Google indexing wrong pages
-
We have a variety of issues at the moment, and need some advice.
First off, we have a HUGE indexing issue across our entire website.
Website in question: http://www.localsearch.com.au/
Firstly
In Google.com.au, if you search for 'plumbers gosford' (https://www.google.com.au/#q=plumbers+gosford), the wrong page appears - in this instance, the page ranking should be http://www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/PlumbersI can see this across the board, across multiple locations.
Secondly
Recently I've seen Google reporting in 'Crawl Errors' in webmaster tools URLs such as:
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Saunders-Beach,QLD/Electronic-Equipment-Sales-Repairs&Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OAThis is an invalid URL, and more specifically, those query strings seem to be referrer queries from Google themselves: &Sa=U&Ei=xs-XVJzAA9T_YQSMgIHQCw&Ved=0CIMBEBYwEg&Usg=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA
Here's the above example indexed in Google: https://www.google.com.au/#q="AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA"
Does anyone have any advice on those 2 errors?
-
Issue 1:
I think your intended ranking page is not indexed.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=site:http:%2F%2Fwww.localsearch.com.au
It's probably because, as Donna indicated, you have so many pages. This happens when you have what are essentially search pages that are indexed. Stuff happens like having a page for plumbing and plumbers in the same city, for example.
In the short term, you can make sure that non-indexed pages are linked to across the site. Long-term you're going to want to think of a way to organize your site to make sure Google and users can find the most important pages. For example, add breadcrumbs back to the city page, and have the city page linking to your most important types of pages (even if they're still searches) for the city. Right now your city pages are just more search pages, which is a big wasted opportunity to layout which pages you most want people to find. Also make sure you figure out what's going on between these two "types" of the exact same page. There should only be one for the same results where possible:
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Search?where=Gosford,NSW
Issue 2:
Look at the "linked from" and figure out where these bad pages are linked to on the site. Google wouldn't make up a URL if someone wasn't linking to them, and my guess is your site is causing them. With a highly-dynamic site like yours it's usually either a crawl trap or a combination of dynamic URLs through a particular path that the server wasn't expecting.
Alternatively, and maybe more likely, Google has been trying to parse Javascript lately, and doing a rather poor job of it. I've seen Google try to find links in Javascript that were never intended to be links. You can either ignore these errors and wait for Google to get better, or you can dig into the JS with a dev and see what's causing Google to interpret something as a link. There's usually another way to put the code together where Google understands.
-
Issue #1:
I think what you're doing is fine with canonicals. The problem (I think) might be all the duplicates. The page you're asking about (http://www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Plumbers) isn't indexed, yet ~5 million others are. Google is probably abandoning the site before all the relevant pages get indexed. You should look into removing duplicates like in the following examples:
-
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Australia
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Australia/ -
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Atherton,QLD
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Atherton,QLD/ -
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Albion-Park,NSW/Body-Ear-Piercing
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Albion-Park-Rail,NSW/Body-Ear-Piercing -
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Airlie-Beach,QLD/Breeze-Bar/profile/tSdO
http://www.localsearch.com.au/Airlie-Beach,QLD/Breeze-Bar/profile/tSdO.vcf
Issue #2:
Sounds like issue #1 and 2 are closely related. I think you're on the right path though. If it doesn't fix it, come back and ask again. You'll have eliminated some possibilities and can get a different perspective 2nd time round.
Good luck!
-
-
Issue #1
I'm not sure how else we would use them. The example given above (Gosford, NSW) is about 40KM (or around 20miles) from the page that is ranking (Wyong, NSW). In our business model, these are 2 separate markets. We wouldn't be able to canonical 1 to the other as they are completely separate.Issue #2
I believe the issue could be because we're displaying "search results" as static pages - this is something that I have my team working towards fixing by having "static" proximity based business listing pages (such as root.com/find/plumbers/state/city/suburb/) and having no-indexed search result pages (such as root.com/search?what=plumbers&where=suburb,state).The above may even fix issue #1, but I wanted to get some more information from a community as 2 minds are better than 1..
-
Issue #1
Neither of the results that Google has indexed when executing the site operator are duplicated pages - we also have canonical URLs setup on all pages to avoid duplicated URLs.You might not be using canonical tags to your advantage though. From what I can see, the canonical tags on pages just point to themselves as opposed to one master page that should be the catch-all for incoming links and social mentions.
With regards to the Title tags; unless there's a crowd of people agreeing with this, nearly everything I have found to try to prove this has fallen through - it seems having slightly similar title tags with brand name / locales included doesn't affect search results.
Some of the title tags you are using on pages are identical to one another, not "slightly similar". That's why I raised it.
Issue #2
_I don't believe this is the issue either as the actual pages still exist. _
Hm. I see. Those pages appear to be dynamically created, indexed, and canonicalized to themselves. Can you tag them as no-index?
-
Hi Donna, thanks for your reply.
Issue #1
Neither of the results that Google has indexed when executing the site operator are duplicated pages - we also have canonical URLs setup on all pages to avoid duplicated URLs.With regards to the Title tags; unless there's a crowd of people agreeing with this, nearly everything I have found to try to prove this has fallen through - it seems having slightly similar title tags with brand name / locales included doesn't affect search results.
Issue #2
I don't believe this is the issue either as the actual pages still exist.Thanks for your help though! Anything else you come up with, I'm open ears.
-
Issue #1:
You're right, you do seem to have a "variety of issues at the moment". The thing that stands out the most to me is duplicate content.
When I did a site search (site:http://www.localsearch.com.au/", Google indicates it has more than 5 million pages indexed on the site. When I did a site search for the specific URL in your example (site:http://www.localsearch.com.au/gosford,NSW/Plumbers), it found 2 results, neither of which the page in question. Yet your keywords were replicated in the page URLs, content, meta tags, and internal links. Google is probably having a heck of time figuring out which page to rank for what.
It also looks like you have your entire site replicated because URLs are indexed with and without a trailing "/".
Many of the title tags for Gosford pages are replicated containing "Gosford, NSW - LocalSearch" for example, www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Carriers-Light-Transport, www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford.../Radio-Communication-Equipment, www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Hair-Treatment-Replacement, www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Hobbies-Models-Accessories, www.localsearch.com.au/Gosford,NSW/Stone-Masons-Monumental, and so on. Can you see why Google might be confused.
That's probably the first thing you need to fix, duplicate content.
Issue #2:
This is a guess. These might be errors caused by pages that have been renamed or removed from the site and not properly redirected. Google can't find them. I'll be interested to hear if anyone else has any ideas.
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
-
Page must be internally linked to get indexed?
If a there is page like website.com/page; I think this page will be indexed by Google even we don't link it internally from anywhere. Is this true? Will it makes any difference in-terms of "indexability" if we list this page on sitemap? I know page's visibility will increase when link from multiple internal pages. I wonder will there be any noticeable difference while this page is listed in sitemap.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vtmoz0 -
"Null" appearing as top keyword in "Content Keywords" under Google index in Google Search Console
Hi, "Null" is appearing as top keyword in Google search console > Google Index > Content Keywords for our site http://goo.gl/cKaQ4K . We do not use "null" as keyword on site. We are not able to find why Google is treating "null" as a keyword for our site. Is anyone facing such issue. Thanks & Regards
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
Why Google isn't indexing my images?
Hello, on my fairly new website Worthminer.com I am noticing that Google is not indexing images from my sitemap. Already 560 images submitted and Google indexed only 3 of them. Altough there is more images indexed they are not indexing any new images, and I have no idea why. Posts, categories and other urls are indexing just fine, but images not. I am using Wordpress and for sitemaps Wordpress SEO by yoast. Am I missing something here? Why Google won't index my images? Thanks, I appreciate any help, David xv1GtwK.jpg
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Worthminer1 -
Why are bit.ly links being indexed and ranked by Google?
I did a quick search for "site:bit.ly" and it returns more than 10 million results. Given that bit.ly links are 301 redirects, why are they being indexed in Google and ranked according to their destination? I'm working on a similar project to bit.ly and I want to make sure I don't run into the same problem.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JDatSB1 -
Wrong page getting ranked
Hi all, we have product category pages on our ecommerce web site and we also produce blog content (such as buyers guides, setup guides etc) to help with ranking and give our site some good quality, unique content. However we are sometimes finding that the buyers guide / blog content gets ranked by Google over our product category page. I'm hoping, if I give an example or two, some one smart out there may be able to point me in the right direction as to how we can avoid this and get the product category page ranked instead? You will see from my examples we are linking internally using the keywords from the buyers guides to the product category pages in order to show the most important page to Google for these keywords and are trying to structure the product category pages as well as possible to make it the most optimized page for the term. Example: Keyword "twin dvd player"... product category page: http://www.3wisemonkeys.co.uk/dvd/portable-dvd-player-car/twin-dvd-player/ ... blog page actually getting ranked for this keyword: http://www.3wisemonkeys.co.uk/advice-center/dual-screen-and-twin-dvd-player-explained/ Keyword "site radio".... product category page: http://www.3wisemonkeys.co.uk/audio/radio/site-radio/ .... blog buyer guide page actually getting ranked for keyword: http://www.3wisemonkeys.co.uk/advice-center/Site-radio-buying-guide/ Any help / pointers appreciated. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jasef0 -
PR Dilution and Number of Pages Indexed
Hi Mozzers, My client is really pushing for me to get thousands, if not millions of pages indexed through the use of long-tail keywords. I know that I can probably get quite a few of them into Google, but will this dilute the PR on my site? These pages would be worthwhile in that if anyone actually visits them, there is a solid chance they will convert to a lead do to the nature of the long-tail keywords. My suggestion is to run all the keywords for these thousands of pages through adwords to check the number of queries and only create pages for the ones which actually receive searches. What do you guys think? I know that the content needs to have value and can't be scraped/low-quality and pulling these pages out of my butt won't end well, but I need solid evidence to make a case either for or against it to my clients.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Travis-W0 -
Google Page Rank Dead?
Does PR still work? I have sites that have PR3 and get almost no traffic and sites that are PR1 and get thousands of uniques per month. My PR on my main sites haven't moved for about 7 years, even though we've grown significantly. I know lots of you are going to jump in with get the MOZ toolbar, which I already have done, and I agree, it's great ... But can anyone tell me about what's going on with Google PR? Is it still active? Or has Google abandoned? I noticed that the Google toolbar is not even available for Google Chrome. That should say something ... If you like this question, do me a favor, and give me a THUMBS UP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | applesofgold2 -
Should you stop indexing of short lived pages?
In my site there will be a lot of pages that have a short life span of about a week as they are items on sale, should I nofollow the links meaning the site has a fwe hundred pages or allow indexing and have thousands but then have lots of links to pages that do not exist. I would of course if allowing indexing make sure the page links does not error and sends them to a similarly relevant page but which is best for me with the SEarch Engines? I would like to have the option of loads of links with pages of loads of content but not if it is detrimental Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | barney30120