Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
Mass Removal Request from Google Index
-
Hi,
I am trying to cleanse a news website. When this website was first made, the people that set it up copied all kinds of articles they had as a newspaper, including tests, internal communication, and drafts. This site has lots of junk, but this kind of junk was on the initial backup, aka before 1st-June-2012. So, removing all mixed content prior to that date, we can have pure articles starting June 1st, 2012!
Therefore
- My dynamic sitemap now contains only articles with release date between 1st-June-2012 and now
- Any article that has release date prior to 1st-June-2012 returns a custom 404 page with "noindex" metatag, instead of the actual content of the article.
The question is how I can remove from the google index all this junk as fast as possible that is not on the site anymore, but still appears in google results?
I know that for individual URLs I need to request removal from this link
https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removalsThe problem is doing this in bulk, as there are tens of thousands of URLs I want to remove. Should I put the articles back to the sitemap so the search engines crawl the sitemap and see all the 404? I believe this is very wrong. As far as I know this will cause problems because search engines will try to access non existent content that is declared as existent by the sitemap, and return errors on the webmasters tools.
Should I submit a DELETED ITEMS SITEMAP using the <expires>tag? I think this is for custom search engines only, and not for the generic google search engine.
https://developers.google.com/custom-search/docs/indexing#on-demand-indexing</expires>The site unfortunatelly doesn't use any kind of "folder" hierarchy in its URLs, but instead the ugly GET params, and a kind of folder based pattern is impossible since all articles (removed junk and actual articles) are of the form:
http://www.example.com/docid=123456So, how can I bulk remove from the google index all the junk... relatively fast?
-
Hi Ioannis,
What about the first suggestion? Can you create a page linking to all of the pages that you'd like to remove, then have Google crawl that page?
Best,
Kristina
-
Thank you Kristina,
I know about the URL structure, I have been trying the past few months to cleanse this site that I was not involved in its creation. It has several more SEO problems that have either been fixed or not yet, but we are talking about more than 50 SEO problems I've found so far - most of these critical.
On the sitemap that I built, the junk pages do not exist, and because this is sitemap I have written myself, I can easily make another containing the articles that I have removed (just reverse a part of my select query for the sitemap to get the ones I have removed).
http://www.neakriti.gr/webservices/sitemap-index.aspx
So far I implemented the last of your suggestions and here is an example:
This is a valid article page
http://www.neakriti.gr/?page=newsdetail&DocID=1314221 - (Status Code: 200)This is a non existent article page (never existed at the first place) - (Status Code: 404)
http://www.neakriti.gr/?page=newsdetail&DocID=12345678This is one of the articles that I removed from sitemap and site - (Status Code: 410)
http://www.neakriti.gr/?page=newsdetail&DocID=894052Also I would like you to take a look at another question about the same site and see that it can relate to this question with garbage articles too...
https://moz.com/community/q/multiple-instances-of-the-same-articleThank you so much!
-
Hi Ioannis,
You're in quite a bind here, without a good URL structure! I don't think there's any one perfect option, but I think all of these will work:
- Create a page on your site that links to every article you would like to delete, keeping those articles 404/410ed. Then, use the Fetch as Googlebot tool, and ask Google to crawl the page plus all of its links. This will get Google to quickly crawl all of those pages, see that they're gone, and remove them from their index. Keep in mind that if you just use a 404, Google may keep the page around for a bit to make sure you didn't just mess up. As Eric said, a 410 is more of a sure thing.
- Create an XML sitemap of those deleted articles, and have Google crawl it. Yes, this will create errors in GSC, but errors in GSC mean that they're concerned you've made a mistake, not that they're necessarily penalizing you. Just mark those guys as fixed and take the sitemap down once Google's crawled it.
- 410 these pages, remove all internal links to them (use a tool like Screaming Frog to make sure you didn't miss any links!), and remove them from your sitemap. That'll distance you from that old, crappy content, and Google will slowly realize that it's been removed as it checks in on its old pages. This is probably the least satisfying option, but it's an option that'll get the job done eventually.
Hope this helps! Let us know what you decide to do.
Best,
Kristina
-
Thank you,
so you suggest that based on my date based query, instead of blocking everything before that date blindly, keep blocking it with 410, while anything that doesn't exist anyway return 404.
Also another question, about the blocked articles that return 410, should I put their URLs back on the xml sitemap or not?
-
Any article that has release date prior to 1st-June-2012 should return a custom 410 page with "noindex" metatag, instead of the actual content of the article.
The error returned should be a "410 gone" and not just a 404. That way Google will treat it differently, and may remove it from the index faster than just returning a 404. Also, you can use the Google removal tool, as well. Don't forget the robots.txt file, as well, there may be directories with the content that you need to disallow.
But overall, using a 410 is going to be better and most likely faster.
-
Thank you for your response.
I defenintelly cannot use noindex because as I explained I changed all articles prior to the minimum given date to return 404. So this content is not visibly available on the web in order to contain a noindex directive. Unless you mean to have it at my custom 404 page, where yes its there.
Also there is no folder to associate in robots, since they are in ugly form of GET params like DOCID=12345. So given that, there are thousands of DocIDs that are junk and removed, and thousands that are the actuall articles.
So I assumed that creating a "deleted articles" sitemap where each <url>will contain an <expires>2016-06-01</expires> tag seemed the most logical thing, but I am afraid its for "custom search engines", rather than for normal de-index requests as its provided bellow</url>
https://developers.google.com/custom-search/docs/indexing#on-demand-indexing
-
Sitemaps is definitely not the way to go for this as you can't just have an expires tag in there and it would make pages go away. The best option to go with is the meta robots and then put them either on nonindex, nofollow, or noindex, follow. With this approach and hopefully with a relative high crawl rate you can make sure that the data from these pages will be removed from the Google Index as soon as possible.
If you still want these pages to be indexed but maybe just not have them crawled anymore, which I don't think you'd like to do based on your explanation then go with robots.txt and excluding the pages in there that you'd like to.
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
-
Staging website got indexed by google
Our staging website got indexed by google and now MOZ is showing all inbound links from staging site, how should i remove those links and make it no index. Note- we already added Meta NOINDEX in head tag
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Asmi-Ta0 -
Can Google Crawl & Index my Schema in CSR JavaScript
We currently only have one option for implementing our Schema. It is populated in the JSON which is rendered by JavaScript on the CLIENT side. I've heard tons of mixed reviews about if this will work or not. So, does anyone know for sure if this will or will not work. Also, how can I build a test to see if it does or does not work?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MJTrevens0 -
My product category pages are not being indexed on google can someone help?
My website has been indexed on google and all of its pages can be found on google except for the product category pages - which are where we want our traffic heading to, so this is a big problem for us. Our website is www.skirtinguk.com And an example of a page that isn't being indexed is https://www.skirtinguk.com/product-category/mdf-skirting-board/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | chelseaskirtinguk0 -
Does Google Index URLs that are always 302 redirected
Hello community Due to the architecture of our site, we have a bunch of URLs that are 302 redirected to the same URL plus a query string appended to it. For example: www.example.com/hello.html is 302 redirected to www.example.com/hello.html?___store=abc The www.example.com/hello.html?___store=abc page also has a link canonical tag to www.example.com/hello.html In the above example, can www.example.com/hello.html every be Indexed, by google as I assume the googlebot will always be redirected to www.example.com/hello.html?___store=abc and will never see www.example.com/hello.html ? Thanks in advance for the help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommRulz0 -
Google indexing pages from chrome history ?
We have pages that are not linked from site yet they are indexed in Google. It could be possible if Google got these pages from browser. Does Google takes data from chrome?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
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 -
How is Google crawling and indexing this directory listing?
We have three Directory Listing pages that are being indexed by Google: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/ http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/html/ http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/pdf/ How and why is Googlebot crawling and indexing these pages? Nothing else links to them (although the /jsp.html/ and /jsp/pdf/ both link back to /jsp/). They aren't disallowed in our robots.txt file and I understand that this could be why. If we add them to our robots.txt file and disallow, will this prevent Googlebot from crawling and indexing those Directory Listing pages without prohibiting them from crawling and indexing the content that resides there which is used to populate pages on our site? Having these pages indexed in Google is causing a myriad of issues, not the least of which is duplicate content. For example, this file <tt>CCI-SALES-STAFF.HTML</tt> (which appears on this Directory Listing referenced above - http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/html/) clicks through to this Web page: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/jsp/html/CCI-SALES-STAFF.HTML This page is indexed in Google and we don't want it to be. But so is the actual page where we intended the content contained in that file to display: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/meet-our-sales-staff As you can see, this results in duplicate content problems. Is there a way to disallow Googlebot from crawling that Directory Listing page, and, provided that we have this URL in our sitemap: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/meet-our-sales-staff, solve the duplicate content issue as a result? For example: Disallow: /StoreFront/jsp/ Disallow: /StoreFront/jsp/html/ Disallow: /StoreFront/jsp/pdf/ Can we do this without risking blocking Googlebot from content we do want crawled and indexed? Many thanks in advance for any and all help on this one!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo0 -
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