Best way to handle indexed pages you don't want indexed
-
We've had a lot of pages indexed by google which we didn't want indexed. They relate to a ajax category filter module that works ok for front end customers but under the bonnet google has been following all of the links.
I've put a rule in the robots.txt file to stop google from following any dynamic pages (with a ?) and also any ajax pages but the pages are still indexed on google.
At the moment there is over 5000 pages which have been indexed which I don't want on there and I'm worried is causing issues with my rankings.
Would a redirect rule work or could someone offer any advice?
-
Gavin Since you have added the noindex in the pages, the best way is to let Google crawl those pages, see the noindex and remove them. The other option is to keep everything as is and request these parameter pages via your Google Webmaster Console. Option 1: You never know how long it takes Option 2: This should happen relatively fast I would therefore suggest keeping everything as is and doing a removal request.
-
Right... We think we've been able to get the code noindex code into the dodgy pages. The only way we could think of doing it without breaking the user interface was to put this rule into the PHP.
if(!empty($_SERVER['HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH']) && strtolower($_SERVER['HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH']) == 'xmlhttprequest')
{normal code
}
else
{echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '404';
echo '';
echo '';
}Its rendering ok for us front end, if anyone would like to test... I'm just hopeful it would work for google?
http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/cycling/cycling-clothing/protective-clothing.html?ajax=1
One thing I am not sure about is how google is going to revisit the said pages. I have put in various rules to the robots.txt files as well as the url parameter handling in webmaster tools to prevent any future pages from being followed... Would these rules need to be removed?
-
The AJAX URLs are used by the site, though, right (for visitors)? If you 404 them, you may be breaking the functionality and not just impacting Google.
Another problem is that, if these pages are no longer crawlable, and you add a page-level directive (whether it's a 404, 301, canonical, NOINDEX, etc.), Google won't process those new instructions. So, they could get stuck in the index. If that's the case, ti may actually be more effective to block the "ajax=" parameter with parameter handling in Google Webmaster Tools (there's a similar option in Bing).
If you know the path is cut and this isn't a recurrent problem, that could be the fastest short-term solution. You do need to monitor, though, as they can re-enter the index later.
-
Gavin, that's a more generic response. In this scenario, unless you can make a 404 happen, it won't work and therefore is not applicable. Noindex and / or the canonical tag are the choices and I would try and get those going if possible.
-
Thanks for all of the replies... My best option seems to be the meta noindex rule but the nature of the pages that are getting indexed are just one long ajax string with no access to the header are. I hope I have already 'prevented' google from following the links in the future by adding the rules to robots.txt but I'm now desperate to clean up (cure) the existing ones.
My next thought would be to put a rule in htaccess and redirect anything with ajax in the url to a 404 page?
I'm worried that this may have even worse side effects with rankings but its based on this article that google publish: https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=59819
"To remove a page or image, you must do one of the following:
- Make sure the content is no longer live on the web. Requests for the page must return an HTTP 404 (not found) or 410 status code
What would your thoughts be on this?
-
Definitely review George's comment as you need to figure out why they're being crawled. As Andrea said, any solution takes time, I'm sorry to say. Robots.txt is not a good solution for getting pages removed that are already indexed, especially in bulk. It's better at prevention than cure.
META NOINDEX can be effective, or you could rel=canonical these pages to the appropriate non-AJAX URL - not sure exactly how the structure is set up. Those are probably the two fastest and more powerful approaches. Google parameter handling (in Webmaster Tools) is another option, but it's a bit unpredictable whether they honor it and how quickly.
You can only do mass removal if everything is in a folder, if I recall. There's no way to bulk remove unless all of the pages are structurally under one root URL.
-
I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but I think I know why Google is indexing these pages.
Right now, you are outputting URLs into your source code of your page in the form of a JavaScript function call similar to the following:
I believe this is because your page (and this function call) is programmatically created. Instead of outputting the whole URL to the page, you could output only what needs to be there.
For example:
Then change the signature of the JavaScript function so that it accepts this new input and builds the URL from your inputs:
function initSlider(price, low, high, category, subcategory, product, store, ajax, ?) {
// build URL
var URL = 'http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/' + category + '/' + subcategory + '/' + product + '.html?_' + store + '&' + ajax;
// continue...
}
Right now, because that URL is being outputted to the page, I think Google sees it as a URL it should follow and index. If you build this URL with the function in an external JavaScript file, I don't think it will be indexed.
Your developer(s) should know what I'm talking about.
Hope this helps!
-
If they are already indexed, it's going to take time for Google to recrawl, read the tag and get them to fall out, so patience will be key. It's not a quick thing to undo.
If the pages are all in one location, you can add a disallow robots/text to Webmaster Tools command to prevent that entire folder from being indexed, but again, it's already done so you are going to have to wait for all those pages to fall out.
-
Thanks for the quick reply! I'm desperate to get these removed as soon as possible now. I've got webmaster tools access but requesting over 5,000 pages to be removed one by one will take too long. You can't do page removal in bulk can you?
I'm going to work on the noindex option
-
OMG, that does not look good. I completely understand. The best way in my opinion would be to add a noindex meta tag on these pages and let Google crawl them. Once they re-index them with the noindex, that should take care of the problem. However, be careful since you want to make sure that noindex tag does not appear on your real pages, just the AJAX ones.
Another option might be to consider the canonical tag, but then technically these pages are not duplicate pages, they just should not exist. Are you verified and using the Google Webmaster Console ? If yes, see if you can get some of these pages excluded via the URL removal tool. The best way is to add the noindex tag in my opinion.
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
-
How to check if an individual page is indexed by Google?
So my understanding is that you can use site: [page url without http] to check if a page is indexed by Google, is this 100% reliable though? Just recently Ive worked on a few pages that have not shown up when Ive checked them using site: but they do show up when using info: and also show their cached versions, also the rest of the site and pages above it (the url I was checking was quite deep) are indexed just fine. What does this mean? thank you p.s I do not have WMT or GA access for these sites
Technical SEO | | linklander0 -
What's the best way to pass link juice to a page on another domain?
I'm working with a non-profit, and their donation form software forces them to host their donation pages on a different domain. I want to attempt to get their donation page to appear in their sitelinks in Google (under the main website's entry), but it seems like the organization's donation forms are at a disadvantage because they're not actually hosted on that site. I know that no matter what I do, there's no way to "force" a sitelink to appear the way I want it, but... I was trying to think if there's a way I can work around this. Do you think 1) creating a url like orgname.org/donate and having that be a 301 redirect to the donation form, and 2) using the /donate redirect all over the site (instead of linking directly to the form) would help? Are there alternatives other folks recommend?
Technical SEO | | clefevre0 -
Is 307 the best way to handle temporarily disabled items ?
I was wondering what would be the best way to handle temporarily disabled items. There is 302 and 307 and from what I understand 307 redirect is the HTTP 1.1 successor of the 302 redirect. Any one has any experience on how Google handles 307? I am thinking I 307 the temp disabled pages to a generic page like site.com/we-are-adding-some-final-touches-to-this.html where we will explain to users why an item would be disabled and will give them an option to get notification when it goes back up. Finally when it goes back up I remove the 307 redirect and make the page live.
Technical SEO | | Saijo.George0 -
Home page indexed but not ranking...interior pages with thin content outrank home page??
I have a Joomla site with a home page that I can't get to rank for anything beyond the company name @ Google - the site works fine @ Bing and Yahoo. The interior pages will rank all day long but the home page never shows up in the results. I have checked the page code out in every tool that I know about and have had no luck....by all account it should be good to go...any thoughts/comments/help would be greatly appreciated. The site is http://www.selectivedesigns.com Thanks! Greg
Technical SEO | | DougHosmer0 -
ECommerce: Best Practice for expired product pages
I'm optimizing a pet supplies site (http://www.qualipet.ch/) and have a question about the best practice for expired product pages. We have thousands of products and hundreds of our offers just exist for a few months. Currently, when a product is no longer available, the site just returns a 404. Now I'm wondering what a better solution could be: 1. When a product disappears, a 301 redirect is established to the category page it in (i.e. leash would redirect to dog accessories). 2. After a product disappers, a customized 404 page appears, listing similar products (but the server returns a 404) I prefer solution 1, but am afraid that having hundreds of new redirects each month might look strange. But then again, returning lots of 404s to search engines is also not the best option. Do you know the best practice for large ecommerce sites where they have hundreds or even thousands of products that appear/disappear on a frequent basis? What should be done with those obsolete URLs?
Technical SEO | | zeepartner1 -
Indexed pages and current pages - Big difference?
Our website shows ~22k pages in the sitemap but ~56k are showing indexed on Google through the "site:" command. Firstly, how much attention should we paying to the discrepancy? If we should be worried what's the best way to find the cause of the difference? The domain canonical is set so can't really figure out if we've got a problem or not?
Technical SEO | | Nathan.Smith0 -
What is the best way to upload an image for SEO
I have a site that is largely based on images. It runs on Wordpress. Each page has about 10 images. What is the best way to upload images? As a WP gallery. As another gallery (with a gallery plugin) As seperate images uploaded via WP (it shows a thumbnail which is links to the larger image). That way each image can have a title. As seperate images uploaded via FTP in which case I would then make a thumbnail which will link to the larger image. This option would only be good if WP does not optomize the thumbnail images that it creates. As a text title which links to the image. Since most of my content is based on images and mostly comes from Google images I was wondering what the best method to use is.
Technical SEO | | nicolebd0 -
Do or don't —forward a parked domain to a live website?
Hi all, I'm new to SEO and excited to see the launch of this forum. I've searched for an answer to this question but haven't been able to find out. I "attended" two webinars recently regarding SEO. The above subject was raised in each one and the speakers gave a polar opposite recommendations. So I'm completely at a loss as to what to do with some domains that are related to a domain used on a live website that I'm working to improve the SEO on. The scenario: Live website at (fictitious) www.digital-slr-camera-company.com. I also have 2 related domain names which are parked with the registrar: www.dslr.com, www.digitalslr.com. The question: Is there any SEO benefit to be gained by pointing the two parked domains to the website at www.digitalcamercompany.com? If so, what method of "pointing" should be used? Thanks to any and all input.
Technical SEO | | Technical_Contact0