Google has indexed a lot of test pages/junk from the development days.
-
With hind site I understand that this could have been avoided if robots.txt was configured properly.
My website is www.clearvisas.com, and is indexed with both the www subdomain and with out.
When I run site:clearvisas.com in Google I get 1,330 - All junk from the development days.
But when I run site:www.clearvisas.com in Google I get 66 - these results all post development and more in line with what I wanted to be indexed.
Will 1,330 junk pages hurt my seo?
Is it possible to de-index them and should I?
If the answer is yes to any of the questions how should I proceed?
Kind regards,
Fuad
-
Thanks Ryan.
-
It's impossible to say conclusively without examining your site and the content; however, since you refer to them as "junk" pages, it is likely they should best be removed to protect your other pages.
-
Thanks Ryan.
Are the un-wanted/irrelevant pages likely to affect my organic seo?
-
Thanks for your view David, its much appreciated. Thanks, Fuad
-
I would suggest following option 3 from David's recommendations.
Simply add the "noindex" tag to the pages you want removed from Google. The pages will then be removed the next time they are crawled.
You are correct the issue could have been avoided by blocking the site during development, which is a recommended practice; however, it is recommended to minimize entries in the robots.txt file of a live site. You can add the pages in robots.txt and Google can still index them.
The above applies if you feel the need to keep the pages around. If you no longer need those pages, removing them and providing a 410 error (GONE) would be the best approach.
-
Go to Google Webmaster Tools => Optimization => Remove URLS
In order for Google to remove the URL, you will need to do 1 of the following:
1. Block it with robots.txt, but it sounds like it's too late for that.
2. If you removed the old development content, make sure that the old content's URL produces a 404 or 410 status code.
3. Block the content with a Meta noncontent tag.
In my opinion, option 2 is the easiest since you should have a 404 page anyway.
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
-
Is there any way to prevent Google from using structured data on specific pages?
I've noticed that Google is now serving what looks like host-specific video cards on mobile for our site. Is there any way to control which videos are included in these lists without removing the structured data on those clip pages or user pages? We don't want to noindex those pages but we don't want content from those pages to appear as video cards. 1kzPW
Algorithm Updates | | Garrett570 -
Are SEO Friendly URLS Less Important Now That Google Is Indexing Breadcrumb Markup?
Hi Moz Community and staffers, Would appreciate your thoughts on the following question: **Are SEO friendly URLS less important now that Google is indexing breadcrumb markup in both desktop and mobile search? ** Background that inspired the question: Our ecommerce platform's out of the box functionality has very limited "friendly url" settings and would need some development work to setup an alias for more friendly URLS. Meanwhile, the breadcrumb markup is implemented correctly and indexed so it seems there's no longer an argument for improved CTR with SEO friendly URLS . With that said I'm having a hard time justifying the URL investment, as well as the 301 redirect mapping we would need to setup, and am wondering if more friendly URLs would lead to a significant increase in rankings for level of effort? Sidenote: We already rank well for non-brand and branded searches since we are brand manufacturer with an ecommerce presence. Our breadcrumbs are much cleaner & concise than our URL structure. Here are a couple examples. Category URL: http://www.mysite.com/browse/category1/subcat2/subcat3/_/N-7th
Algorithm Updates | | jessekanman
Breadcrumb: www.mysite.com > category1 > subcat2 > subcat3 Product URL: http://www.mysite.com/product/product-name/_/R-133456E112
Breadcrumb: www.mysite.com > category1 > subcat2 > subcat3 > product name The "categories" contain actual keywords just hiding them here in the example. According to my devs they can't get rid of the "_" but could possible replace it with a letter. Also they said it's an easier fix to make the URLs always lower case. Lastly some of our product URLS contain non-standard characters in the product name like "." and "," which is also a simpler fix according to my developers. Looking forward to your thoughts on the topic! Jesse0 -
Google update January 2015
Hello, In January 2015, google changed its European Algorithm. The change decreased the ranking of some of our keywords but not all. See article for more evidence in google changing its algorithm. https://www.seroundtable.com/google-update-maybe-19760.html The biggest change was the keyword phrase ‘Wholesale Silver Jewellery’ which we ranked 1 in SERP, but now we’re nowhere to be seen. However, the change didn’t affect our keyword phrase ‘Wholesale Jewellery Silver’, ’Wholesale Silver’ and ‘Wholesale Jewellery. We’ve been through our data and see that all of our ’Silver Jewellery’ keyword phrases are no longer showing in the SERP. Further research has shown that our competitors were also dropped down the rankings for the same keyword phrase. Our question is: Why has this update affected certain keyword phrases, such as ‘silver jewellery’ but not ‘jewellery silver’ and how should we over come this? Additional Information
Algorithm Updates | | SilverStar1
If you type in our company name ‘Mainly Silver’ or ‘mainlysilver’ were still showing in SERP, however if you type ‘mainlysilver jewellery’ we’re no where to be found. We’ve even checked ‘site:mainlysilver.co.uk silver jewellery’ in google search and it returns with ‘no results found’. If you switch the keyword phrase, all our web pages are showing up Our website is - www.mainlysilver.co.uk0 -
Images not getting indexed in google image search :( " site: hdwallpaperzones.com " )
hi as i have mentioned in title.. my website images are not getting indexed in google image search engine.. out of 360 images only 5 got indexed from 3 days.. please help me out.. thanks
Algorithm Updates | | toxicpls0 -
Google Love and Bing Hate
I have a site that is currently ranking 6th for a certain key phrase. But when i search on Bing it is on page 4. The result on google is for the homepage and the bing result is a search result. Does anyone have any suggestions? I am not logged into to google when searching but we do use adwords.
Algorithm Updates | | SoundinTheory0 -
Getting Listed in Google Places
How do I get listed in Google Places if I don't have a physical address? EG: I am a medical health insurance company in Colo Springs, Colorado, but service 20 cities? What is the best procedure? Getting a mailbox at Mailboxes, etc. or UPS Store?
Algorithm Updates | | GregWalt0 -
Correct usage of expired pages -410 or not?
Hi Mozzes, We're running a property portal that carries around 200.000 listings in two languages. All listings are updated several times per day and when one of our ads expire we report this via the "410 Gone", and place a link to our users: This ad has expired, click here to search for similar properties. Looking at our competition I seems that here are many different ways to deal with this, one popular being a 301 to the corresponding search result. We've tried to get directions from Google on what method they prefere, but as usual dead silence. Advices are mostly welcome.
Algorithm Updates | | PropertyPortal0 -
Google +1 link on Domain or Page?
Since its release, I've seen Google +1 being used across an entire domain but only reference the root href in the code snippet. At the same time, you see other sites use +1 more naturally with the button being specific to the page you're on. What's your take on this? To clarfiy, do you add: or .. on each page.
Algorithm Updates | | noeltock0