How does Google index pagination variables in Ajax snapshots? We're seeing random huge variables.
-
We're using the Google snapshot method to index dynamic Ajax content. Some of this content is from tables using pagination. The pagination is tracked with a var in the hash, something like:
#!home/?view_3_page=1
We're seeing all sorts of calls from Google now with huge numbers for these URL variables that we are not generating with our snapshots. Like this:
#!home/?view_3_page=10099089
These aren't trivial since each snapshot represents a server load, so we'd like these vars to only represent what's returned by the snapshots.
Is Google generating random numbers going fishing for content? If so, is this something we can control or minimize?
-
Thanks for the great replies all. Just to clarify, this is the page we're referencing:
http://www.knackhq.com/business-directory-user-demo/?escaped_fragment=
You can see the one pagination var "next" that points here:
http://www.knackhq.com/business-directory-user-demo/?escaped_fragment=home/?view_3_page=2
As you can see this is pretty simple. There's only one potential variable (the "prev" and "next" links) for introducing these huge numbers and that's pretty limited. We tested the Google URLs up and down the app and haven't seen anything that would send it fishing for larger numbers. But Google keeps hammering us with:
GET /business-directory-user-demo/?escaped_fragment=home/?view_3_page=1000251
For now we're trying to respond to those with 404s and hope they eventually die.
Unfortunately we can't avoid hashbangs.
-
This seems to do this only for parameters that it has decided "changes, re-orders, or narrows content." They may also crawl things that look like URLs in Javascript even when it's part of a function, but it doesn't seem like that's what's happening in this case.
Depending on the setup of the site, you can either manually configure the variable in WMT (don't do this if the parameter is material), write a clever robots.txt rule (e.g. to block anything after a number of digits after the parameter), or (the best solution) re-work the system to generate URLs that don't rely on parameters.
I'm not sure I understand why the server is rendering a page if the URL isn't supposed to exist. Depending on your server config, you may also be able to return a 404 and make a rule for which (valid) pages to render. From there you can just ignore the 404 errors until Google figures it out.
I think that's the best I can do without seeing the site.
-
I agree with Federico. I've seen Google go fishing with URL parameters (?param=xyz) and I've seen it with AJAX and hashbangs as well. How far they take this and when they choose to apply it doesn't seem to follow a consistent pattern . You can see some folks on StackExchange discussing this, too: http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/does-the-google-crawler-really-guess-url-patterns-and-index-pages-that-were-neve
-
Awesome, thanks for looking into it. We've gotten nowhere with any kind of answer.
-
Hi There
I'm an associate here at Moz, and have asked the other associates if they might know the answer, as this one's a little outside of my experience. Please follow up and let us know if you don't hear from anyone.
Thanks!
-Dan
-
We also noticed some weird crawls last year using random numbers at the end of the URL, checking in google webmaster tools we saw that most of those urls were reported as not found, checking from where the link came from google listed some of our URLs, but didn't had any link to those URLs google was trying to fetch. After 2 or 3 months those crawls stopped. We never knew from where Google got those URLs...
-
Hi Federico, thanks for the response.
Unfortunately this is an SEO solution for a third-party JavaScript product, so removing the hash isn't an option.
I'm still interested in knowing if this is a formal Google practice and if there's some way to control or mitigate this.
-
I think you are right. Google is fishing for content. I would find a solution to make those URL friendly by removing the hash and using some URL rewrite and pushState to paginate that content instead.
Here's a previous question that may help: http://moz.com/community/q/best-way-to-break-down-paginated-content
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
-
I'm looking for a bulk way to take off from the Google search results over 600 old and inexisting pages?
When I search on Google site:alexanders.co.nz still showing over 900 results. There are over 600 inexisting pages and the 404/410 errrors aren't not working. The only way that I can think to do that is doing manually on search console using the "Removing URLs" tool but is going to take ages. Any idea how I can take down all those zombie pages from the search results?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alexanders1 -
A client rebranded a few years ago and doesn't want to be associated with it's old brand name. He wishes not to appear when the old brand is searched in Google, is there something we can do?
The problem is there was redirection between the old branded site and the new one, and now when you type in the name of the old brand, the new one comes up. I have desperately tried to convince this client there is nothing we can do about it, dozens of news articles crop up with the two brands together as this was a hot topic a few years ago, but just in case I missed something I thought I'd ask the community of experts here on Moz. An example for this would be Tyco Healthcare that became covidien in 2007. When you type tyco healthcare, covidien crops up here and there. Any ideas? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Netsociety0 -
Can 'follow' rather than 'nofollow' links be damaging partner's SEO
Hey guys and happy Monday! We run a content rich website, 12+ years old, focused on travel in a specific region, and advertisers pay for banners/content etc alongside editorial. We have never used 'nofollow' website links as they're no explicitly paid for by clients, but a partner has asked us to make all links to them 'nofollow' as they have stated the way we currently link is damaging their SEO. Could this be true in any way? I'm only assuming it would adversely affect them if our website was peanalized by Google for 'selling links', which we're not. Perhaps they're just keen to follow best practice for fear of being seen to be buying links. FYI we now plan to change to more full use of 'nofollow', but I'm trying to work out what the client is refering to without seeming ill-informed on the subject! Thank you for any advice 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SEO_Jim0 -
Is there a way to get a list of Total Indexed pages from Google Webmaster Tools?
I'm doing a detailed analysis of how Google sees and indexes our website and we have found that there are 240,256 pages in the index which is way too many. It's an e-commerce site that needs some tidying up. I'm working with an SEO specialist to set up URL parameters and put information in to the robots.txt file so the excess pages aren't indexed (we shouldn't have any more than around 3,00 - 4,000 pages) but we're struggling to find a way to get a list of these 240,256 pages as it would be helpful information in deciding what to put in the robots.txt file and which URL's we should ask Google to remove. Is there a way to get a list of the URL's indexed? We can't find it in the Google Webmaster Tools.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sparrowdog0 -
Site Structure: How do I deal with a great user experience that's not the best for Google's spiders?
We have ~3,000 photos that have all been tagged. We have a wonderful AJAXy interface for users where they can toggle all of these tags to find the exact set of photos they're looking for very quickly. We've also optimized a site structure for Google's benefit that gives each category a page. Each category page links to applicable album pages. Each album page links to individual photo pages. All pages have a good chunk of unique text. Now, for Google, the domain.com/photos index page should be a directory of sorts that links to each category page. Alternatively, the user would probably prefer the AJAXy interface. What is the best way to execute this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | tatermarketing0 -
What is a "Bad Link" in Google's eyes? Low DA?
Hi there, I'm going through my link profile and I noticed I have a few links that are from <10 DA sites. One has a DA of 6. Should I remove these? Aside from any referral traffic I receive from these links (I know there is none), are these links hurting me?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W
What should I look out for in a site I may guest post on? Thanks!
Travis0 -
Google+ Pages on Google SERP
Do you think that a Google+ Page (not profile) could appear on the Google SERP as a Rich Snippet Author? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | overalia0 -
How are pages ranked when using Google's "site:" operator?
Hi, If you perform a Google search like site:seomoz.org, how are the pages displayed sorted/ranked? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | anthematic0