JavaScript Issue? Google not indexing a microsite
-
We have a microsite that was created on our domain but is not linked to from ANYwhere EXCEPT within some Javascript elements on pages on our site. The link is in one JQuery slide panel.
The microsite is not being indexed at all - when i do site:(microsite name) on Google, it doesn't return anything. I think it's because the link's only in a Java element, but my client assures me that if I submit to Google for crawling the problem will be solved.
Maybe so, but my point is that if you just create a simple HTML link from at least one of our site pages, it will get indexed no problem. The microsite has been up for months and it's still not being indexed - another newer microsite that's been up for a few weeks and has simple links to it from our pages is indexing fine.
I have submitted the URL for crawling but had to use the google.com/webmasters/tools/submit-url/ method as I don't have access to the top level domain WMT account.
p.s. when we put the microsite URL into the SEOBook spider-test tool it returns lots of lovely information - but that just tells me the page is findable, does exist, right? That doesn't mean Google's going to necessarily index it, as I am surmising...Moz hasn't found in the 5 months the microsite has been up and running. What's going on here?
-
Thanks Lantec.
-
Found a good article to help get your website indexed fast! If this fails then there is a problem with the website or domain.
(not sure if its against the rule to post a URL as this is the first time)
-
I need to check with the site owner that we aren't blocking javascript files indexing with .robots, just read something about it here. But I don't think so.
My Art of SEO book is pretty clear about javascript creating indexing issues: "Links in hard to parse JavaScript – If you use JavaScript for link, you may find that search engine either do not crawl or give very little weight to the embedded links. Links embedded inside Java and plus-ins are invisible to search engines."
I just saw a March 2014 video with Matt Cutts saying Google's gotten better at this. But I suspect that since there are no simple links on the page to this microsite, this is why it's not indexing. NOT because we haven't submitted the URL on a sitemap or Fetch operation.
We have another microsite that's newer and simply linked, and doing just fine - fully indexed.
Thanks for your help....
-
ok, are there any no follows on the site? and redirects? 301s? Is the site unsafe or blacklisted?
-
can't disclose, sorry
-
Whats the url?
-
very large...>100,000 pages. we are frequently crawled...91 DA, big business.
-
How big is the website?
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
-
Google Search Console > Security Issues
Hi all, *Admin please feel free to remove or add this to any existing post. I have searched the community for any similar questions. While checking in the Google Search Console, under the "Security Issues" (lone section) I have found Google pointing out specific pages of our website where the message we are seeing is "Content injection - These pages appear to be modified by a hacker with the intent of spamming search results." The Learn More link takes us to https://developers.google.com/webmasters/hacked/docs/hacked_with_spam?ctx=SI&ctx=BHspam&rd=1 We've never injected spam code or have not been injected with any spammy code so what baffles me is why would Google pick this up when we have mentioned to them very clear that our code is secure and not hacked. Has anyone received a similar message and had any luck removing the message correctly? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SP10 -
Google not taking Meta...
Hello all, So I understand that Google may sometimes take content from the page as a snippet to display on SERPs rather than the meta description, but my problem goes a little beyond that. I have a section on my site which updates everyday so a lot of the content is dynamics (products for a shop, every morning unique stock is added or removed), and despite having a meta description, title and receiving an 'A' grade in the MOZ on page grader, these pages never show up in Google. After a little research I did a 'site:www.mysite.com/productpage' in Google and this indeed listed all my products, but interestingly for every single one Google had taken the copyright notice at the bottom of the page as the snippet instead of the meta or any H1, H2 or P text on the page... Does anyone have any idea why Google is doing this? It would explain a lot to me in terms of overall traffic, I'm just out of ideas... Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | HB170 -
Is it a problem that Google's index shows paginated page urls, even with canonical tags in place?
Since Google shows more pages indexed than makes sense, I used Google's API and some other means to get everything Google has in its index for a site I'm working on. The results bring up a couple of oddities. It shows a lot of urls to the same page, but with different tracking code.The url with tracking code always follows a question mark and could look like: http://www.MozExampleURL.com?tracking-example http://www.MozExampleURL.com?another-tracking-examle http://www.MozExampleURL.com?tracking-example-3 etc So, the only thing that distinguishes one url from the next is a tracking url. On these pages, canonical tags are in place as: <link rel="canonical<a class="attribute-value">l</a>" href="http://www.MozExampleURL.com" /> So, why does the index have urls that are only different in terms of tracking urls? I would think it would ignore everything, starting with the question mark. The index also shows paginated pages. I would think it should show the one canonical url and leave it at that. Is this a problem about which something should be done? Best... Darcy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | 945010 -
Mobile Sitemap Issue
Hi there, I am having some difficulty with an error on Webmaster Tools. I'm concerned with a possible duplicate content penalty following the launch of my mobile site. I have attempted to update my sitemap to inform Google that a different mobile page exists in addition to the desktop page. I have followed Google's guidelines as outlined here:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DBC01
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=34648 I'm having problems with my sitemap.xml file. Webmaster tools is reporting that it is not able to read the file and when I validate it I am getting an error stating that the 'Namespace prefix xhtml on link is not defined'. All I am trying to do is to create a sitemap that uses the rel="alternate" to inform Google that their is a mobile version of that specific page in addition to the desktop version. An instance of the code I am using is below: xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="gss.xsl"?> <urlset< span="">xmlns="http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9"xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.google.com/schemas/sitemap/0.84 http://www.sitemaps.org/schemas/sitemap/0.9/sitemap.xsd"> http://www.mydomain/info/detail/ <xhtml:link< span="">rel="alternate" media="only screen and (max-width: 640px)" href="http://m.mydomain.com/info/detail.html"/> <lastmod></lastmod>2013-02-01T16:03:48+00:00<changefreq></changefreq>daily0.50</xhtml:link<></urlset<> Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks0 -
Sitemaps recommend by google
Google in it guideline recommends to create a sitemap. Do they means a /sitemap.xml or does it need to be sitemap directly on the website ? Does it make any difference ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Will blocking google and SE's from indexing images hurt SEO?
Hi, We have a bit of a problem where on a website we are managing, there are thousands of "Dynamically" re-sized images. These are stressing out the server as on any page there could be upto 100 dynamically re-sized images. Google alone is indexing 50,000 pages a day, so multiply that by the number of images and it is a huge drag on the server. I was wondering if it maybe an idea to blog Robots (in robots.txt) from indexing all the images in the image file, to reduce the server load until we have a proper fix in place. We don't get any real value from having our website images in "Google Images" so I am wondering if this could be a safe way of reducing server load? Are there any other potential SEO issues this could cause?? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James770 -
My website keywords have been almost completely taken out of indexing in Google since 04/26/11 and I cannot determine why, anyone know?
I had 12 to 15 1st page Google rankings in the iPhone, iPad, app review vertical. As of 04/26/11 I have lost all rankings, traffic has gone from 1,000 to 1,200 a day to 150 to 350 a day. I was using a plugin for auto press releases, but have removed this and deleted the urls. I also have changed themes and hosting over the last 3 weeks. I have been trying to get SEO help, but cannot seem to get anyone to help me. thank you Mike
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | crazymikesapps1 -
Google indexing flash content
Hi Would googles indexing of flash content count towards page content? for example I have over 7000 flash files, with 1 unique flash file per page followed by a short 2 paragraph snippet, would google count the flash as content towards the overall page? Because at the moment I've x-tagged the roberts with noindex, nofollow and no archive to prevent them from appearing in the search engines. I'm just wondering if the google bot visits and accesses the flash file it'll get the x-tag noindex, nofollow and then stop processing. I think this may be why the panda update also had an effect. thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Flapjack0