Site property is verified for new version of search console, but same property is unverified in the old version
-
Hi all!
This is a weird one that I've never encountered before.
So basically, an admin granted me search console access as an "owner" to the site in search console, and everything worked fine. I inspected some URL's with the new tool and had access to everything. Then, when I realized I had to remove certain pages from the index it directed me to the old search console, as there's no tool for that yet in the new version. However, the old version doesn't even list the site under the "property" dropdown as either verified or unverified, and if I try to add it it makes me undergo the verification process, which fails (I also have analytics and GTM access, so verification shouldn't fail).
Has anyone experienced something similar or have any ideas for a fix? Thanks so much for any help!
-
That assuredly did used to be a problem and in these times I've found it hit and miss. Sometimes Google is able to reach the file directly and not be redirected, but sometimes Google still can't reach the file. In which case, you modify your .htaccess file to allow that one file (or URL) to be accessed via either protocol. I don't remember the exact rule but from memory, doing this isn't that hard
Failing that you should have access to this method:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/9008080?hl=en
Ctrl+F (find) for "DNS record" and expand that bit of info from Google. That version works really well and I think, it also gives you access to the new domain level property
The htaccess mod method may be more applicable for you. Certainly make the change via FTP and not via a CMS back-end. If you break the .htaccess and kill the site, and you only have the CMS back-end to fix it - which also becomes broken, you're stuck. Modding your .htaccess file should not break FTP unless you do something out of this world, crazy-insanely wrong (in-fact I'm not sure you can break FTP with your .htaccess file)
Another option, temporarily nullify the HTTP to HTTPS redirects in the .htaccess, verify, make your changes, then put the rule back on. This is a bad method because, in a few weeks Google will fail to reach the file and you will be unverified again. Also your site may have legal reasons it must, must be on HTTPS. Also allowing HTTP again may shake up and mess up your SERPs unless you act lightning fast (before Google's next crawl of your site)
Something like this might help: https://serverfault.com/questions/740640/disable-https-for-a-single-file-in-apache or these search results: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=disable+https+redirect+for+certain+file
Hope that helps
-
Thanks very much for your response. You are exactly right about the travails of the multiple properties, and I hadn't even thought about how the new domain level access should handle the multiple versions of each site (I'm still used to having to verify four separate properties).
In the end, you were exactly right; I just had to FTP the verification file once more and it worked immediately.
A question, though: if you were trying to verify a non secured protocol (http://) of a site that is https://, and you were for some reason unable to verify through GA or GTM, wouldn't uploading a verification file automatically create a secured protocol and therefore be invalid for verification? This is (thank goodness) purely theoretical, but it seems as though it would be a rough task which I'm sure happens periodically.
Thanks again for the insight. You were a great help!
-
I have no experience with this particular error but from the sounds of it, you will just have to re-verify and that's all that you can do. One thing to keep in mind is that different versions of the same site (HTTPS/WWW, HTTPS, HTTP/WWW, HTTP, any sub-domains) all count as separate websites in Search Console
The days of that being a problem are numbered as Google have come out with new domain-level properties for Search Console, but to verify those you need hosting level access so most people still aren't using that until Google can make the older verification methods applicable
What this does mean is that, if the URLs which you want to remove are for a different version of the site (which still counts as a separate property) then you still have to verify that other version of the site (maybe the pre-HTTPS version, or a version without WWW). If you have the wrong version of the property (site) registered in your GSC (which doesn't contain the URLs you want to remove) then you still need to register the old version
A common issue is when people move from HTTP to HTTPS, and they want to 'clean up' some of the old HTTP URLs and stop them from ranking (or at least, re-direct Google from the old property to the new one properly). They delete the HTTP version of the site from their GSC, but then they can't get back to do proper clean-up. In most instances Google still considers different site versions to be different sites in GSC. As mentioned this isn't a problem for some people now, soon it won't be a problem for anyone. But if you're looking at any kind of legacy account for sites that were built and verified up to a few months ago, the likelihood is you still have to re-verify other site versions
The new domain level properties may also have bugs in, where they defer back to the non-domain level properties for some stuff. You may have just found an example of that to be honest (but I can't confirm this)
I'd advise just doing what the UI tells you, it's really all you can feasibly do at this juncture
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
-
GA Internal Site Search Correct Query Parameter?
Hi Guys, Recently added GA internal site search to a sub-folder: http://tinyurl.com/jhm9cyl Just want to confirm would the query parameter be: /search/ Or different because it's a sub-folder? Cheers.
Reporting & Analytics | | jayoliverwright0 -
What will be configuration for new version of tag manager for given below code?
Hello Expert, I am using new version of tag manager for enhance ecommerce. Now i have post related to enhance ecommerce for old version of tag manager this one - https://developers.google.com/tag-manager/enhanced-ecommerce In this post, below is the configuration of "Measuring Views of Product Details" for old version of tag manager, can you please tell me what will be configuration for new version of tag manager? ( mainly basic setting and firing rule ) Tag type : Universal Analytics
Reporting & Analytics | | bkmitesh
Track type : Pageview
Enable Enhanced Ecommerce Features: true
Use Data Layer: true
Basic Settings - Document Path: {{url path}}
Firing Rule: {{event}} equals gtm.js Thanks! BK Mitesh0 -
Question about cannonical URLs for a site redesign
Hello folks, I've redesigned a site completely and I ended up changing their CMS to wordpress as well. So their URLs which mostly ended in .html and folder organization have been thrown completely out the window with wordpress' '/' format. I'm just wondering what the best way is to approach retaining all the site's previous "link juice". What should I be doing here? How do I make sure their organic rankings don't fall? (They've left their previous SEO firm so they can't help me out on this). Thanks!
Reporting & Analytics | | seonubblet0 -
Mobile Site on Google Analytics
Hi mozzers, We just launched a mobile site and I was wondering what are the main steps to follow for gettting your mobile site tracked via GA (m.example.com)? We have a profile for www.example.com GATC: javascript or PHP to install? Should the profile be on a subdomain? What else to consider when implementing a mobile site on GA? Thanks
Reporting & Analytics | | Ideas-Money-Art0 -
When I look at my SEOMOZ campaigns I see there are a lot of warnings in regards to missing Meta Tags Descriptions but they exist on a clien'ts wordpress site
when I look at my SEOMOZ campaigns I see there are a lot of warnings in regards to missing Meta Tags Descriptions but they exist on a clien'ts wordpress site
Reporting & Analytics | | Doug_Hay1 -
Google is listing my site using IP also, is it normal?
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=site%3A50.97.XXX.XXX About 7,050 results (0.24 seconds) when we do list by domain we get : About 10,400,000 results (0.29 seconds) is it ok? would google smart enough to count IP address not as duplicate content?
Reporting & Analytics | | tpt.com0 -
Free Online XMl Site Map Creators up sites over 1000 pages
Does anybody know of a XML site map creator that is free for websites over 1000 pages?
Reporting & Analytics | | AppleCapitalGroup0 -
Should I delete a page that gets search traffic, that I don't care about?
I have a page on my site that consistently gets traffic, every month. Googlers seems to love it. But I don't like it at all. Webmaster tools shows that google allows us a certain number of search impressions each day. - it flatlines, they are limiting the impressions we get. We also getthe same number of clickthroughs each day. So my question is for anyone who has this same experience, who may have experimented by deleting a page you don't care about. Did you just lose that number of clicks each day or did other pages on your site get displayed and clicked through instead?
Reporting & Analytics | | loopyal0