Are Google now indexing iFrames?
-
A client is pulling content through an iFrame, and when searching for a snippet of that exact content the page that is pulling the data is being indexed and not the iFrame page. Seen this before?
-
Yeah, I use iframes and if I want to be sure they are NOT indexed, I Just add a "noindex" tag. You may also want to add a "nofollow" tag to avoid spiders to follow links inside the frame. Using iframes may be a good idea to reduce the number of links on a page (Bruce Clay suggestion).
-
I've never seen it before, but like everyone here said, it's not a good idea.
This makes me wonder though:
1. Can you find the original page using a snippet? And if not:
2. Is the page contained in the iframe indexed? (Or better-phrased, is the page that is being framed "noindex"?)
It makes sense to me that if the framed page is noindex, that Google would index the content and attribute it to the page framing it.
One perfect example:
I embed videos using an iframe and then I make the video unlisted in YouTube. My embedded content is indexed and even displayed as a rich snippet....
-
I have noticed content within iFrames being indexed by google and text within those iFrames being attributed to the page/url that is hosting the iFrame. Not sure how often this applies. I avoid iFrames.
Merchant Circle uses them and their pages get credit for content in them.
-
It might have been covered but it does seem that google is ignoring iframes in relation to commets code posted on sites.for instance: our text cached version.: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:8IZ95GICp7AJ:gaveltek.com/seoblog/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1
compare the page title to (use headers it easier)
www.gaveltek.com/seoblog the list "comments" and despite there being some the are not posted. However, I do believe general wordpress comments hold some weight. That is not to sayt that facebook comments do not, its just done via different metrics, like social, and trust, and egngagement.
Cheers
TODD
-
A good way to check is go to google.com and type in your full URL like this:
site:www.domain.com
Then you will be populated with your sites pages of course. Now there is a link there that says: "cache" and you can see what it cached.
I think they may be getting better at knowing what's in a iframe. Look at how many sites use facebook comments on the blog and how do you think thats ran? iframes. Do you remember google and adobe working together at reading .pdf's and flash.
The little magnifying glass has some cool technology behind it that I'm sure helped them know whats really on the site. Without getting to far off track I do feel like they are better at reading iframes. Just my .02c in this thread.
-
last thought... i've only ever used iframes in the aforementioned example. Not an ideal way to display your original content if you want it indexed.
-
It is very typical for Google to ignore iframes. I don't know the precise details of your situation but there are several reasons for iframing that might make sense - this is situational - so no hating!
-
you're an affiliate and using another offer (conversion form) that you have to iframe to generate leads, etc
-
you want to hide duplicate content that appears elsewhere on the site (although there are far more elegant ways to do this)
3)You're pulling video or other syndicated content from a publisher who wants to maintain control (ie not let you outrank them with their own content)
*** Remember that the iframed content can certainly be indexed but usually only from the destination URL's originating source. For example: You are www.insuranceaffilifate.com running an offer from www.insurance.com/form_1011 - you will most likely use insurance.com's form via iframe on your landing page. That form, unless it uses a NOINDEX meta tag, will likely be picked by the search engines from www.insurance.com but will be ignored on your site www.insuranceaffiliate.com.
Hope this helps.
-
-
I have to agree with Julich in that you should move the content to be truly located on www.domain.com instead of iframe.domain.com.
-
I totally agree that they shouldn't be using iFrames and it is part of my recommendations to them, but we need to work with what we have at the moment.
So just to clarify, you would say that www.domain.com which is pulling the data through from iframe.domain.com would rank?
Even though all the content except the navigation, footer, etc is on iframe.domain.com.
-
Normally, it would be www.domain.com (unless it doesn't provide any content outside the iFrame).
But it is not abnormal to also see iframe.domain.com in the SERPS, since it may have some backlinks pointing to it.
Anyway, using iframes is a weird technique and I recommend you merge those into www.domain.com if possible (and don't forget to do some 301 redirections to tell Google your pages have definitely moved to www.domain.com).
-
OK, so if www.domain.com was pulling through content from iframe.domain.com which domain would you expect to rank?
I would personally expect iframe.domain.com to rank as that is actually where the content is and the www.domain.com provides the link to that page. I am currently seeing both domains rank, which has lead me to ask the question.
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
-
Should I "no-index" two exact pages on Google results?
Hello everyone, I recently started a new wordpress website and created a static homepage. I noticed that on Google search results, there are two different URLs landing on same content page. I've attached an image to explain what I saw. Should I "no-index" the page url? Google url.JPG In this picture, the first result is the homepage and I try to rank for that page. The last result is landing on same content with different URL. So, should I no-index last result as shown in image?
Technical SEO | | amanda59640 -
Google is still indexing the old domain a year after 301 redirects are put in place
Hi there, You might have experienced this before but for me this is the first. A client of mine moved from domain A (www.domainA.com) to domain B (www.domainB.com). 301 redirects are all in place for over a year. But the old domain is still showing in Google when you search for "site:domainA.com" The HTTP Header check shows this result for the URL https://www.domainA.com/company/cookie-policy.aspx HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently =>
Technical SEO | | iQi
Cache-Control => private
Content-Length => 174
Content-Type => text/html; charset=utf-8
Location => https://www.domain_B_.com/legal/cookie-policy
Server => Microsoft-IIS/10.0
X-AspNetMvc-Version => 5.2
X-AspNet-Version => 4.0.30319
X-Powered-By => ASP.NET
Date => Fri, 15 Mar 2019 12:01:33 GMT
Connection => close Does the redirect look wrong? The change of address request was made on Google Console when the website was moved over a year ago. Edit: Checked the domainA.com on bing and it seems that its not indexed, and replaced with domainB.com, which is the right. Just Google is indexing the old domain! Please let me know your thoughts on why this is happening. Best,0 -
Google search console image indexing issue
Google search console tells that only '58 out of the 3553' images in the images sitemap are indexed. But if I search "site:example.com" in Google images there seem to be lots of images. There are no errors in the sitemap and I am still getting reasonable number of image search hits daily. Are the webmaster tools stats for images indexed accurate? When I click on the Sitemap Errors & Index Errors this is what i get - Error details: No errors found. https://www.screencast.com/t/pqL62pIc
Technical SEO | | 21centuryweb0 -
Google not Indexing images on CDN.
My URL is: https://bit.ly/2hWAApQ We have set up a CDN on our own domain: https://bit.ly/2KspW3C We have a main xml sitemap: https://bit.ly/2rd2jEb and https://bit.ly/2JMu7GB is one the sub sitemaps with images listed within. The image sitemap uses the CDN URLs. We verified the CDN subdomain in GWT. The robots.txt does not restrict any of the photos: https://bit.ly/2FAWJjk. Yet, GWT still reports none of our images on the CDN are indexed. I ve followed all the steps and still none of the images are being indexed. My problem seems similar to this ticket https://bit.ly/2FzUnBl but however different because we don't have a separate image sitemap but instead have listed image urls within the sitemaps itself. Can anyone help please? I will promptly respond to any queries. Thanks
Technical SEO | | TNZ
Deepinder0 -
How to fix google index filled with redundant parameters
Hi All This follows on from a previous question (http://moz.com/community/q/how-to-fix-google-index-after-fixing-site-infected-with-malware) that on further investigation has become a much broader problem. I think this is an issue that may plague many sites following upgrades from CMS systems. First a little history. A new customer wanted to improve their site ranking and SEO. We discovered the site was running an old version of Joomla and had been hacked. URL's such as http://domain.com/index.php?vc=427&Buy_Pinnacle_Studio_14_Ultimate redirected users to other sites and the site was ranking for buy adobe or buy microsoft. There was no notification in webmaster tools that the site had been hacked. So an upgrade to a later version of Joomla was required and we implemented SEF URLs at the same time. This fixed the hacking problem, we now had SEF url's, fixed a lot of duplicate content and added new titles and descriptions. Problem is that after a couple of months things aren't really improving. The site is still ranking for adobe and microsoft and a lot of other rubbish and the urls like http://domain.com/index.php?vc=427&Buy_Pinnacle_Studio_14_Ultimate are still sending visitors but to the home page as are a lot of the old redundant urls with parameters in them. I think it is default behavior for a lot of CMS systems to ignore parameters it doesn't recognise so http://domain.com/index.php?vc=427&Buy_Pinnacle_Studio_14_Ultimate displays the home page and gives a 200 response code. My theory is that Google isn't removing these pages from the index because it's getting a 200 response code from old url's and possibly penalizing the site for duplicate content (which don't showing up in moz because there aren't any links on the site to these url's) The index in webmaster tools is showing over 1000 url's indexed when there are only around 300 actual url's. It also shows thousands of url's for each parameter type most of which aren't used. So my question is how to fix this, I don't think 404's or similar are the answer because there are so many and trying to find each combination of parameter would be impossible. Webmaster tools advises not to make changes to parameters but even so I don't think resetting or editing them individually is going to remove them and only change how google indexes them (if anyone knows different please let me know) Appreciate any assistance and also any comments or discussion on this matter. Regards, Ian
Technical SEO | | iragless0 -
How do I get google to index the right pages with the right key word?
Hello I notice that even though I have a site map google is indexing the wrong pages under the wrong key words. As a result its not as relevant and is not ranking properly.
Technical SEO | | ursalesguru0 -
Frustration With Google Places
I have been trying to solve this problem with Google Places for quite some time now and just can't figure out where to go from here. I've tried several sent messages explaining the problem and even received several phone calls from Google Places trying to correct the issue with no luck. I have even tried totally deleting the listing and started over from scratch and re-verified the address with a mailed postcard. My site: http://www.captainrichsmith.com has a Google Places account set up and verified http://maps.google.com/maps/place?hl=en&georestrict=input_srcid:1c8fa43cf77e0c93&ie=UTF8&t=h&z=14&vpsrc=0 For some reason when you do a Google search for one of my keywords Miami Fishing Charters On the listings normally under the letter "E" on the Map another website has a placemark at my location Miami Fishing Charters Directory
Technical SEO | | captainrichsmith
www.fishing-charters-miami.com/ - Cached Fishing Charters Miami is a quality directory of the best fishing boats in the Miami area. The top Miami fishing charters are listed on this website.
2550 South Bayshore Drive, Miami
(786) 263-9231
captainrichsmith.com (7) When you view this Google places listing further. I see it is using my images, videos, placemark on map but NOT the address, phone number, or reviews. Any help on this issue would greatly be appreciated0 -
Google penalty
Anyone have any success stories on what they did to get out of Google penalty?
Technical SEO | | phatride0