404'd pages still in index
-
I recently launched a site and shortly after performed a URL rewrite (not the greatest idea, i know). The developer 404'd the old pages instead of a permanent 301 redirect. This caused a mess in the index. I have tried to use Google's removal tool to remove these URL's from the index. These pages were being removed but now I am finding them in the index as just URL's to the 404'd page (i.e. no title tag or meta description). Should I wait this out or now go back and 301 redirect the old URL's (that are 404'd now) to the new URL's? I am sure this is the reason for my lack of ranking as the rest of my site is pretty well optimized and I have some quality links.
-
Will do. Thanks for the help.
-
I think the latter - robot and 301.
but (if you can) leave a couple without 301 and see what (if any) difference you get - would love to hear how it works out.
-
Is it better to remove the robots.txt entries that are specific to the old URL's so Google can see the 404 so Google will remove those pages at their own pace or remove those bits of the robots.txt file specific to the old URL's and 301 them to the new URL's. It seems those are my two options....? Obviously, I want to do what is best for the site's rankings and will see the fastest turnaround. Thanks for your help on this by the way!
-
I'm not saying remove the whole robots.txt file - just the bits relating to the old urls (if you have entries in a robots.txt that affect the old urls).
e.g. say you're robots.txt blocks access to
then you should remove that line from the robots.txt otherwise google won't be able to crawl those pages to 'see' the 404 and realise that they're not there.
My guess is a few weeks before it all settles down, but that really is a finger in the air guess. I went through a similar scenario with moving urls and then moving them again shortly after the first move - took a month or two.
-
I am a little confused regarding removal of the robots.txt file since that is a step in requesting removal from google (per their removal tool requirements). My natural tendency is to 301 redirect the old URL's to the new ones. Will I need to remove the robots.txt file prior to permanently redirecting the old URL's to the new ones? How long does it take Google (estimate) to remove old URL's after a 301?
-
Ok, got that, so that sounds like an external rewrite - which is fine. url only, but no title or description - that sounds like what you get when you block crawling via robots.txt - if you've got that situation, I'd suggest removing the block so that google can crawl them and find that they are 404s. Sounds like they'll fall out of the index eventually. Another thing you could try to hurry things along is: 301 the old urls to the new ones. submit a sitemap containing the old urls (so that they get crawled and the 301s are picked up) update your sitemap and resubmit with only the new urls.
-
When I say URL rewrite, I mean we restructured the URL's to be cleaner and more search friendly. For example, take a URL that was www.example.com/index/home/keyword and structure it to be www.example.com/keyword. Also, the old URL's (i.e. www.example.com/index/home/keyword) are being shows towards the end of the site:example.com search with just the old URL - no title or meta description. Is this a sign that they are on the way out of the index? Any insight would be helpful.
-
Couple of things probably need clarifying: When you say URL rewrite, I'm assuming you mean an external rewrite (in effect, a redirect)? If you do an internal rewrite, that (of itself) should make no difference at all to how any external visitors/engines see your urls/pages. If the old pages had links or traffic I would be inclined to 301 them to the new pages. If the old pages didn't have traffic/links, leave them, they'll fall out eventually - they're not in an xml sitemap by any chance are they (in which case update the sitemap). You often see a drop in rankings when restructuring a site and (in my experience), it can take a few weeks to recover. To give you an example, it took nearly two months for the non-www version of our site to disappear from the index after a similar move (and messing about with redirects).
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
-
Shopify Website Page Indexing issue
Hi, I am working on an eCommerce website on Shopify.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bhisshaun
When I tried Indexing my newly created service pages. The pages are not getting indexed on Google.
I also tried manual indexing of each page and submitted a sitemap but still, the issue doesn't seem to be resolved. Thanks0 -
Site structure: Any issues with 404'd parent folders?
Is there any issue with a 404'd parent folder in a URL? There's no links to the parent folder and a parent folder page never existed. For example say I have the following pages w/ content: /famous-dogs/lassie/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dsbud
/famous-dogs/snoopy/
/famous-dogs/scooby-doo/ But I never (and maybe never plan to) created a general **/famous-dogs/ **page. Sitemaps.xml does not link to it, nor does any page on my site. Is there any concerns with doing this? Am I missing out on any sort of value that might pass to a parent folder?0 -
Google indexing pages from chrome history ?
We have pages that are not linked from site yet they are indexed in Google. It could be possible if Google got these pages from browser. Does Google takes data from chrome?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
Extra indexed pages from my blog in wordpress
I have a blog on my site which is in WordPress. When you publish an article it creates a couple of urls such as tags, author, category, month, ... . So when you look for indexed pages you see tons of pages for the blog. Does it hurt the SEO. If yes how I can sort it out,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AlirezaHamidian0 -
Index or not index Categories
We are using Yoast Seo plugin. On the main menu we have only categories which has consist of posts and one page. We have category with villas, category with villa hotels etc. Initially we set to index and include in the sitemap posts and excluded categories, but I guess it was not correct. Would be a better way to index and include categories in the sitemap and exclude the posts in order to avoid the duplicate? It somehow does not make sense for me, If the posts are excluded and the categories included, will not then be the categories empty for google? I guess I will get crazy of this. Somebody has perhaps more experiences with this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Rebeca10 -
301 canonical'd pages?
I have an ecommerce site with many different URLs with the same product. Let's say the product is a hat. It's in: a a) mysite.com/products/hat b) mysite.com/collections/head-ware/hat c) mysite.com/collections/stuff-to-wear-on-your-head/hat Right now, A is the canonical page for B and C. I want to clean up my site, so that every product only has ONE unique URL, which is linked to from all the collections. So B and C URL will be broken. Is it necessary that I 301 them if they were already canonical'd? Based on the number of products I have, I would have to 301 1000+ URLs. I'm just trying to figure out what I need to do to avoid getting penalized. thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | birchlore0 -
Best possible linking on site with 100K indexed pages
Hello All, First of all I would like to thank everybody here for sharing such great knowledge with such amazing and heartfelt passion.It really is good to see. Thank you. My story / question: I recently sold a site with more than 100k pages indexed in Google. I was allowed to keep links on the site.These links being actual anchor text links on both the home page as well on the 100k news articles. On top of that, my site syndicates its rss feed (Just links and titles, no content) to this page. However, the new owner made a mess, and now the site could possibly be seen as bad linking to my site. Google tells me within webmasters that this particular site gives me more than 400K backlinks. I have NEVER received one single notice from Google that I have bad links. That first. But, I was worried that this page could have been the reason why MY site tanked as bad as it did. It's the only source linking so massive to me. Just a few days ago, I got in contact with the new site owner. And he has taken my offer to help him 'better' his site. Although getting the site up to date for him is my main purpose, since I am there, I will also put effort in to optimizing the links back to my site. My question: What would be the best to do for my 'most SEO gain' out of this? The site is a news paper type of site, catering for news within the exact niche my site is trying to rank. Difference being, his is a news site, mine is not. It is commercial. Once I fix his site, there will be regular news updates all within the niche we both are in. Regularly as in several times per day. It's news. In the niche. Should I leave my rss feed in the side bars of all the content? Should I leave an achor text link on the sidebar (on all news etc.) If so: there can be just one keyword... 407K pages linking with just 1 kw?? Should I keep it to just one link on the home page? I would love to hear what you guys think. (My domain is from 2001. Like a quality wine. However, still tanked like a submarine.) ALL SEO reports I got here are now Grade A. The site is finally fully optimized. Truly nice to have that confirmation. Now I hope someone will be able to tell me what is best to do, in order to get the most SEO gain out of this for my site. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | richardo24hr0 -
Amount of pages indexed for classified (number of pages for the same query)
I've notice that classified usually has a lots of pages indexed and that's because for each query/kw they index the first 100 results pages, normally they have 10 results per page. As an example imagine the site www.classified.com, for the query/kw "house for rent new york" there is the page www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york and the "index" is set for the first 100 SERP pages, so www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york-1 www.classified.com/houses/house-for-rent-new-york-2 ...and so on. Wouldn't it better to index only the 1st result page? I mean in the first 100 pages lots of ads are very similar so why should Google be happy by indexing lots of similar pages? Could Google penalyze this behaviour? What's your suggestions? Many tahnks in advance for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nuroa-2467120