VisitSweden indexing error
-
Hi all
Just got a new site up about weekend travel for VisitSweden, the official tourism office of Sweden. Everything went just fine except som issues with indexing.
The site can be found here at weekend.visitsweden.com/no/
For some weird reason the "frontpage" of the site does not get indexed. What I have done myself to find the issue:
- Added sitemaps.xml
- Configured and added site to webmaster tools
- Checked 301s so they are not faulty
By doing a simple site:weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ you can see that the frontpage is simple not in the index. Also by doing a cache:weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ I see that Google tries to index the page without the trailing /no/ for some reason.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/
Any smart ideas to get this fixed or where to start looking?
All help greatly appreciated
Kind regards
Fredrik
-
Oh my God Fred!! the weekend sub-domain has been completely blocked from being crawled using a robots.txt file sitting in the root of the sub-domain.
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/robots.txt
User-agent: * Disallow: / Please remove the '/' from there **immediately**
-
Hi Fred,
I just copied my first response:
Here is your redirection setup:
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ being redirected via 301 to
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no being redirected via 301 to
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/
So, I would suggest you to remove the interim URL without the trailing slash after 'no'. Let the original homepage, http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ also be redirected to http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ (the one with trailing slash) via 301.
So your redirection setup should be as follows:
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ - via 301 to - http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/
Essentially, we are eliminating the redirection loop here. Please try this and post back.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
Hi
Again thanks for your quick response. Unfortunately we still have the same issue even though we have performed many checks and tests. Any more smart ideas on how this can be corrected?
Regards
Fredrik
-
Hi Fred,
Please wait for at least 2 weeks for the change to reflect in Google. This happens and depends on how popular your site is in terms of link profile, DA, PA etc..I still see "http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no" (without trailing slash) in Google's index. Let us wait for sometime. Nothing to worry about it.
-
Hi again
The weirdest this is that it does not seem to update. When I do a site:weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ the page is still nowhere to be found.
https://www.google.no/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:weekend.visitsweden.com%2Fno%2F
Any ideas?
Again thanks
Fredrik
-
Hi Fred, now its perfect. It should soon reflect in Google and you will be able to see it in site: search. Good Luck my friend.
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
-
Thanks for the great input! Have now tried to do the changes as per your suggestion.
Does it look better now?
Again thanks
Fredrik
-
Dear Fred,
Here is your redirection setup:
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ being redirected via 301 to
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no being redirected via 301 to
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/
So, I would suggest you to remove the interim URL without the trailing slash after 'no'. Let the original homepage, http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ also be redirected to http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/ (the one with trailing slash) via 301.
So your redirection setup should be as follows:
http://weekend.visitsweden.com/ - via 301 to - http://weekend.visitsweden.com/no/
This should fix the issue. Essentially, we are eliminating the redirection loop here.
By the way, both the URLs, with and without trailing slash appear in Google when searched with the following queries:
Best regards,
Devanur Rafi
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
-
No Index thousands of thin content pages?
Hello all! I'm working on a site that features a service marketed to community leaders that allows the citizens of that community log 311 type issues such as potholes, broken streetlights, etc. The "marketing" front of the site is 10-12 pages of content to be optimized for the community leader searchers however, as you can imagine there are thousands and thousands of pages of one or two line complaints such as, "There is a pothole on Main St. and 3rd." These complaint pages are not about the service, and I'm thinking not helpful to my end goal of gaining awareness of the service through search for the community leaders. Community leaders are searching for "311 request service", not "potholes on main street". Should all of these "complaint" pages be NOINDEX'd? What if there are a number of quality links pointing to the complaint pages? Do I have to worry about losing Domain Authority if I do NOINDEX them? Thanks for any input. Ken
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KenSchaefer0 -
Image Sitemap for non indexed Products
Hi, we have several ecommerce sites. We want to do an image sitemap, as we have lots of attractive images. The question is, can you put images for non-indexed products there as well, or does that conflict with the normal sitemap (the images would be indexed, the products not)? Thanks in advance. Dieter Lang
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Storesco0 -
Best practice to prevent pages from being indexed?
Generally speaking, is it better to use robots.txt or rel=noindex to prevent duplicate pages from being indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | TheaterMania0 -
Huge google index with un-relevant pages
Hi, i run a site about sport matches, every match has a page and the pages are generated automatically from the DB. pages are not duplicated, but over time some look a little bit similar. after a match finishes it has no internal links or sitemap entry, but it's reachable by direct URL and continues to be on google index. so over time we have more than 100,000 indexed pages. since past matches have no significance and they're not linked and a match can repeat and it may look like duplicate content....what you suggest us to do: when a match is finished - not linked, but appears on the index and SERP 301 redirect the match Page to the match Category which is a higher hierarchy and is always relevant? use rel=canonical to the match Category do nothing.... *301 redirect will shrink my index status, some say a high index status is good... *is it safe to 301 redirect 100,000 pages at once - wouldn't it look strange to google? *would canonical remove the past matches pages from the index? what do you think? Thanks, Assaf.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stassaf0 -
Indexing/Sitemap - I must be wrong
Hi All, I would guess that a great number of us new to SEO (or not) share some simple beliefs in relation to Google indexing and Sitemaps, and as such get confused by what Web master tools shows us. It would be great if somone with experience/knowledge could clear this up for once and all 🙂 Common beliefs: Google will crawl your site from the top down, following each link and recursively repeating the process until it bottoms out/becomes cyclic. A Sitemap can be provided that outlines the definitive structure of the site, and is especially useful for links that may not be easily discovered via crawling. In Google’s webmaster tools in the sitemap section the number of pages indexed shows the number of pages in your sitemap that Google considers to be worthwhile indexing. If you place a rel="canonical" tag on every page pointing to the definitive version you will avoid duplicate content and aid Google in its indexing endeavour. These preconceptions seem fair, but must be flawed. Our site has 1,417 pages as listed in our Sitemap. Google’s tools tell us there are no issues with this sitemap but a mere 44 are indexed! We submit 2,716 images (because we create all our own images for products) and a disappointing zero are indexed. Under Health->Index status in WM tools, we apparently have 4,169 pages indexed. I tend to assume these are old pages that now yield a 404 if they are visited. It could be that Google’s Indexed quotient of 44 could mean “Pages indexed by virtue of your sitemap, i.e. we didn’t find them by crawling – so thanks for that”, but despite trawling through Google’s help, I don’t really get that feeling. This is basic stuff, but I suspect a great number of us struggle to understand the disparity between our expectations and what WM Tools yields, and we go on to either ignore an important problem, or waste time on non-issues. Can anyone shine a light on this for once and all? If you are interested, our map looks like this : http://www.1010direct.com/Sitemap.xml Many thanks Paul
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fretts0 -
Are pages with a canonical tag indexed?
Hello here, here are my questions for you related to the canonical tag: 1. If I put online a new webpage with a canonical tag pointing to a different page, will this new page be indexed by Google and will I be able to find it in the index? 2. If instead I apply the canonical tag to a page already in the index, will this page be removed from the index? Thank you in advance for any insights! Fabrizio
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | fablau0 -
Which index page should I canonical to?
Hello! I'm doing a routine clean up of my code and had a question about the canonical tag. On the index page, I have the following: I have never put any thought into which index path is the best to use. http://www.example.com http://www.example.com/ http://www.example.com/index.php Could someone shed some light on this for me? Does it make a difference? Thanks! Ryan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ryan_Phillips1 -
Why are new pages not being indexed, and old pages (now in robots.txt) remain in the index?
I currently have a site that was recently restructured, causing much of its content to be reposted, creating new URL's for each page. To avoid duplicates, all of the existing pages were added to the robots file. That said, it has now been over a week - I know Google has recrawled the site - and when I search for term X, it is stil the old page that is ranking, with the new one nowhere to be seen. I'm assuming it's a cached version, but why are so many of the old pages still appearing in the index? Furthermore, all "tags" pages (it's a Q&A site, like this one) were also added to the robots a few months ago, yet I think they are all still appearing in the index. Anyone got any ideas about why this is happening, and how I can get my new pages indexed?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | corp08030