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
-
Pages canonicaled to another appearing before the canonical on google searches
Hello, When I do this google search, this page(amandine roses category) appears before the one it is canonical-ed to(this multi-product version of amandine roses). This happens often with this multi-product template, where they don't rank as well as their category version(that are canonical to the multi-product version). Can someone maybe point us in the right direction on what the issue may be? What can be improved?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | globalrose.com0 -
Google Search Console - Indexed Pages
I am performing a site audit and looking at the "Index Status Report" in GSC. This shows a total of 17 URLs have been indexed. However when I look at the Sitemap report in GSC it shows 9,000 pages indexed. Also, when I perform a site: search on Google I get 24,000 results. Can anyone help me to explain these anomalies?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | richdan0 -
How does google treat dynamically generated content on a page?
I'm trying to find information on how google treats dynamically generated content within a webpage? (not dynamic urls) For example I have a list of our top 10 products with short product descriptions and links on our homepage to flow some of the pagerank to those individual product pages. My developer wants to make these top products dynamic to where they switch around daily. Won't this negatively affect my seo and ability to rank for those keywords if they keep switching around or would this help since the content would be updated so frequently?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ntsupply0 -
Do internal links from non-indexed pages matter?
Hi everybody! Here's my question. After a site migration, a client has seen a big drop in rankings. We're trying to narrow down the issue. It seems that they have lost around 15,000 links following the switch, but these came from pages that were blocked in the robots.txt file. I was wondering if there was any research that has been done on the impact of internal links from no-indexed pages. Would be great to hear your thoughts! Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Blink-SEO0 -
Will I lose traffic from Google for re-directing a page?
I’m currently planning to a retire a discontinued product and put a 301 redirect to a related product (although not identical). The thing is, I’m still getting significant traffic from people searching for the old product by name. Would Google send this traffic to the new pages via the re-direct? Is Google likely to display the new page in place of the old page for similar queries or will it serve other content? I’d like to answer this question so that I can decide between the two following approaches: 1) Retiring the old page immediately and putting a 301 redirect to the new related pages. This will have the advantage of transferring the value of any link signals / referring traffic. Traffic will also land on the new pages directly without having to click through from another page. We would have a dynamic message telling users that the old product had been retired depending on whether they had visited out site before. 2) Keep the old product pages temporarily so that we don’t lose the traffic from the search engines. We would then change the old pages to advise users that the old product was now retired, but that we have other products that might solve their problems. When this organic traffic decreases over time, then we will proceed with the re-direct as above. I am worried though that the old product pages might outrank the new product pages. I’d really appreciate some advice with this. I’ve been reading lots of articles, but it seems like there are different opinions on this. I understand that I will lose between 10% - 15% of page rank as per the Matt Cutts video.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RG_SEO0 -
Google + pages and SEO results...
Hi, Can anyone give me insight into how people are getting away with naming their business by the SEO search term, creating a BS Google + page, then having that page rank high in the search results. I am speaking specifically about the results you get when you Google: "Los Angeles DUI Lawyer". As you can see from my attached screenshot (I'm doing the search in Los Angeles), the FIRST listing is a Google + business. Strangely, the phone number listed doesn't actually take you to a DUI attorney, but rather to some marketing group that never answers the phone. Can anyone give me insight into why Google even allows this? I just find it odd that Google cares so much about the user experience, but have the first result be something completely misleading. I know it sounds like I'm just jealous (which I am, a little), but I find it disheartening that we work so hard on SEO, and someone takes the top spot with an obvious BS page. UupqBU9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mrodriguez14400 -
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 -
What to do if the wrong page is ranking?
What to do if the wrong page of your website is ranking and you cannot 301 it? Apparently an outsourced company the previous manager hired build anchor text links to the homepage, when those links should have been pointing to a deeper page. As a result, the hompage is now ranking for that term. But I think we can convert a lot more of the visitors if the deeper page is there instead. Obviously, I can't 301 the homepage. What would you do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | andrep0