PLEASE HELP - Old query string URL causing problems
-
For a long time, we were ranking 1st/2nd for the term "Manual handling training". That was until about 5 days ago when I realised that Google had started to index not only a query stringed URL, but also an old version of the URL.
What was even weirder was that when you clicked on the result it 301 redirected to the page that it was meant to display...
The wrong URL that Google had started to index was: www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/manual-handling?channel=retail
The correct URL that it should have been indexing is: https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/manual-handling-training
I can't get my head around why it has done this as a 301 was in place already and we use rel canonical tags which point to the main parent pages.
Anyway, we slapped a noindex tag in our robots.txt file to stop that page from being indexed, which worked but now I can't get the correct page to be indexed, even after a Google fetch.
After inspecting the correct URL in the new search console I discovered that Google has ignored the rel canonical on the page (Which points to itself) and has selected the wrong, query stringed URL as the canonical. Why? and how do I rectify this?
-
Brilliant! good luck with it. Please do me a favour and hit the 'good answer' button thanks
-
Thanks Nigel,
This is being actioned
Hugely appreciate your time.
-
Hi iHasco
It doesn't only affect this URL. I only quickly looked at the sitemap (https://www.ihasco.co.uk/site-map/google) but found that other one as well. I don't know what the defunct page URL so have no idea why it is listing that but it (Google) is not listing the main one or the one with the slash. The fact is that both work so you need to get rid of one.
I can't possibly explain how your dynamic system has done this I can only illustrate the problem and give you a solution. I hope you deem the solution more than just 'an interesting point'
Regards
Nigel
-
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for taking the time to respond.
That's an interesting point but why would this problem only affect this URL?
We have over 80 pages (courses) which use the same template. These pages are dynamic, so if one page is experiencing problems in Google (such as pulling an old URL) why aren't the other 79 pages doing the same?
Also, I understand that the trailing slash could be seen as a duplicate page in Google, however, this doesn’t explain why it’s pulling an old (now redirected) URL of that page? We don’t use that old URL anywhere on our site, no even in the sitemap.
Many thanks,
-
Hi iHasco
Neither seem to rank.
What I think
Your sitemap has the wrong URL in it - with a trailing slash at the end: https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/manual-handling-training/
The website has a version without a trailing slash! https://www.ihasco.co.uk/courses/detail/manual-handling-trainingThis means there are effectively two versions of this page so you have perfect duplication as both are regarded as different by Google.
The Solution: 1. Remove the trailing slash version of the page.
2. 301 redirect the trailing slash to the non-trailing slash in htaccess
3. Check for other problems in the sitemap - eg you have a page https://www.ihasco.co.uk/terms-and-policies/terms-and-conditions-of-use/ in the sitemap which redirects to **https://www.ihasco.co.uk/terms-and-policies. **If there is a redirect or a canonical in place DO NOT put the original URLs in the sitemap!
4. Put a general directive in htaccess 301'ing all trailing slashes to non-trailing slashes to avoid any further problems.
5. For a quicker result go to Seach Console and physically remove the trailing slash version of the page. It'll be gone tomorrow. At the same time to a Fetch Google for the correct URL - you will be back at number 1-3 within a week.You basically have a situation where you have duplicate content, Google doesn't know which version to rank so ranks neither. You also have a problem where Google does not trust your sitemap so make sure the sitemap is a pure reflection of what is on the site. If you don't then Google will not trust your 301s or canonicals and could end up ranking other spurious pages.
I hope that helps
Regards
Nigel
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
-
Keywords in URL
I have an ecommerce store and i am using moz to get it into the best seo situation... my question is this..... I want to know how important it is to have the targeted keyword actually in the product page url.... I working on meta title and description which is good, but if i start changing all my product urls, it has major impact on the work i have to do since i would have to redo all my product links in ads, and all my product urls in emails, etc. So how much of a part do the urls play in seo?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bkhoward20010 -
URL Injection Hack - What to do with spammy URLs that keep appearing in Google's index?
A website was hacked (URL injection) but the malicious code has been cleaned up and removed from all pages. However, whenever we run a site:domain.com in Google, we keep finding more spammy URLs from the hack. They all lead to a 404 error page since the hack was cleaned up in the code. We have been using the Google WMT Remove URLs tool to have these spammy URLs removed from Google's index but new URLs keep appearing every day. We looked at the cache dates on these URLs and they are vary in dates but none are recent and most are from a month ago when the initial hack occurred. My question is...should we continue to check the index every day and keep submitting these URLs to be removed manually? Or since they all lead to a 404 page will Google eventually remove these spammy URLs from the index automatically? Thanks in advance Moz community for your feedback.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | peteboyd0 -
Canonical Help (this is a nightmare)
Hi, We're new to SEO and trying to fix our domain canonical issue. A while back we were misusing the "link canonical" tag such that Google was tracking params (e.g. session ids, tagging ) all as different unique urls. This created a nightmare as now Google thinks there's millions of pages associated with our domain when the reality is really a couple thousand unique links. Since then, we've tried to fix this by: 1) specifying params to ignore via SEO webmasters 2) properly using the canonical tag. However, I'm still recognizing there's a bunch of outsanding search results that resulted from this mess. Any idea on expectation on when we'd see this cleaned up? I'm also recognizing that google is looking at http://domain.com and https://domain.com as 2 different pages even though we specify to only look at "http://domain.com" via the link canonical tag. Again, is this just a matter of waiting for Google to update its results? We submitted a site map but it seems like it's taking forever for the results of our site to clear up... Any help or insight would greatly be appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | sfgmedia0 -
Need Perfect URLs
I'm redesigning a site's structure from the ground up, and am having issues with the URLs. I'd love to have them be perfect, but kept finding conflicting advice online. 1. For my services blog, is it best to have it set up like www.example.com/services/keyword or
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Stryde
www.example.com/keyword There seems to be conflicting advice as to keep it short and keep the keyword as far to the left as possible, but also that including the word services would help with long tail phrases and site organization. 2. For my blog section, is it best to have it set up like
www.example.com/blog/keyword or
www.example.com/keyword or
www.example.com/blog-post-title-with**-keyword**-in-it It's similar to the first question, but also adds the question of including the entire post title in the URL or just the keyword. Your help would be greatly appreciated!1 -
SEO Feedback Please
Hi, I was hoping to get some feedback on this site's SEO: http://www.chantre.com/ I also have different URLs which can be accessed from the left side of the site under "Quick Search Links" that go to the different offices within this company. Thoughts on how to improve would be great. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gXe0 -
Subdirectory URLs
If I have category pages for my site; is it better to use http://example.com/category/category or just http://example.com/category? Also, I'm creating a new section of the site; a resource center. Should the URLs of the pages in the resource center be http://example.com/learn/page or just http://example.com/page What are the reasons for the better choice?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Visually0 -
Query deserves freshness
There was an seomoz article - http://www.seomoz.org/blog/does-query-deserves-diversity-algorithm-exist-at-google . I would like to point out the specific part of it - "So - because a lot of searchers express a preference for more diverse results than just those pages that ordinarily would "make the cut," Google provides an extra helping hand to pages they feel help to satisfy those searchers. This data could be gleaned from lower CTRs in the SERPs, greater numbers of query refinements, and even a high percentage of related searches performed subsequently" I don;t understand how data could be gleaned from lower CTRs, don't you think it should have been Higher CTRs ?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seoug_20050 -
URL Length or Exact Breadcrumb Navigation URL? What's More Important
Basically my question is as follows, what's better: www.romancingdiamonds.com/gemstone-rings/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (this would fully match the breadcrumbs). or www.romancingdiamonds.com/amethyst-rings/purple-amethyst-ring-14k-white-gold (cutting out the first level folder to keep the url shorter and the important keywords are closer to the root domain). In this question http://www.seomoz.org/qa/discuss/37982/url-length-vs-url-keywords I was consulted to drop a folder in my url because it may be to long. That's why I'm hesitant to keep the bradcrumb structure the same. To the best of your knowldege do you think it's best to drop a folder in the URL to keep it shorter and sweeter, or to have a longer URL and have it match the breadcrumb structure? Please advise, Shawn
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Romancing0