Javascript content not being indexed by Google
-
I thought Google has gotten better at picking up unique content from javascript. I'm not seeing it with our site. We rate beauty and skincare products using our algorithms. Here is an example of a product -- https://www.skinsafeproducts.com/tide-free-gentle-he-liquid-laundry-detergent-100-fl-oz
When you look at the cache page (text) from google none of the core ratings (badges like fragrance free, top free and so forth) are being picked up for ranking. Any idea what we could do to have the rating incorporated in the indexation.
-
Hello!
Pretty sure the issue is that this content requires a user action before being seen. Google will not crawl/index content which is not loaded until the user interacts. This post is a great resource %20Summary:%20How%20to%20Make%20Your%20Company%20Diverse%20Without%20Focusing%20on%20Diversity%20%20%20Name:%20Heather%20Huhman%20Spark%20Hire%20%20Category:%20Business%20and%20Finance%20%20%20Email:%20query-7wru@helpareporter.net%20%20%20Media%20Outlet:%20Spark%20Hire%20%20Deadline:%205:00%20PM%20EST%20-%2023%20April%20%20%20Query:%20%20%20LinkedIn's%20most%20recent%20Global%20Recruiting%20Trends%20report,%20recruiters%20say%20their%20top%20focus%20is%20on%20diversity%20and%20inclusion.%20But%20when%20it%20comes%20to%20hiring%20for%20diversity,%20there's%20a%20misunderstanding%20that%20the%20focus%20must%20be%20on%20the%20ethnicity,%20race,%20and%20sex%20of%20candidates.%20We're%20looking%20for%20insight%20into%20how%20hiring%20pros%20can%20break%20out%20of%20that%20rigid%20diversity%20box%20and%20find%20creative%20ways%20to%20hire%20diverse%20candidates%20who%20will%20positively%20impact%20various%20aspects%20of%20their%20company.%20Responses%20that%20are%20selected%20will%20be%20featured%20on%20the%20Spark%20Hire%20blog%20and%20promoted%20to%20over%2010K%20blog%20subscribers.%20%20Please%20respond%20to%20the%20following%20questions:%20%20How%20can%20focusing%20only%20on%20the%20ethnicity,%20race,%20and%20sex%20of%20candidates%20hurt%20hiring%20pros'%20efforts%20of%20hiring%20the%20best%20diverse%20candidates?%20What%20other%20candidate%20factors%20can%20hiring%20pros%20look%20into%20to%20find%20diverse%20candidates?%20Please%20share%20a%20story%20of%20a%20time%20when%20you%20or%20a%20fellow%20hiring%20pro%20narrowed%20your%20diversity%20focus%20too%20much,%20resulting%20in%20hires%20that%20weren%27t%20the%20best%20fit%20for%20the%20company.%20How%20can%20hiring%20professionals%20create%20a%20unique%20hiring%20strategy%20to%20attract%20diverse%20candidates%20who%20are%20the%20best%20fit%20for%20their%20open%20roles%20and%20company?%20%20Requirements:%20%20%20Please%20send%20your%20input%20in%20your%20initial%20response%20(don%27t%20send%20requests%20for%20interviews%20or%20article%20links).%20Include%20%22How%20to%20Make%20Your%20Company%20Diverse%20Without%20Focusing%20on%20Diversity%22%20in%20the%20subject%20line.%20Answer%20each%20question%20separately.%20Keep%20answers%20brief%20but%20informative.%20%20Include:%20%20Your%20title%20and%20qualifications%20Contact%20information,%20including%20an%20email%20Headshot%20(must%20be%20a%20link%20and%20at%20least%20200x200)%20Twitter%20handle%20%20Thank%20You.)on JS auditing/crawling%20Summary:%20How%20to%20Make%20Your%20Company%20Diverse%20Without%20Focusing%20on%20Diversity%20%20%20Name:%20Heather%20Huhman%20Spark%20Hire%20%20Category:%20Business%20and%20Finance%20%20%20Email:%20query-7wru@helpareporter.net%20%20%20Media%20Outlet:%20Spark%20Hire%20%20Deadline:%205:00%20PM%20EST%20-%2023%20April%20%20%20Query:%20%20%20LinkedIn's%20most%20recent%20Global%20Recruiting%20Trends%20report,%20recruiters%20say%20their%20top%20focus%20is%20on%20diversity%20and%20inclusion.%20But%20when%20it%20comes%20to%20hiring%20for%20diversity,%20there's%20a%20misunderstanding%20that%20the%20focus%20must%20be%20on%20the%20ethnicity,%20race,%20and%20sex%20of%20candidates.%20We're%20looking%20for%20insight%20into%20how%20hiring%20pros%20can%20break%20out%20of%20that%20rigid%20diversity%20box%20and%20find%20creative%20ways%20to%20hire%20diverse%20candidates%20who%20will%20positively%20impact%20various%20aspects%20of%20their%20company.%20Responses%20that%20are%20selected%20will%20be%20featured%20on%20the%20Spark%20Hire%20blog%20and%20promoted%20to%20over%2010K%20blog%20subscribers.%20%20Please%20respond%20to%20the%20following%20questions:%20%20How%20can%20focusing%20only%20on%20the%20ethnicity,%20race,%20and%20sex%20of%20candidates%20hurt%20hiring%20pros'%20efforts%20of%20hiring%20the%20best%20diverse%20candidates?%20What%20other%20candidate%20factors%20can%20hiring%20pros%20look%20into%20to%20find%20diverse%20candidates?%20Please%20share%20a%20story%20of%20a%20time%20when%20you%20or%20a%20fellow%20hiring%20pro%20narrowed%20your%20diversity%20focus%20too%20much,%20resulting%20in%20hires%20that%20weren%27t%20the%20best%20fit%20for%20the%20company.%20How%20can%20hiring%20professionals%20create%20a%20unique%20hiring%20strategy%20to%20attract%20diverse%20candidates%20who%20are%20the%20best%20fit%20for%20their%20open%20roles%20and%20company?%20%20Requirements:%20%20%20Please%20send%20your%20input%20in%20your%20initial%20response%20(don%27t%20send%20requests%20for%20interviews%20or%20article%20links).%20Include%20%22How%20to%20Make%20Your%20Company%20Diverse%20Without%20Focusing%20on%20Diversity%22%20in%20the%20subject%20line.%20Answer%20each%20question%20separately.%20Keep%20answers%20brief%20but%20informative.%20%20Include:%20%20Your%20title%20and%20qualifications%20Contact%20information,%20including%20an%20email%20Headshot%20(must%20be%20a%20link%20and%20at%20least%20200x200)%20Twitter%20handle%20%20Thank%20You.) and will show you how to use Chrome's 'inspect element' as a better way to see what's going on.
But in general, the content needs to load before a user action takes place (even if in JS) and yes Google is getting better, but won't look at anything behind a click. Google just confirmed this at their recent I/O conference, stating that they do render JavaScript but it could be a week after they first render the normal HTML.
-Dan
PS - Huge apologies for the delay in answering, Moz was having technical issues with the backend of the forum, affecting the ability to reply to some questions.
-
Hi akih,
I don't believe the "text-only" cache is representative of Google's index. They process JavaScript via their rendering service before they index content - so the full cached version is a more accurate representation of the content Google has seen/indexed.
Also, I ran a search for your site using a snippet of copy from the "Common Preservative Free" badge, and Google is returning pages with this text in the displayed page description. Here's a link to the SERP for the query I used.
I'd say Google's able to see and index this content just fine - it's just the "text-only" cached content does not include any JavaScript-rendered content.
Best,
Mike
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
-
No images in Google index
No images are indexed on this site (client of ours): http://www.rubbermagazijn.nl/. We've tried everything (descriptive alt texts, image sitemaps, fetch&render, check robots) but a site:www.rubbermagazijn.nl shows 0 image results and the sitemap report in Search Console shows 0 images indexed. We're not sure how to proceed from here. Is there anyone with an idea what the problem could be?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Adriaan.Multiply0 -
Website dropped out from Google index
Howdy, fellow mozzers. I got approached by my friend - their website is https://www.hauteheadquarters.com She is saying that they dropped from google index over night - and, as you can see if you google their name, website url or even site: , most of the pages are not indexed. Home page is nowhere to be found - that's for sure. I know that they were indexed before. Google webmaster tools don't have any manual actions (at least yet). No sudden changes in content or backlink profile. robots.txt has some weird rule - disallow everything for EtaoSpider. I don't know if google would listen to that - robots checker in GWT says it's all good. Any ideas why that happen? Any ideas what I should check? P.S. Just noticed in GWT there was a huge drop in indexed pages within first week of August. Still no idea why though. P.P.S. Just noticed that there is noindex x-robots-tag in headers... Anyone knows where this can be set?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DmitriiK0 -
Google Not Indexing App Content
Hello Mozzers I recently noticed that there has been an increase in crawl errors reported in Google Search console & Google has stopped indexing our app content. Could this be due to the fact that there is a mismatch between the host path name mentioned within the android deeplink (within the alternate tag) and the actual URL of the page. For instance on the following desktop page http://www.example.com.au/page-1 the android deeplink points to http://www.example.com.au/android-app://com.example/http/www.example.com.au/4652374 Please note that the content on both pages (desktop & android) is same.Is this is a correct setup or am I doing something wrong here? Any help would be much appreciated. Thank you so much in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | InMarketingWeTrust0 -
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
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | localdirectories
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/Plumbers I 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=AFQjCNHXPrZZg0JU3O4yTGjWbijon1Q8OA This 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?0 -
User generated content - manual warning from Google
Over the weekend our website received large amounts of spammy comments / user profiles on our forums. This has led to Google giving us a partial manual action until we clear things up. So far we have: Cleared up all the spam, banned the offending user accounts, and temporary enabled admin-approval for new sign ups. We are currently investigating upgrading the forum software to the latest version in order to make the forums less susceptible to this kind of attack. Could anyone let me know whether they think it is the right time for us to submit a reconsideration request to get the manual action removed? Will the temporary actions we have taken be enough to get the ban lifted, or should we wait until the forum software has been updated? I'd really appreciate any advice, especially if there is anyone here who has experienced this issue themselves 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RG_SEO0 -
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 -
How to Avoid Duplicate Content Issues with Google?
We have 1000s of audio book titles at our Web store. Google's Panda de-valued our site some time ago because, I believe, of duplicate content. We get our descriptions from the publishers which means a good
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | lbohen
deal of our description pages are the same as the publishers = duplicate content according to Google. Although re-writing each description of the products we offer is a daunting, almost impossible task, I am thinking of re-writing publishers' descriptions using The Best Spinner software which allows me to replace some of the publishers' words with synonyms. I have re-written one audio book title's description resulting in 8% unique content from the original in 520 words. I did a CopyScape Check and it reported "65 duplicates." CopyScape appears to be reporting duplicates of words and phrases within sentences and paragraphs. I see very little duplicate content of full sentences
or paragraphs. Does anyone know whether Google's duplicate content algorithm is the same or similar to CopyScape's? How much of an audio book's description would I have to change to stay away from CopyScape's duplicate content algorithm? How much of an audio book's description would I have to change to stay away from Google's duplicate content algorithm?0 -
Google consolidating link juice on duplicate content pages
I've observed some strange findings on a website I am diagnosing and it has led me to a possible theory that seems to fly in the face of a lot of thinking: My theory is:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
When google see's several duplicate content pages on a website, and decides to just show one version of the page, it at the same time agrigates the link juice pointing to all the duplicate pages, and ranks the 1 duplicate content page it decides to show as if all the link juice pointing to the duplicate versions were pointing to the 1 version. EG
Link X -> Duplicate Page A
Link Y -> Duplicate Page B Google decides Duplicate Page A is the one that is most important and applies the following formula to decide its rank. Link X + Link Y (Minus some dampening factor) -> Page A I came up with the idea after I seem to have reverse engineered this - IE the website I was trying to sort out for a client had this duplicate content, issue, so we decided to put unique content on Page A and Page B (not just one page like this but many). Bizarrely after about a week, all the Page A's dropped in rankings - indicating a possibility that the old link consolidation, may have been re-correctly associated with the two pages, so now Page A would only be getting Link Value X. Has anyone got any test/analysis to support or refute this??0