404'd pages still in index
-
I recently launched a site and shortly after performed a URL rewrite (not the greatest idea, i know). The developer 404'd the old pages instead of a permanent 301 redirect. This caused a mess in the index. I have tried to use Google's removal tool to remove these URL's from the index. These pages were being removed but now I am finding them in the index as just URL's to the 404'd page (i.e. no title tag or meta description). Should I wait this out or now go back and 301 redirect the old URL's (that are 404'd now) to the new URL's? I am sure this is the reason for my lack of ranking as the rest of my site is pretty well optimized and I have some quality links.
-
Will do. Thanks for the help.
-
I think the latter - robot and 301.
but (if you can) leave a couple without 301 and see what (if any) difference you get - would love to hear how it works out.
-
Is it better to remove the robots.txt entries that are specific to the old URL's so Google can see the 404 so Google will remove those pages at their own pace or remove those bits of the robots.txt file specific to the old URL's and 301 them to the new URL's. It seems those are my two options....? Obviously, I want to do what is best for the site's rankings and will see the fastest turnaround. Thanks for your help on this by the way!
-
I'm not saying remove the whole robots.txt file - just the bits relating to the old urls (if you have entries in a robots.txt that affect the old urls).
e.g. say you're robots.txt blocks access to
then you should remove that line from the robots.txt otherwise google won't be able to crawl those pages to 'see' the 404 and realise that they're not there.
My guess is a few weeks before it all settles down, but that really is a finger in the air guess. I went through a similar scenario with moving urls and then moving them again shortly after the first move - took a month or two.
-
I am a little confused regarding removal of the robots.txt file since that is a step in requesting removal from google (per their removal tool requirements). My natural tendency is to 301 redirect the old URL's to the new ones. Will I need to remove the robots.txt file prior to permanently redirecting the old URL's to the new ones? How long does it take Google (estimate) to remove old URL's after a 301?
-
Ok, got that, so that sounds like an external rewrite - which is fine. url only, but no title or description - that sounds like what you get when you block crawling via robots.txt - if you've got that situation, I'd suggest removing the block so that google can crawl them and find that they are 404s. Sounds like they'll fall out of the index eventually. Another thing you could try to hurry things along is: 301 the old urls to the new ones. submit a sitemap containing the old urls (so that they get crawled and the 301s are picked up) update your sitemap and resubmit with only the new urls.
-
When I say URL rewrite, I mean we restructured the URL's to be cleaner and more search friendly. For example, take a URL that was www.example.com/index/home/keyword and structure it to be www.example.com/keyword. Also, the old URL's (i.e. www.example.com/index/home/keyword) are being shows towards the end of the site:example.com search with just the old URL - no title or meta description. Is this a sign that they are on the way out of the index? Any insight would be helpful.
-
Couple of things probably need clarifying: When you say URL rewrite, I'm assuming you mean an external rewrite (in effect, a redirect)? If you do an internal rewrite, that (of itself) should make no difference at all to how any external visitors/engines see your urls/pages. If the old pages had links or traffic I would be inclined to 301 them to the new pages. If the old pages didn't have traffic/links, leave them, they'll fall out eventually - they're not in an xml sitemap by any chance are they (in which case update the sitemap). You often see a drop in rankings when restructuring a site and (in my experience), it can take a few weeks to recover. To give you an example, it took nearly two months for the non-www version of our site to disappear from the index after a similar move (and messing about with redirects).
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
-
What to do when your home page an index for a series of pages.
I have created an index stack. My home page is http://www.southernwhitewater.com The home page is the index itself and the 1st page http://www.southernwhitewater.com/nz-adventure-tours-whitewater-river-rafting-hunting-fishing My home page (if your look at it through moz bat for chrome bar} incorporates all the pages in the index. Is this Bad? I would prefer to index each page separately. As per my site index in the footer What is the best way to optimize all these pages individually and still have the customers arrive at the top to a picture. rel= canonical? Any help would be great!! http://www.southernwhitewater.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VelocityWebsites0 -
Client has moved to secured https webpages but non secured http pages are still being indexed in Google. Is this an issue
We are currently working with a client that relaunched their website two months ago to have hypertext transfer protocol secure pages (https) across their entire site architecture. The problem is that their non secure (http) pages are still accessible and being indexed in Google. Here are our concerns: 1. Are co-existing non secure and secure webpages (http and https) considered duplicate content?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VanguardCommunications
2. If these pages are duplicate content should we use 301 redirects or rel canonicals?
3. If we go with rel canonicals, is it okay for a non secure page to have rel canonical to the secure version? Thanks for the advice.0 -
Thinking about not indexing PDFs on a product page
Our product pages generate a PDF version of the page in a different layout. This is done for 2 reasons, it's been the standard across similar industries and to help customers print them when working with the product. So there is a use when it comes to the customer but search? I've thought about this a lot and my thinking is why index the PDF at all? Only allow the HTML page to be indexed. The PDF files are in a subdomain, so I can easily no index them. The way I see it, I'm reducing duplicate content On the flip side, it is hosted in a subdomain, so the PDF appearing when a HTML page doesn't, is another way of gaining real estate. If it appears with the HTML page, more estate coverage. Anyone else done this? My knowledge tells me this could be a good thing, might even iron out any backlinks from being generated to the PDF and lead to more HTML backlinks Can PDFs solely exist as a form of data accessible once on the page and not relevant to search engines. I find them a bane when they are on a subdomain.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Bio-RadAbs0 -
Interlinking vs. 'orphaning' mobile page versions in a dynamic serving scenario
Hi there, I'd love to get the Moz community's take on this. We are working on setting up dynamic serving for mobile versions of our pages. During the process of planning the mobile version of a page, we identified a type of navigational links that, while useful enough for desktop visitors, we feel would not be as useful to mobile visitors. We would like to remove these from our mobile version of the page as part of offering a more streamlined mobile page. So we feel that we're making a fine decision with user experience in mind. On any single page, the number of links removed in the mobile version would be relatively few. The question is: is there any danger in “orphaning” the mobile versions of certain pages because links don’t exist pointing to those pages on our mobile pages? Is this a legitimate concern, or is it enough that none of the desktop versions of pages are orphaned? We were not sure whether it’s even possible, in Googlebot’s eyes, to orphan a mobile version of a page if we use dynamic serving and if there are no orphaned desktop versions of our pages. (We also plan to link to "full site" in the footer.) Thank you in advance for your help,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_R
Eric0 -
How to fix Invalid Product Page registering as Soft 404
Somehow with our site architecture Google is crawling URLS for products we no longer carry (there are no links to those pages so I am still trying to figure out how Google is finding them).Those URLS are being redirected to our invalid product page. That invalid product page is returning a 200 OK code, but according to Google it should be a 404 so we get a soft 404 error. Google is seeing all of the URLs that redirect to that page as soft 404's as well. The first solution I can think of is to create a custom 404 page that looks just like our site, says we don't have the page/product they are looking for, has a search bar, sends a 404 code, etc. Is this the right way to go? And it will probably take some time to implement so is there a quick fix we could do first?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ntsupply0 -
Sudden Change In Indexed Pages
Every week I check the number of pages indexed by google using the "site:" function. I have set up a permanent redirect from all the non-www pages to www pages. When I used to run the function for the: non-www pages (i.e site:mysite.com), would have 12K results www pages (i.e site:www.mysite.com) would have about 36K The past few days, this has reversed! I get 12K for www pages, and 36K for non-www pages. Things I have changed: I have added canonical URL links in the header, all have www in the URL. My questions: Is this cause for concern? Can anyone explain this to me?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | inhouseseo0 -
Best solution to get mass URl's out the SE's index
Hi, I've got an issue where our web developers have made a mistake on our website by messing up some URL's . Because our site works dynamically IE the URL's generated on a page are relevant to the current URL it ment the problem URL linked out to more problem URL's - effectively replicating an entire website directory under problem URL's - this has caused tens of thousands of URL's in SE's indexes which shouldn't be there. So say for example the problem URL's are like www.mysite.com/incorrect-directory/folder1/page1/ It seems I can correct this by doing the following: 1/. Use Robots.txt to disallow access to /incorrect-directory/* 2/. 301 the urls like this:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
www.mysite.com/incorrect-directory/folder1/page1/
301 to:
www.mysite.com/correct-directory/folder1/page1/ 3/. 301 URL's to the root correct directory like this:
www.mysite.com/incorrect-directory/folder1/page1/
www.mysite.com/incorrect-directory/folder1/page2/
www.mysite.com/incorrect-directory/folder2/ 301 to:
www.mysite.com/correct-directory/ Which method do you think is the best solution? - I doubt there is any link juice benifit from 301'ing URL's as there shouldn't be any external links pointing to the wrong URL's.0 -
Should I Allow Blog Tag Pages to be Indexed?
I have a wordpress blog with settings currently set so that Google does not index tag pages. Is this a best practice that avoids duplicate content or am I hurting the site by taking eligible pages out of the index?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JSOC0