Any way to force a URL out of Google index?
-
As far as I know, there is no way to truly FORCE a URL to be removed from Google's index. We have a page that is being stubborn. Even after it was 301 redirected to an internal secure page months ago and a noindex tag was placed on it in the backend, it still remains in the Google index.
I also submitted a request through the remove outdated content tool https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/removals and it said the content has been removed. My understanding though is that this only updates the cache to be consistent with the current index. So if it's still in the index, this will not remove it.
Just asking for confirmation - is there truly any way to force a URL out of the index? Or to even suggest more strongly that it be removed?
It's the first listing in this search https://www.google.com/search?q=hcahranswers&rlz=1C1GGRV_enUS753US755&oq=hcahr&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60j0l3.1700j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
-
Thank you! The redirect was my suspicion as well. It's the last issue that could be causing this, thank you for affirming.
-
If a "removed" URL keeps popping up, something somewhere is linking to it. Your best bet would be to do some link sleuthing to find out where on the web the link to the old URL lives. If it's on one of your own sites, bingo, just remove it and it will drop away. If it's on an outside site, it's worth trying to contact that old site owner and see if they are willing to update the link.
When you say that you 301'd the old URL to an internal secure URL, does that mean Google can't access the replacement? That could be part of why you still have the problem. If you can 301 it to a new public page which then provides a short bit of content letting humans know there is a new page, and providing them with a link to the new page, then at least you'll be sending Google to a page it can index and also sending humans on to the new private page. This is actually the only case of Google not respecting a 301 I've experienced; as long as you 301 to a page they can at least crawl - even if they are told not to index it - they usually drop the old URL out of the index fairly quickly.
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
-
Index Bloat: Canonicalize, Redirect or Delete URLs?
I was doing some simple on-page recommendations for a client and realized that they have a bit of a website bloat problem. They are an ecommerce shoe store and for one product, there could be 10+ URLs. For example, this is what ONE product looks like: example.com/products/shoename-color1 example.com/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/style/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/style/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/adifferentstyle/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/adifferentstyle/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/shop-latest-styles/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/shop-latest-styles/products/shoename-color2 example.com/collections/all/products/shoename-color1 example.com/collections/all/products/shoename-color2 ...and so on... all for the same shoe. They have about 20-30 shoes altogether, and some come in 4-5 colors. This has caused some major bloat on their site and I assume some confusion for the search engine. That said, I'm trying to figure out what the best way to tackle this is from an SEO perspective. Here's where I've gotten to so far: Is it better to canonicalize all URLs, referencing back to one "main" one, delete all bloat pages re-link everything to the main one(s), or 301 redirect the bloat URLs back to the "main" one(s)? Or is there another option that I haven't considered? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AJTSEO0 -
Does Google penalise in the way described in this article?
In an interesting article from January on content cannibalisation: https://ninjaoutreach.com/content-cannibalization-avoid/ there is the following paragraph: "When the same keyword is used across a number of pages of a single website, Google’s spiders automatically get directed to a page with low-grade quality which in turn results in the low ranking of all the pages on the website." Is this true? The suggestion here is that they automatically get directed there as a form of penalty. This seems like quite an extraordinary claim! Can anyone verify?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ad-Rank0 -
Old URLs that have 301s to 404s not being de-indexed.
We have a scenario on a domain that recently moved to enforcing SSL. If a page is requested over non-ssl (http) requests, the server automatically redirects to the SSL (https) URL using a good old fashioned 301. This is great except for any page that no longer exists, in which case you get a 301 going to a 404. Here's what I mean. Case 1 - Good page: http://domain.com/goodpage -> 301 -> https://domain.com/goodpage -> 200 Case 2 - Bad page that no longer exists: http://domain.com/badpage -> 301 -> https://domain.com/badpage -> 404 Google is correctly re-indexing all the "good" pages and just displaying search results going directly to the https version. Google is stubbornly hanging on to all the "bad" pages and serving up the original URL (http://domain.com/badpage) unless we submit a removal request. But there are hundreds of these pages and this is starting to suck. Note: the load balancer does the SSL enforcement, not the CMS. So we can't detect a 404 and serve it up first. The CMS does the 404'ing. Any ideas on the best way to approach this problem? Or any idea why Google is holding on to all the old "bad" pages that no longer exist, given that we've clearly indicated with 301s that no one is home at the old address?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | boxclever0 -
Is there a way to make Google realize/detect scraper content?
Good morning,Theory states that duplicated content reduces certain keywords’ position in Google. It also says that a web who copy content will be penalized. Furthermore, we have spam report tools and the scraper report to inform against these bad practices.In my case: the website, both, sells content to other sites and write and prepare its own content which is not in sale. However, other sites copy these last ones, publish them and Google do not penalize their position in results (not in organic results neither in Google news), even though they are reported using Google tools for that purpose.Could someone explain this to me? Is there a way to make Google realize/detect these bad practices?Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoseoseos0 -
"No Index, No Follow" or No Index, Follow" for URLs with Thin Content?
Greetings MOZ community: If I have a site with about 200 thin content pages that I want Google to remove from their index, should I set them to "No Index, No Follow" or to "No Index, Follow"? My SEO firm has advised me to set them to "No Index, Follow" but on a recent MOZ help forum post someone suggested "No Index, No Follow". The MOZ poster said that telling Google the content was should not be indexed but the links should be followed was inconstant and could get me into trouble. This make a lot of sense. What is proper form? As background, I think I have recently been hit with a Panda 4.0 penalty for thin content. I have several hundred URLs with less than 50 words and want them de-indexed. My site is a commercial real estate site and the listings apparently have too little content. Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Overly-Dynamic URLs & Changing URL Structure w Web Redesign
I have a client that has multiple apartment complexes in different states and metro areas. They get good traffic and pretty good conversions but the site needs a lot of updating, including the architecture, to implement SEO standards. Right now they rank for " <brand_name>apartments" on every place but not " <city_name>apartments".</city_name></brand_name> There current architecture displays their URLs like: http://www.<client_apartments>.com/index.php?mainLevelCurrent=communities&communityID=28&secLevelCurrent=overview</client_apartments> http://www.<client_apartments>.com/index.php?mainLevelCurrent=communities&communityID=28&secLevelCurrent=floorplans&floorPlanID=121</client_apartments> I know it is said to never change the URL structure but what about this site? I see this URL structure being bad for SEO, bad for users, and basically forces us to keep the current architecture. They don't have many links built to their community pages so will creating a new URL structure and doing 301 redirects to the new URLs drastically drop rankings? Is this something that we should bite the bullet on now for future rankings, traffic, and a better architecture?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JaredDetroit0 -
How long does it take before URL's are removed from Google?
Hello, I recently changed our websites url structures removing the .html at the end. I had about 55 301's setup from the old url to the new. Within a day all the new URL's were listed in Google, but the old .html ones still have not been removed a week later. Is there something I am missing? Or will it just take time for them to get de-indexed? As well, so far the Page Authority hasn't transfered from the old pages to the new, is this typical? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SeanConroy0 -
Who does google require a 3 digit number for news URLs?
Here, google mentions that article URLs should contain a 3 digit number: http://www.google.com/support/news_pub/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=68323 Why is this? Also, do you think it is good to have both a news sitemap and 3 digits at the end of a URL? Or, will one do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0