"INDEX,FOLLOW" then later in the code "NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW" which does google follow?
-
background info: we have an established closed E-commerce system which the company has been using for years. I have only just started and reviewing the system, I don't have direct access to the code, but can request changes, but it could take months before the changes are in effect (or done at all), and we won't can't change to a new E-commerce system for the short to mid term.
While reviewing the site (with help of seomoz crawl diagnostics) I noticed that some of the existing "landing pages" have in the code:
<meta name="<a class="attribute-value">robots</a>" content="<a class="attribute-value">INDEX,FOLLOW</a>" /> then a few lines later
<meta name="<a class="attribute-value">robots</a>" content="<a class="attribute-value">NOINDEX,NOFOLLOW</a>" />
Which the crawl diagnostics flagged up, but in the webmaster tools says
"We didn't detect any issues with non-indexable content on your site."so the question is which instructions does google follow? the first or 2nd?
note: clearly this is need fixed, but I have a big list of changes for the system so I need to know how important this is
tthanks
-
I've never actually had any errors listed for non-indexable content in the HTML Improvements section of WMT. So I'm not 100% sure what would set off that notification. Though the sites I work on do have a number of pages that are NoIndex and/or NoFollow. So i guess the issue would be caused not by purposefully blocking the page but some other means that makes your page unable to be crawled properly.
-
Yeah I did that after posting the question I started test like that, but its not coming up and searching the url does not show the page, but other normal pages ("lower" pages) are showing (that don't have this problem), so it seems that it is de-indexed those pages.
its weird that webmaster tools say ""We didn't detect any issues with non-indexable content on your site.", when there are.
Getting this sorted one way or another is my top priority
-
If you copy a string of text on the page and paste it into google search, does your page show up in the results? If so, then its being indexed despite the second robots tag. If it doesn't show up, then its not being indexed. So importance would rely on whether you want that page to be indexed and whether or not it is being indexed. Either way, you should look into cleaning that up at some point.
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
-
Can't get Google to index our site although all seems very good
Hi there, I am having issues getting our new site, https://vintners.co indexed by Google although it seems all technical and content requirements are well in place for it. In the past, I had way poorer websites running with very bad setups and performance indexed faster. What's concerning me, among others, is that the crawler of Google comes from time to time when looking on Google Search Console but does not seem to make progress or to even follow any link and the evolution does not seem to do what google says in GSC help. For instance, our sitemap.xml was submitted, for a few days, it seemed like it had an impact as many pages were then visible in the coverage report, showing them as "detected but not yet indexed" and now, they disappeared from the coverage report, it's like if it was not detected any more. Anybody has any advice to speed up or accelerate the indexing of a new website like ours? It's been launched since now almost two months and I was expected, at least on some core keywords, to quickly get indexed.
Technical SEO | | rolandvintners1 -
Stop Google indexing entire website based on search location
OK - bear with me... We have a .co.uk website. However, we only want it indexing in the US Google and NOT the UK Google. Is there a way of configuring this in Search Console /Webmaster tools?
Technical SEO | | AbsoluteDesign0 -
Disavowing the "right" bad backlinks
Hello, From july to november (this year), I gained 110.000 backlinks. Considering that I'm having trouble ranking well for any keyword in my niche (a niche that I was ranking #1 for several keywords and now I'm losing), I'm starting to believe that negative seo is affecting me. I already read several articles about negative seo, some telling this is a myth, others telling that negative SEO is alive and kicking... My site is about health and fitness in brazilian-portuguese language, and there's polish/chinese/english with warez/viagra/others drugs pointing to my domain and a massive links in comments with blogs without comment approval. Considering that all these new backlinks are not on my language and are clearly irrelevant, can I disavow them without fear of affecting my SEO even more ? Everytime you see someone talking about the disavow tool, is always the same warning: "cautiong when disavowing a link, you can hurt you site even more, removing a link that - in some way - was helping you". Any help or guidelines if I can remove this links safely would be greatly appreciated. Thank you and sorry for my english (it's not my native language) 5ZDjUcK.jpg
Technical SEO | | broncobr0 -
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
I was googling the word "best web hosting" and i notice the 1st and 3rd result were results with google plus. Does Google plus now play a role in improving ranking for the website?
I was googling the word "best web hosting" and i notice the 1st and 3rd result were results with google plus. Does Google plus now play a role in improving ranking for the website?I see a person's name next to the website too
Technical SEO | | mainguy0 -
Google indexing thousands crazy search results with %25253
In GWT I started seeing very strange pages indexed a few weeks, and Google is no reporting over 21,000 of pages (blocked by robots.txt) with weird URLs like this: http://www.francesphotography.com/?s=no-results:no-results%25252525252525253Ano-results%2525252525252525253Ano-results%252525252525252525253Ano-results%252525252525252525253Ano-results%252525252525252525253Ano-results%252525252525252525253Ano-results%25252525252525252525253Ano-results%25252525252525252525253Ano-results%2525252525252525252525253Adanna&cat=no-results http://www.francesphotography.com/?s=no-results:no-results%2525253Ano-results%25252525253Ano-results%25252525253Ano-results%25252525253Ano-results%2525252525253Ano-results%25252525252525253Ano-results%25252525252525253Ano-results%25252525252525253Adanna&cat=no-results The current robots.txt looks like this: User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | BoulderJoe
Disallow: /wp-content Disallow: /wp-admin Disallow: /wp-includes
Disallow: /data
Disallow: /slideshows
Disallow: /page/*/?s=
Disallow: /?s=
Disallow: /search This website is running an up to date WP install with Yoast's Google Analytics and SEO plug-in. I can't point to anything specific that happened with the site when these URLs started appearing even after I modified the robots.txt. What can be done to try and stop Google from creating and indexing these goofy URLs? I see lots of sites having this issue when I search in Google, but no one seems to have a solution.0 -
"To keyword or not to keyword" in the URL string?
We are debating on whether to use primary keywords in the URL for every page for a new client for the sake of SEO. What is the feeling in the Community on which version is smarter? Version 1: www.abccompany.com/miami-moving-company/about-us www.abccompany.com/miami-moving-company/contact-us etc. etc. Version 2: www.abccompany.com/about-us Thank you for your thoughts!
Technical SEO | | theideapeople0 -
Does 301 redirect pass "freshness?"
Greetings! I work for an online retailer, and we recently launched a voting tool that allows customers to voice their opinion whether or not we should carry a new item. It's been a huge success and we've been generating thousands of comments. As a result, it's helped our SEO, and our products are showing up on the first page for some keywords without having any external links pointing to these pages. Our plan is to sell a product if it does well during the voting period. Unfortunately, we're not able to process the sale on the voting page, and need to redirect users to another page on our site. I understand that a 301 redirect transfers "linkjuice" to the new destination URL. But does it also transfer "freshness?" I ask because our new landing pages will not be updated as frequently as the voting pages. Example of our Voting Page:
Technical SEO | | znotes
http://www.uncommongoods.com/voting/product/50012/infant-fortune-cookie-booties Example of Redirected Item Page (where sale can be processed):
http://www.uncommongoods.com/product/baby-tube-socks-set-of-4 Any help/comments would be appreciated. Thank you!0