We recently transitioned a site to our server, but Google is still showing the old server's urls. Is there a way to stop Google from showing urls?
-
We recently transitioned a site to our server, but Google is still showing the old server's urls. Is there a way to stop Google from showing urls?
-
-
Deep Crawl is great for large sites
-
I would recommend using deepcrawl.com on your old domain so you can remap / rewrite the old domain and its URLs so if the URLs are rewritten it will help your new website a least it would minimize the damage.
To answer your question correctly yes why not 301 redirect thing you are going to lose any authority your old domain has yes it's bad.
Use archive.org it might have a copy of your entire site structure start form there.
Do you have backups?
-
Unfortunately, we did not do 301 redirects for the entire site and now we don't have the old urls to create the 301 redirects. Is this going to cause serious problems with Google by not having 301 redirects?
-
I agree that keeping the site map is definitely going to lead Googlebot to your site much faster and you should use Fech as a Googlebot on the entire site
Be certain that you have done a page page 301 redirect for the entire site. After that you can look into using this method of removing Data from Google's Index cache
I recommend not removing this unless it is doing damage to your site
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663691?hl=en
How to remove outdated content
<a class="zippy index1 goog-zippy-header goog-zippy-collapsed" tabindex="0">Remove a page that was already deleted from a site from search results</a><a class="zippy index2 goog-zippy-header goog-zippy-expanded" tabindex="0">Remove an outdated page description or cache</a>
Follow the instructions below if the short description of the page in search results (the snippet) or the cached version of the page is out of date.
- Go to the Remove outdated content page.
-
No problem! Here is a pretty comprehensive list of resources. I personally use ScreamingFrog.
Good luck!
-
Perfect sense. Thank you. Do you know of any good tools that will create an xml site map of at least 19,000 pages?
-
Hi again!
Every page should be on the sitemap so long as it's not behind a login or not supposed to be seen by search engines or users. I would update it and make sure pages aren't noindexed or blocked in your robots.txt. It shouldn't be limited to just your top navigation. Search engines will still crawl and see those deeper pages (not top nav) exist, but uploading them to the sitemap will help expedite the indexing process.
Does that make sense?
-
Thanks for getting back to me. It's the same domain so no change of address needed. We did upload a new site map, but the new site map only has 100 pages on it where the old site map had 19,000. Does the site map need every page on it or just the top navigation pages?
-
Hi Stamats
Did you update your sitemap xml and also submit it to Webmaster Tools? If you changed your domain, you should look into a change of address as well, but only if you changed your domain name.
Keep in mind that it could take Google a little bit to notice these changes, so do your best to help them notice these changes by the steps above.
Hope this helps! Let me know if you need anything else!
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 stopped showing time frame for the cached results of the websites; Why? Any alternatives?
Hi Moz community If we Google "site:website.com"; it'll list the cached pages from the website. And we used to check them on required date range like how and which pages got indexed. But date range is not working now and the results are missing the pages which got indexed at the selected date range. Any idea why Google does this? Any alternatives to find the recently indexed pages? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Googles Search Intent – Plural & Singular KW’s
This is more of a ‘gripe’ than a question, but I would love to hear people’s views. Typically, when you search for a product using the singular and plural versions of the keyword Google delivers different SERPs. As an example, ‘leather handbag’ and ‘leather handbags’ return different results, but surely the search intent is exactly the same? You’d have thought Google was now clever enough to work this out. We tend to optimise our webpages for both the plural and singular variations of the KW’s, but see a mixed bag of results when analysing rankings. Is Google trying to force us to create a unique webpage for the singular version, and another unique webpage for the plural version? This would confuse the visitor, and make no sense.. the search intent is the same! How do you combat this problem? Many thanks in advance. Lee.
Algorithm Updates | | Webpresence0 -
Changes in Google "Site:" Search Algorithm Over Time?
I was wondering if anyone has noticed changes in how Google returns 'site:' searches over the past few years or months. I remember being able to do a search such as "site:example.com" and Google would return a list of webpages where the order may have shown the higher page rank pages (due to link building, etc) first and/or parent category pages higher up in the list of the first page (if relevant) first (as they could have higher PR naturally, anyways). It seems that these days I can hardly find quality / target pages that have higher page rank on the first page of Google's site: search results. Is this just me... or has Google perhaps purposely scrambled the SERPS somewhat for site: searches to not give away their page ranking secrets?
Algorithm Updates | | OrionGroup1 -
Page details in Google Search
I noticed this morning a drop in the SERPs for a couple of my main keywords. And even though this is a little annoying the more pressing matter is that Google is not displaying the meta title I have specified for the majority of my sites pages, despite one being specified and knowing my site has them in place. Could this sudden change to not using my specified title be the cause of the drop, and why would they be being displayed by Google in the first place, when they are there to be used. The title currently being displayed inthe SERPs is not anything that has been specified in the past or from the previous latest crawl etc. Any insight would be appreciated. Tim
Algorithm Updates | | TimHolmes0 -
Google visits falling at the expense of Bing
Has anyone else noticed their percentage of search visits from Google slipping in the last few weeks at the expense of Bing? We've seen a 4% swing in the last month. Obviously Google is still the dominant presence (acconuting for 88.4% of all organic visits to our site kenwoodtravel.co.uk) but still it would be interesting to know if this is just a blip or more of a trend?
Algorithm Updates | | BrettCollins0 -
Phantom Indexed: 301 Redirected Old URL Shows in Google Search Result!
Today, I have read about Phantom Indexed in Google search result. Because, I was searching about 301 redirect due to indexing of 301 redirected old URLs in Google search result rather than new landing pages. I've added my comment on jennita's blog post about 301 redirect. I would like to paste similar question over here! I have 301 redirected following 3 domains to new website... http://www.lampslightingandmore.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/table-lamps http://www.vistapatioumbrellas.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/patio-umbrellas http://www.spiderofficechairs.com/ To http://www.vistastores.com/office-chairs I have done it before 3 months but, Google still shows me home page URL in search result rather than new landing page. You can check following search results to know more about it. For LampsLightingandMore ~ On second or third page::: For VistaPatioUmbrellas ~ On second or third page::: For SpiderOfficeChairs ~ On Second or third page::: I come to know about Phantom Indexed after raised my comment over there. So, why should not start discussion on it. Because, It's all about branding and who'll love to hang old address in front of new home.
Algorithm Updates | | CommercePundit0 -
Site name appended to page title in google search
Hi there, I have a strange problem concerning how the search results for my site appears in Google. The site is Texaspoker.dk and for some strange reason that name is appended at the end of the page title when I search for it in Google. The site name is not added to the page titles on the site. If I search in Google.dk (the relevant search engine for the country I am targeting) for "Unibet Fast Poker" I get the following page title displayed in the search results: Unibet Fast Poker starter i dag - få €10 og prøv ... - Texaspoker.dk If you visit the actual page you can see that there is no site name added to the page title: http://www.texaspoker.dk/unibet-fast-poker It looks like it is only being appended to the pages that contains rich snippets markup and not he forum threads where the rich snippets for some reason doesn't work. If I do a search for "Afstemning: Foretrukne TOPS Events" the title appears as it should without the site name being added: Afstemning: Foretrukne TOPS Events Anybody have any experience regarding this or an idea to why this is happening? Maybe the rich snippets are automatically pulling the publisher name from my Google+ account... edited: It doesn't seem to have anything to do with rich snippets, if I search for "Billeder og stuff v.2" the site name is also appended and if I search for "bedste poker bonus" the site name is not.
Algorithm Updates | | MPO0 -
Google changing case of URLs in SERPs?
Noticed some strange behavior over the last week or so regarding our SERPs and I haven't been able to find anything on the web about what might be happening. Over the past two weeks, I've been seeing our URLs slowly change from upper case to lower case in the SERPs. Our URLs are usually /Blue-Fuzzy-Widgets.htm but Google has slowly been switching them to /blue-fuzzy-widgets.htm. There has been no change in our actual rankings nor has it happened to anyone else in the space. We're quite dumbfounded as to why Google would choose to serve the lower case URL. To be clear, we do not build links to these lower case URLs, only the upper. Any ideas what might be happening here?
Algorithm Updates | | Natitude0
