Google and PDF indexing
-
It was recently brought to my attention that one of the PDFs on our site wasn't showing up when looking for a particular phrase within the document. The user was trying to search only within our site. Once I removed the site restriction - I noticed that there was another site using the exact same PDF. It appears Google is indexing that PDF but not ours. The name, title, and content are the same. Is there any way to get around this?
I find it interesting as we use GSA and within GSA it shows up for the phrase. I have to imagine Google is saying that it already has the PDF and therefore is ignoring our PDF. Any tricks to get around this?
BTW - both sites rightfully should have the PDF. One is a client site and they are allowed to host the PDFs created for them. However, I'd like Mathematica to also be listed.
Query: no site restriction (notice: Teach for america comes up #1 and Mathematica is not listed). https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=HSAC_final_rpt_9_2013.pdf&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=pdf&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#q=HSAC_final_rpt_9_2013.pdf+"Teach+charlotte"+filetype:pdf&as_qdr=all&filter=0
Query: site restriction (notice that it doesn't find the phrase and redirects to any of the words) https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=HSAC_final_rpt_9_2013.pdf&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=pdf&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#as_qdr=all&q="Teach+charlotte"+site:www.mathematica-mpr.com+filetype:pdf
-
Hi Rose, Jeff provided a great response. Did it answer your question? If so, please mark it "good answer", thanks!
Christy
-
It sounds like it could be a few different issues, but my initial look at the site makes it seem to me that it's duplicate content, and that Google is only returning the results for their PDF and not for yours.
Google does hate duplicate content, and this is probably why they are only showing their PDF.
It may be that they posted theirs first, or they linked to it first.
As you probably know, not all PDFs are created equally. Some are more difficult for a search engine to read (i.e. might have text tied up in graphics). And PDFs are really not a great end user experience.
If you really want to rank for this, I might suggest creating this page as an HTML page instead of a PDF, as it might be able to be indexed more easily, and you might rank for it better.
I hope this helps?
Thanks,
-- Jeff
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
-
Mobile indexing and tabs
Hello, With the new mobile indexing 1 st do search engine (google) give as much value to content in tabs and no visible in the 1 st place as content which is visible on the page ? Thank you,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoanalytics0 -
Why is the meta description not the same as in the index?
Hi all, When I search for keywords concerning "little wannahaves", the meta description in attachment 1 appears. This is however not the meta description I gave in. When I search for "site:littewannahaves.nl" the right meta description appears, see attachment 2. Does anyone know how why these two differ and how I can fix this? According to webmaster tools there should not be any error. Thanks in advance! P3FMNzP.png nkDXqRc.png
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | U-Digital0 -
URL Parameter Being Improperly Crawled & Indexed by Google
Hi All, We just discovered that Google is indexing a subset of our URL’s embedded with our analytics tracking parameter. For the search “dresses” we are appearing in position 11 (page 2, rank 1) with the following URL: www.anthropologie.com/anthro/category/dresses/clothes-dresses.jsp?cm_mmc=Email--Anthro_12--070612_Dress_Anthro-_-shop You’ll note that “cm_mmc=Email” is appended. This is causing our analytics (CoreMetrics) to mis-attribute this traffic and revenue to Email vs. SEO. A few questions: 1) Why is this happening? This is an email from June 2012 and we don’t have an email specific landing page embedded with this parameter. Somehow Google found and indexed this page with these tracking parameters. Has anyone else seen something similar happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | kevin_reyes
2) What is the recommended method of “politely” telling Google to index the version without the tracking parameters? Some thoughts on this:
a. Implement a self-referencing canonical on the page.
- This is done, but we have some technical issues with the canonical due to our ecommerce platform (ATG). Even though page source code looks correct, Googlebot is seeing the canonical with a JSession ID.
b. Resubmit both URL’s in WMT Fetch feature hoping that Google recognizes the canonical.
- We did this, but given the canonical issue it won’t be effective until we can fix it.
c. URL handling change in WMT
- We made this change, but it didn’t seem to fix the problem
d. 301 or No Index the version with the email tracking parameters
- This seems drastic and I’m concerned that we’d lose ranking on this very strategic keyword Thoughts? Thanks in advance, Kevin0 -
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?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sitestrux0 -
Google Not Indexing XML Sitemap Images
Hi Mozzers, We are having an issue with our XML sitemap images not being indexed. The site has over 39,000 pages and 17,500 images submitted in GWT. If you take a look at the attached screenshot, 'GWT Images - Not Indexed', you can see that the majority of the pages are being indexed - but none of the images are. The first thing you should know about the images is that they are hosted on a content delivery network (CDN), rather than on the site itself. However, Google advice suggests hosting on a CDN is fine - see second screenshot, 'Google CDN Advice'. That advice says to either (i) ensure the hosting site is verified in GWT or (ii) submit in robots.txt. As we can't verify the hosting site in GWT, we had opted to submit via robots.txt. There are 3 sitemap indexes: 1) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap_index.xml, 2) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/listings.xml and 3) http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/plants.xml. Each sitemap index is split up into often hundreds or thousands of smaller XML sitemaps. This is necessary due to the size of the site and how we have decided to pull URLs in. Essentially, if we did it another way, it may have involved some of the sitemaps being massive and thus taking upwards of a minute to load. To give you an idea of what is being submitted to Google in one of the sitemaps, please see view-source:http://www.greenplantswap.co.uk/sitemap/plant_genera/4/listings.xml?page=1. Originally, the images were SSL, so we decided to reverted to non-SSL URLs as that was an easy change. But over a week later, that seems to have had no impact. The image URLs are ugly... but should this prevent them from being indexed? The strange thing is that a very small number of images have been indexed - see http://goo.gl/P8GMn. I don't know if this is an anomaly or whether it suggests no issue with how the images have been set up - thus, there may be another issue. Sorry for the long message but I would be extremely grateful for any insight into this. I have tried to offer as much information as I can, however please do let me know if this is not enough. Thank you for taking the time to read and help. Regards, Mark Oz6HzKO rYD3ICZ
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | edlondon0 -
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 -
Adding Orphaned Pages to the Google Index
Hey folks, How do you think Google will treat adding 300K orphaned pages to a 4.5 million page site. The URLs would resolve but there would be no on site navigation to those pages, Google would only know about them through sitemap.xmls. These pages are super low competition. The plot thickens, what we are really after is to get 150k real pages back on the site, these pages do have crawlable paths on the site but in order to do that (for technical reasons) we need to push these other 300k orphaned pages live (it's an all or nothing deal) a) Do you think Google will have a problem with this or just decide to not index some or most these pages since they are orphaned. b) If these pages will just fall out of the index or not get included, and have no chance of ever accumulating PR anyway since they are not linked to, would it make sense to just noindex them? c) Should we not submit sitemap.xml files at all, and take our 150k and just ignore these 300k and hope Google ignores them as well since they are orhpaned? d) If Google is OK with this maybe we should submit the sitemap.xmls and keep an eye on the pages, maybe they will rank and bring us a bit of traffic, but we don't want to do that if it could be an issue with Google. Thanks for your opinions and if you have any hard evidence either way especially thanks for that info. 😉
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw0 -
Google.ca vs Google.com Ranking
I have a site I would like to rank high for particular keywords in the Google.ca searches and don't particularly care about the Google.com searches (it's a Canadian service). I have logged into Google Webmaster Tools and targeted Canada. Currently my site is ranking on the third page for my desired keywords on Google.com, but is on the 20th page for Google.ca. Previously this change happened quite quickly -- within 4 weeks -- but it doesn't seem to be taking here (12 weeks out and counting). My optimization seems to be fine since I'm ranking well on Google.com: not sure why it's not translating to Google.ca. Any help or thoughts would be appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seorm0