Differing numbers of pages indexed with and without the trailing slash
-
I noticed today that a site: query in Google (UK) for a certain domain I'm looking at returns different numbers depending on whether or not the trailing slash is added at the end. With the trailing slash the numbers are significantly different. This is a domain with a few duplicate content issues.
It seems very rare but I've managed to replicate it for a couple of other well known domains, so this is the phenomenon I'm referring to:
site:travelsupermarket.com - 16'300 results
site:travelsupermarket.com/ - 45'500 resultssite:guardian.co.uk - 120'000'000 results
site:guardian.co.uk/ - 121'000'000 resultsFor the particular domain I'm looking at the numbers are 19'000 without the trailing slash and 800'000 with it! As mentioned, there are a few duplicate content issues at the moment that I'm trying to tidy up, but how should I interpret this? Has anyone seen this before and can advise what it could indicate?
Thanks in advance for any answers.
-
"There is an XML sitemap submitted and GWMT shows a total number of indexed pages in the 800'000 region."
Brilliant. That's the number I would trust.
Incidentally, I see different numbers than what you see for all 4 site: queries you mentioned. Variances are pretty normal in my experience.
I've never noticed it, I would be intrigued to hear if someone else has correlated such variances to a technical issue or penalty.
-
Hi Adam, thanks for your response.
There is an XML sitemap submitted and GWMT shows a total number of indexed pages in the 800'000 region.
While I appreciate site: is not a precise tool, the fact that the site: numbers between trailing slash and no trailing slash match for virtually every other domain I try this with, and the numbers are so different in this example, suggests to me that this could be an indication of something amiss.
-
The site: query on Google isn't a precise tool. It's not uncommon to see strange variances like that.
For a more accurate count, submit an XML Sitemap via Google Webmaster Tools and Google will give you a more precise count of which pages it has indexed.
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
-
Over 40+ pages have been removed from the indexed and this page has been selected as the google preferred canonical.
Over 40+ pages have been removed from the indexed and this page has been selected as the google preferred canonical. https://studyplaces.com/about-us/ The pages affected by this include: https://studyplaces.com/50-best-college-party-songs-of-all-time-and-why-we-love-them/ https://studyplaces.com/15-best-minors-for-business-majors/ As you can see the content on these pages is totally unrelated to the content on the about-us page. Any ideas why this is happening and how to resolve.
Technical SEO | | pnoddy0 -
Does Google Still Pass Anchor Text for Multiple Links to the Same Page When Using a Hashtag? What About Indexation?
Both of these seem a little counter-intuitive to me so I want to make sure I'm on the same page. I'm wondering if I need to add "#s to my internal links when the page I'm linking to is already: a.) in the site's navigation b.) in the sidebar More specifically, in your experience...do the search engines only give credit to (or mostly give credit to) the anchor text used in the navigation and ignore the anchor text used in the body of the article? I've found (in here) a couple of folks mentioning that content after a hashtagged link isn't indexed. Just so I understand this... a.) if I were use a hashtag at the end of a link as the first link in the body of a page, this means that the rest of the article won't be indexed? b.) if I use a table of contents at the top of a page and link to places within the document, then only the areas of the page up to the table of contents will be indexed/crawled? Thanks ahead of time! I really appreciate the help.
Technical SEO | | Spencer_LuminInteractive0 -
Determining When to Break a Page Into Multiple Pages?
Suppose you have a page on your site that is a couple thousand words long. How would you determine when to split the page into two and are there any SEO advantages to doing this like being more focused on a specific topic. I noticed the Beginner's Guide to SEO is split into several pages, although it would concentrate the link juice if it was all on one page. Suppose you have a lot of comments. Is it better to move comments to a second page at a certain point? Sometimes the comments are not super focused on the topic of the page compared to the main text.
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs1 -
Homepage canonicalized with trailing slash
We were told by a consultant that in SEO it is best practice to canonicalize our homepage URL with the trailing slash. What do you think about doing this for the homepage? Is it important for other site links to have the trailing slash as well
Technical SEO | | fibers0 -
Non-Canonical Pages still Indexed. Is this normal?
I have a website that contains some products and the old structure of the URL's was definitely not optimal for SEO purposes. So I created new SEO friendly URL's on my site and decided that I would use the canonical tags to transfer all the weight of the old URL's to the New URL's and ensure that the old ones would not show up in the SERP's. Problem is this has not quite worked. I implemented the canonical tags about a month ago but I am still seeing the old URL's indexed in Google and I am noticing that the cache date of these pages was only about a week ago. This leads me to believe that the spiders have been to the pages and seen the new canonical tags but are not following them. Is this normal behavior and if so, can somebody explain to me why? I know I could have just 301 redirected these old URL's to the new ones but the process I would need to go through to have that done is much more of a battle than to just add the canonical tags and I felt that the canonical tags would have done the job. Needless to say the client is not too happy right now and insists that I should have just used the 301's. In this case the client appears to be correct but I do not quite understand why my canonical tags did not work. Examples Below- Old Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/productid.3254235 New Pages: www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name Canonical tag on both pages: rel="canonical" href="http://www.awebsite.com/something/something/keyword-rich-product-name"/> Thanks guys for the help on this.
Technical SEO | | DRSearchEngOpt0 -
Does page speed affect what pages are in the index?
We have around 1.3m total pages, Google currently crawls on average 87k a day and our average page load is 1.7 seconds. Out of those 1.3m pages(1.2m being "spun up") google has only indexed around 368k and our SEO person is telling us that if we speed up the pages they will crawl the pages more and thus will index more of them. I personally don't believe this. At 87k pages a day Google has crawled our entire site in 2 weeks so they should have all of our pages in their DB by now and I think they are not index because they are poorly generated pages and it has nothing to do with the speed of the pages. Am I correct? Would speeding up the pages make Google crawl them faster and thus get more pages indexed?
Technical SEO | | upper2bits0 -
High number of Duplicate Page titles and Content related to index.php
It appears that every page on our site (www.bridgewinners.com) also creates a version of itself with a suffix. This results in Seomoz indicating that there are thousands of duplicate titles and content. 1. Does this matter? If so, how much? 2. How do I eliminate this (we are using joomla)? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | jfeld2220