally, after the 410 the non x-robots noindex is now being stripped so it only resolves to a 410 with no noindex or redirect. I am still working on a noindex header, as the 410 is server-side, I assume this would be the only way, correct?
-
You know that 404 means "temporarily gone but will be coming back" right? By saying a page is temporarily unavailable, you actively encourage Google to come back later
If you want to say that the page is permanently gone use status code 410 (gone)
Leave the Meta no-index stuff in the HTTP header via X-Robots, that was a good call. But it was a bad call to combine Meta no-index and 404, as they contradict each other ("don't index me now but then do come back and index me later as I'll probably be back at some point")
Use Meta no-index and 410, which agree with each other ("don't index me now and don't bother coming back")
-
Yes, all pages have a noindex. I have also tried to noindex them using htaccess, to add an extra layer of security, but it seems to be incorrect. I believe it is an issue with the regex. Attempting to match anything with wp-content.
<filesmatch "(wp-content)"="">Header set X-Robots-Tag: "noindex, nofollow"</filesmatch>
-
Back to basics. Have you marked those pages/posts as 'no-index'. With many wp plugins, you can no-index them in bulk then submit for re-indexation.
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
-
Link's that are an internal site search?
Hi hope your're all well. I sell Red, Blue, Green Widgets within each color I have many sub types, the subtypes change all the time,and a sub type has many variations in itself. I'd like to set up links that direct customers to popular searches of sub types say: widgets.com/red/blue-spots....search string... Will Google crawl these search links and see that there is good content behind it? How does Google handle links that are also a site search? Can it be bad and should I "no follow" them? Hope someone can give me some direction on these, many thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | Thea880 -
Is new created page's pagerank 1 ?
Hey I just want to know,
Technical SEO | | atakala
If I create a web page, is the pagerank of the page would be 1?1 -
Google using descriptions from other websites instead of site's own meta description
In the last month or so, Google has started displaying a description under links to my home page in its search results that doesn't actually come from my site. I have a meta description tag in place and for a very limited set of keywords, that description is displayed, but for the majority of results, it's displaying a description that appears on Alexa.com and a handful of other sites that seem to have copied Alexa's listing, e.g. similarsites.com. The problem is, the description from these other sites isn't particularly descriptive and mentions a service that we no longer provide. So my questions are: Why is Google doing this? Surely that's broken behaviour. How do I fix it?
Technical SEO | | antdesign0 -
How do SE's see abbreviated queries.
Do search engines pay attention to periods in abbreviated queries? If I use Mt. Bachelor all over my site, would SE's not rank my site well for queries that use Mt Bachelor?
Technical SEO | | Shawn_Huber0 -
What is the difference between 301 redirect to 404 vs just 404.
A bunch of pages on my site are set to 301 redirect to our 404 page. Intuitively, I feel like they should all just 404 from the page's url and not redirect to the 404 page. How do I explain to my developer that they should not redirects but should just 404? Is there much of a difference between the redirect first vs 404 first? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | gaytravel0 -
I know I'm missing pages with my page level 301 re-directs. What can I do?
I am implementing page level re-directs for a large site but I know that I will inevitably miss some pages. Is there an additional safety net root level re-direct that I can use to catch these pages and send them to the homepage?
Technical SEO | | VMLYRDiscoverability0 -
I have 404 errors but can't find where these links are?
The 4xx report had 0 errors, and then on the recent crawl it found over 200. They are all variations on real URLs e.g.: Real URL: http://www.bullseyeuk.com/10-up-deluxe-literature-holder.html 404 Error URL: http://www.bullseyeuk.com/10-up-deluxe-literature-holder.html �� None of them are linked to the root domain and I can't find where they are coming from. Any ideas? Thanks Jack
Technical SEO | | JackMurphy0 -
On-Page Report Says 'F', and I'm Confoozled As to Why
I'm primarily interested in how we failed in our "Broad Keyword Usage in Title" category. The Keyword Pair we're gunnin' for is: "Mac Windows" Our current page title is: "CrossOver: Windows on Mac and Linux with the easiest and most affordable emulator - CodeWeavers" This is, I grant, ugly. However, bear with me. SEOMoz Report Card says "Easy Fix!" and suggests: "Employ the keyword in the page title, preferrably as the first words in the element." I humbly submit that "Mac" and "Windows" IS in the page title. So what am I missing? Is it the placement of the words relative to each other, or relative to the start of the sentence? Or is the phrase "CrossOver:" somehow blocking the rest of the sentence from being read? Are colons evil? I'm genuinely mystified as to why (from a structural standpoint) our existing title tag is failing this test, and I'd be delighted for answers and/or feedback. Thanks in advance.
Technical SEO | | CodeWeavers0