When does Google index a fetched page?
-
I have seen where it will index on of my pages within 5 minutes of fetching, but have also read that it can take a day. I'm on day #2 and it appears that it has still not re-indexed 15 pages that I fetched. I changed the meta-description in all of them, and added content to nearly all of them, but none of those changes are showing when I do a site:www.site/page
I'm trying to test changes in this manner, so it is important for me to know WHEN a fetched page has been indexed, or at least IF it has. How can I tell what is going on?
-
For those following, see this link where Ryan has provided some interesting answers regarding the cache and the site:www.. command
-
I'm going to post a question about the non-cached as upon digging I'm not finding an answer.
And, I'm reading where it seems to take a couple of days before indexing, but seeing something strange that makes it confusing:,
This page was cached a few days ago: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/wildwood/mo/all
The paragraphs wording content that starts with 'The Wildwood coupons page' was added as a test just 3 days ago and then I ran a fetch. When I do a Google search for phrases in it, it does show up in google results (like qjamba wildwood buried by the large national chains). So, it looks like it indexed the new content.
But if you search for wildwood qjamba restaurants cafes the result Google shows includes the word diners that is gone from the cached content (it was previously in the meta description tag)! But if you then search wildwood qjamba restaurants diners it doesn't come up! So, this seems to indicate that the algorithm was applied to the cached file, but that the DISPLAY by Google when the user does a search is still of older content that isn't even in the new cached file! Very odd.
I was thinking I could put changes on pages and test the effect on search results 1 or 2 days after fetching, but maybe it isn't that simple. Or maybe it is but is just hard to tell because of the timing of what Google is displaying.
I appreciate your feedback. I have H2 first on some pages because H1 was pretty big. I thought I read once that the main thing isn't if you start with H1 or H2 but that you never want to put an H1 after an H2.
I'm blocking the cut and paste just to make it harder for a copycat to pull the info. Maybe overkill though.
Thanks again, Ted
-
That's interesting because according to google own words:
Google takes a snapshot of each page examined as it crawls the web and caches these as a back-up in case the original page is unavailable. If you click on the "Cached" link, you will see the web page as it looked when we indexed it. The cached content is the content Google uses to judge whether this page is a relevant match for your query.
Source: http://www.google.com.au/help/features.html
If I look for that page using a fragment of the <title>(site:http://www.qjamba.com/ "Ferguson, MO Restaurant") I can find it, so it's in the index.</p> <p>Or maybe not, because if you search for this query <strong>"Ferguson, MO Restaurant" 19 coupons</strong> (bold part quotes included) you are not among the results. So it seems (I didn't know) that using site: is showing results which are not in the index... But I would ask in <a href="https://productforums.google.com/forum/#!forum/websearch">google search product forum</a>.</p> <p>As far as I know you can use meta tag to avoid archiving in google cache but your page doesn't have a googlebot meta tag. So <strong>I have no idea why is not showing</strong>.</p> <p>But if I was you I would dig further. By the way the html of these pages is quite weird, I didn't spend much time looking at it, but there's no H1, you are blocking cut&paste with js... Accessibility is a factor in google algo.</p></title>
-
Thanks.. That does help..
<<if 404="" you="" have="" a="" for="" the="" cache:="" command="" that="" page="" is="" not="" indexed,="" if="" searching="" content="" of="" using="" site:="" find="" different="" page,="" it="" means="" other="" indexed="" (and="" one="" possible="" explanation="" duplicate="" issue)="">></if>
THIS page gives a 404:
but site:http://www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/ferguson/mo/all
Give ONLY that exact same page. How can that be?
-
I am not sure I understood your doubt but I will try to answer.
site://foo.com
is giving you a number of indexed page, is presumably the number of pages from that site in the index, it normally differs from page indexed count in GWT, so both are probably not all that accurate
site://foo.com "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog"
searches among the indexed pages for that site the ones containing that precise sentence
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://foo.com/bar
check the last indexed version of a specific page
if you have a 404 for the cache: command that page is not indexed, if searching for the content of that page using site: you find a different page, it means that other page is indexed for that content (and one possible explanation for that is a duplicate content issue)
-
Thanks Massimiliano. I'll give you a 'good' answer here, and cross fingers that this next round will work. I still don't understand the timing on site:www , nor what page+features is all about. I thought site:www was supposed to be the method people use to see what is currently indexed.
-
"cache:" is the most update version in google index
if you fix the duplicate content next re-indexing will fix the duplicate content issue
-
I have a bigger problem than I realized:
I accidentally put duplicate content in my subcategory pages that was just meant for category pages. It's about 100-150 pages, and many of them have been crawled in the last few days. I have already changed the program so those pages don't have that content. Will I get penalized by Google-- de-indexed? Or should I be ok going forward because the next time they crawl it will be gone?
I'm going to start over with the fetching since I made that mistake but can you address the following just so when I get back to this spot I maybe understand better?:
1. When I type into the google searchbar lemay mo restaurant coupons smoothies qjamba
the description it gives is <cite class="_Rm">www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/lemay/mo/smoothies</cite>The Lemay coupons page features both national franchise printable restaurant coupons for companies such as KFC, Long John Silver's, and O'Charlies and ...
BUT when I do a site:<cite class="_Rm">www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/lemay/mo/smoothies</cite>it gives the description found in the meta description tag: www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/.../smoothie...Traduci questa pagina Find Lemay all-free printable and mobile coupons for Smoothies, and more.
It looks like site:www does NOT always give the most recent indexed content since 'The Lemay coupons page...' is the content I added 2 days ago for testing! Maybe that's because Lemay was one of the urls that I inadvertently created duplicate content for.
2. Are ANY of the cache command, page+features command, or site:www supposed to be the most recent indexed content?
-
I am assuming it's duplicate, it can be de-indexed for other reasons and the other page is returned because has the same paragraphs in it. But if you ran a couple of crawling reports like moz/semrush etc.. And they signal these pages as duplicates it may be the issue.
-
thanks.
That's weird because doing the site: command separately for that first page for the /smoothies gives different content than for /all :
site:www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/lemay/mo/smoothies
site:www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/lemay/mo/all
But why would that 'page+features' command show the same description when the description in reality is different? This seems like a different issue than my op, but maybe it is related somehow--even if not I prob should still understand it.
-
Yes, one more idea, if you take the content of the page and you query your site for that content specifically like this:
You find a different page. Looks like those pages are duplicate.
Sorry for missing a w.
-
you are missing a w there. site:www and you have site:ww
That's why I'm so confused--it appears to be indexed from the past, they are in my dbase table with the date and time crawled -- right after the fetch --, and there is no manual penalty in webmaster tools.
Yet there is no sign it re-indexed after crawling 2 days ago now. I could resubmit (there are 15 pages I fetched), but I'm not expecting a different response and need to understand what is happening in order to use this approach to test SEO changes.
thanks for sticking with this. Any more ideas on what is happening?
-
Well, that's a http 404 status code, which means the page was not found, in other words it's not in google index.
Please note if you type site:ww.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/lemay/mo/all you find nothing see image below.
Again I would doubt your logs. You can also check GWT for any manual penalty you may have there.
-
Hi, thanks again.
this gives an error:
but the page exists, AND site:www.qjamba.com/restaurants-coupons/lemay/mo/all
has a result, so I'm not sure what a missing cache means in this case..
The log shows that it was crawled right after it was fetched but the result for site:... doesn't reflect the changes on the page. so it appears not to have been re-indexed yet, but why not in the cache?
-
You evidently mistyped the url to check, this is a working example:
If your new content is not there, it have not been indexed yet, if your logs says it was crawled two days ago I would start doubting the logs.
-
HI Massimiliano,
Thanks for your reply.
I'm getting an error in both FF and Chrome with this in the address bar. Have I misunderstood?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.mysite.com/mypage
Is the command (assuming I can get it to work) supposed to show when the page was indexed, or last crawled?
I am storing when it crawls, but am wondering about the couple of days part, since it has been 2 days now and when I first did it it was re-indexing within 5 minutes a few days ago.
-
Open this url on any browser:
You can reasonably take that as the date when the page was last indexed.
You could also programmatically store the last google bot visit per page, just checking user-agent of page request. Or just analyze your web server logs to get that info out on a per page basis. And add a couple of days just to have a buffer (even google need a little processing time to generate its index).
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
-
Can a duplicate page referencing the original page on another domain in another country using the 'canonical link' still get indexed locally?
Hi I wonder if anyone could help me on a canonical link query/indexing issue. I have given an overview, intended solution and question below. Any advice on this query will be much appreciated. Overview: I have a client who has a .com domain that includes blog content intended for the US market using the correct lang tags. The client also has a .co.uk site without a blog but looking at creating one. As the target keywords and content are relevant across both UK and US markets and not to duplicate work the client has asked would it be worthwhile centralising the blog or provide any other efficient blog site structure recommendations. Suggested solution: As the domain authority (DA) on the .com/.co.uk sites are in the 60+ it would risky moving domains/subdomain at this stage and would be a waste not to utilise the DAs that have built up on both sites. I have suggested they keep both sites and share the same content between them using a content curated WP plugin and using the 'canonical link' to reference the original source (US or UK) - so not to get duplicate content issues. My question: Let's say I'm a potential customer in the UK and i'm searching using a keyword phrase that the content that answers my query is on both the UK and US site although the US content is the original source.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JonRayner
Will the US or UK version blog appear in UK SERPs? My gut is the UK blog will as Google will try and serve me the most appropriate version of the content and as I'm in the UK it will be this version, even though I have identified the US source using the canonical link?2 -
22 Pages 7 Indexed
So I submitted my sitemap to Google twice this week the first time everything was just peachy, but when I went back to do it again Google only indexed 7 out of 22. The website is www.theinboundspot.com. My MOZ Campaign shows no issues and Google Webmaster shows none. Should I just resubmit it?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | theinboundspot1 -
Google indexing pages from chrome history ?
We have pages that are not linked from site yet they are indexed in Google. It could be possible if Google got these pages from browser. Does Google takes data from chrome?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vivekrathore0 -
Huge google index with un-relevant pages
Hi, i run a site about sport matches, every match has a page and the pages are generated automatically from the DB. pages are not duplicated, but over time some look a little bit similar. after a match finishes it has no internal links or sitemap entry, but it's reachable by direct URL and continues to be on google index. so over time we have more than 100,000 indexed pages. since past matches have no significance and they're not linked and a match can repeat and it may look like duplicate content....what you suggest us to do: when a match is finished - not linked, but appears on the index and SERP 301 redirect the match Page to the match Category which is a higher hierarchy and is always relevant? use rel=canonical to the match Category do nothing.... *301 redirect will shrink my index status, some say a high index status is good... *is it safe to 301 redirect 100,000 pages at once - wouldn't it look strange to google? *would canonical remove the past matches pages from the index? what do you think? Thanks, Assaf.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stassaf0 -
Why is my XML sitemap ranking on the first page of google for 100s of key words versus the actual relevant page?
I still need this question answerd and I know it's something I must have changed. But google is ranking my sitemap for 100s of key terms versus the actual page. It's great to be on the first page but not my site map...... Geeeez.....
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ursalesguru0 -
How can we get a site reconsidered for Google indexing?
We recently completed a re-design for a site and are having trouble getting it indexed. This site may have been penalized previously. They were having issues getting it ranked and the design was horrible. Any advise on how to get the new site reconsidered to get the rank where it should be? (Yes, Webmaster Tools is all set up with the sitemap linked) Many thanks for any help with this one!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | d25kart0 -
Google consolidating link juice on duplicate content pages
I've observed some strange findings on a website I am diagnosing and it has led me to a possible theory that seems to fly in the face of a lot of thinking: My theory is:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | James77
When google see's several duplicate content pages on a website, and decides to just show one version of the page, it at the same time agrigates the link juice pointing to all the duplicate pages, and ranks the 1 duplicate content page it decides to show as if all the link juice pointing to the duplicate versions were pointing to the 1 version. EG
Link X -> Duplicate Page A
Link Y -> Duplicate Page B Google decides Duplicate Page A is the one that is most important and applies the following formula to decide its rank. Link X + Link Y (Minus some dampening factor) -> Page A I came up with the idea after I seem to have reverse engineered this - IE the website I was trying to sort out for a client had this duplicate content, issue, so we decided to put unique content on Page A and Page B (not just one page like this but many). Bizarrely after about a week, all the Page A's dropped in rankings - indicating a possibility that the old link consolidation, may have been re-correctly associated with the two pages, so now Page A would only be getting Link Value X. Has anyone got any test/analysis to support or refute this??0 -
Best way to stop pages being indexed and keeping PageRank
If for example on a discussion forum, what would be the best way to stop pages such as the posting page (where a user posts a topic or message) from being indexed AND not diluting PageRank too? If we added them to the Disallow on robots.txt, would pagerank still flow through the links to those blocked pages or would it stay concentrated on the linking page? Your ideas and suggestions will be greatly appreciated.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Peter2640