Development/Test Ecommerce Website Mistakenly Indexed
-
My question is - relatively speaking, how damaging to SEO is it to have BOTH your development/testing site and your live version indexed/crawled by Google and appearing in the SERPs?
We just launched about a month ago, and made a change to the robots text on the development site without noticing ... which lead to it being indexed too.So now the ecommerce website is duplicated in Google ... each under different URLs of course (and on diff servers, DNS etc)
We'll fix it right away ... and block crawlers to the development site. But again, may general question is what is the general damage to SEO ... if any ... created by this kind of mistake. My feeling is nothing significant
-
No my friend, no! I'm saying we'll point the existing staging/testing environment to the production version and will stop using it as staging instead of closing it completely like I mentioned earlier. And, we'll launch a fresh instance for staging/testing use case.
This will help us transferring majority if the link juice of already indexed staging/testing instance.
-
Why would you want to 301 a staging/dev environment to a production site? Unless you plan on making live changes to the production server (not safe), you'd want to keep them separate. Especially for eCommerce it would be important to have different environments to test and QA before pushing a change live. Making any change that impacts a number of pages could damage your ability to generate revenue from the site. You don't take down the development/testing site, because that's your safe environment to test changes before pushing updates to production.
I'm not sure I follow your recommendation. Am I missing a critical point?
-
Hi Eric,
Well, that's a valid point that bots might have considered your staging instances as the main website and hence, this could end up giving you nothing but a face palm.
The solution you suggested is similar to the one I suggested where we are not getting any benefit from the existing instance by removing it or putting noindex everywhere.
My bad! I assumed your staging/testing instance(s) got indexed recently only and are not very powerful from domain & page authority perspective. In fact, being a developer, I should have considered the worst case only
Thanks for pointing out the worst case Eric i.e when your staging/testing instances are decently old and you don't want to loose their SEO values while fixing this issue. And, here'e my proposed solution for it: don't removed the instance, don't even put a noindex everywhere. The better solution would be establishing a 301 redirect bridge from your staging/testing instance to your original website. In this case, ~90% of the link juice that your staging/testing instances have earned, will get passed. Make sure each and every URL of the staging/testing instance is properly 301 redirecting to the original instance.
Hope this helps!
-
It could hurt you in the long run (Google may decide the dev site is more relevant than your live site), but this is an easy fix. No-index your dev site. Just slap a site-wide noindex meta tag across all the pages, and when you're ready to move that code to the production site you remove that instance of code.
Disallowing from the robots.txt file will help, but that's a soft request. The best way to keep the dev site from being indexed is to use the noindex tag. Since it seems like you want to QA in a live environment that would prevent search engines from indexing the site, and still allow you to test in a production-like scenario.
-
Hey,
I recently faced the same issue when the staging instances got indexed accidentally and we were open for the duplicate content penalty (well, that's not cool). After a decent bit of research, I followed the following steps and got rid of this issue:
- I removed my staging instances i.e staging1.mysite.com, staging2.mysite.com and so on. Removing such instances helps you deindex already indexed pages faster than just blocking the whole website from robots.txt
- Relaunched the staging instances with a slightly different name like new-staging1.mysite.com, new-staging2.mysite.com and disallow bots on these instances from the day zero to avoid this mess again.
This helped me fixing this issue asap. Hope this helps!
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
-
Does anyone know how dynamic/personalized website content affects SEO?
A client using Marketo has inquired about personalizing their website content to be personalized based on a persona. To be clear, I'm talking about key website pages, maybe even the Home page, not PPC/campaign specific landing pages. For example, areas of on the site would change to display content differently to a CEO vs a sales person. I'm new to marketing automation and don't exactly know how this piece works. Hoping someone here has experience or can provide pros/cons guidance. How would search engines work with this type of page? Here's Marketo's site explaining what it does: https://docs.marketo.com/display/public/DOCS/Web+Personalization+-+RTP
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Flock.Media0 -
301s being indexed
A client website was moved about six months ago to a new domain. At the time of the move, 301 redirects were setup from the pages on the old domain to point to the same page on the new domain. New pages were setup on the old domain for a different purpose. Now almost six months later when I do a query in google on the old domain like site:example.com 80% of the pages returned are 301 redirects to the new domain. I would have expected this to go away by now. I tried removing these URLs in webmaster tools but the removal requests expire and the URLs come back. Is this something we should be concerned with?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | IrvCo_Interactive0 -
Canonicalized Website
We are new to SEO MOZ, and as we are doing our evaluation, multiple page problems have arisen. Our domain is www.moxicopy.com and www.moxicopy.com/blog. Our blog is wordpress hosted but integrated into our site. As we ran our analytics from MOZ PRO, we got TONS of Duplicate Page Title and Duplicate Page Content warnings, over 90 each. Most seem to come from our blog and our different products (we are an ecommerce website). Would the canonicalization of the pages be the cause? And couuld someone further explain exactly what canonical/canonicalization is>? I am very confused, and have a feeling that this is what has hurt our site so much in the last 2-3 weeks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Moxicopy.com0 -
SEO for eCommerce?
I'm working on a game plan for the on-page optimization for a growing e-commerce site (https://www.boutine.com) and I'm wondering if anyone has any experience with similar projects. Specifically, how to get the most SEO value out of product and category pages. Thanks in advance! -Adam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | boutine0 -
Indexing non-indexed content and Google crawlers
On a news website we have a system where articles are given a publish date which is often in the future. The articles were showing up in Google before the publish date despite us not being able to find them linked from anywhere on the website. I've added a 'noindex' meta tag to articles that shouldn't be live until a future date. When the date comes for them to appear on the website, the noindex disappears. Is anyone aware of any issues doing this - say Google crawls a page that is noindex, then 2 hours later it finds out it should now be indexed? Should it still appear in Google search, News etc. as normal, as a new page? Thanks. 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Alex-Harford0 -
Duplicate Content/ Indexing Question
I have a real estate Wordpress site that uses an IDX provider to add real estate listings to my site. A new page is created as a new property comes to market and then the page is deleted when the property is sold. I like the functionality of the service but it creates a significant amount of 404's and I'm also concerned about duplicate content because anyone else using the same service here in Las Vegas will have 1000's of the exact same property pages that I do. Any thoughts on this and is there a way that I can have the search engines only index the core 20 pages of my site and ignore future property pages? Your advice is greatly appreciated. See link for example http://www.mylvcondosales.com/mandarin-las-vegas/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AnthonyLasVegas0 -
Multiple cities/regions websites - duplicate content?
We're about to launch a second site for a different, neighbouring city in which we are going to setup a marketing campaign to target sales in that city (which will also have a separate office there as well). We are going to have it under the same company name, but different domain name and we're going to do our best to re-write the text content as much as possible. We want to avoid Google seeing this as a duplicate site in any way, but what about: the business name the toll free number (which we would like to have same on both sites) the graphics/image files (which we would like to have the same on both sites) site structure, coding styles, other "forensic" items anything I might not be thinking of... How are we best to proceed with this? What about cross-linking the sites?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | webdesignbarrie0 -
What To Do For A Website That is Mainly Images
I have a website that is a desktop wallpaper script. People can come and upload 100's of wallpapers to share with the community. This is were the problems comes in. Files are normally called 27636dark.jpg or whatever and come with no description. This leads to 2 things. no text content that google can use to know what the page/image is about. Meta descriptions, URL's just look like spam. Example: /car-wallpapers/7636dark.jpg If a text description was added, it would still only be like "Green Trees in the distance". Which as you may guess, with 1,000's of wallpapers... would end up having a lot of descriptions the same. Is there any advice for sites that focus on image driven content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | rhysmaster0