I have experienced this same issue with Google.

I just began a test by making a change on my site to one of the URLs. I am bookmarking this Q&A and will try to remember to update it if I see a change. It can take Google some time to check any individual link so it could take weeks.

In case you are curious, I have added a 410 status code for one of the pages involved. 410 means the resource is gone, while 404 is simply not found. Perhaps the 410 header code will send the right message to Google.

Hi Jimmy,

My bet is you are using a CMS or Shopping Cart on your site. The software is generating these seemingly random URLs, and the Google crawler is seeing them.

Crawlers don't move through your site the way people do. If you take your home page and right-click, then choose View Page Source, you will find many URLs. The crawler will then follow each and every URL throughout your site. The URLs you are seeing could be generated on any given page.

To track the issue, use the SEOmoz crawler on your site, then analyze the results. When you find these types of URLs, take note of the page they are located on.

Alternatively, you can contact your CMS or shopping cart's software developer and inquire about the URLs. If these URLs show a folder path before the random characters, that information can help track down which pages or software is generating these pages.

Do not request for Google to remove the URL. It would mean the page would be de-indexed for 90 days.

The cleanup will depend on the root cause. If there is an issue on the site right now then you cannot resolve the problem until it is fixed. Report the issue to your host and ask they run a security scan. Meanwhile run your own scans and upgrade the site to 1.7. Change all passwords then check the site again.

Hi Atul.

What you have is common in the SEO world: two different SEOs who offer opposing explanations on the same topic. In this case they cannot both be correct. Some things to consider:

The first article was written by Anil Batra. I have never heard of him, but that's OK! He's probably never heard of me either. He lists his credentials at the top of the page which seem satisfactory.

Anil's article was well presented and he offered a screenshot of his results along with a meaningful description of the test he performed to draw the conclusion he ultimately made. The article was written in April 2008.

The second article was written by Will Critchlow of Distilled. Will has written other articles I have read and I find him to be a credible source of SEO information.

Will's article is also well presented. Will specifically shared he contacted Avinash Kaushik from Google who would be considered an expert on the topic. Will's article was written in Jan 2009.

Personally I would choose to accept Will's response being that it is more recent and I offer higher credibility to his Google contact. BUT, I am also hesitant to discount anyone's ideas, especially when they are well presented such as Anil's article.

The great news: we can easily try a new test and find the answer! It's been over 2 1/2 years since the most recent article. I'll go ahead and try some tests and share the results.