Site Audit Tools Not Picking Up Content Nor Does Google Cache
-
Hi Guys,
Got a site I am working with on the Wix platform. However site audit tools such as Screaming Frog, Ryte and even Moz's onpage crawler show the pages having no content, despite them having 200 words+. Fetching the site as Google clearly shows the rendered page with content, however when I look at the Google cached pages, they also show just blank pages.
I have had issues with nofollow, noindex on here, but it shows the meta tags correct, just 0 content.
What would you look to diagnose? I am guessing some rogue JS but why wasn't this picked up on the "fetch as Google".
-
@nezona
DM Fitrs
Facing issues with site audit tools and Google Cache not picking up content can be a technical puzzle to solve. It's crucial to address these challenges for a smoother online presence. Similarly, in managing our digital responsibilities, like checking PESCO online bills, reliability is key. Just as we troubleshoot website-related matters, staying on top of utility payments ensures a hassle-free experience. Navigate technical hiccups, both in website diagnostics and bill management, to maintain a seamlessly connected online routine. -
Hi Team,
I am facing problem with one of my website where google is caching the page when checked using cache: operator but displaying a 404 msg in the body of the cached version.
But when i check the same in 'text-only version' the complete content and element is visible to Google and also GSC shows the page with no issue and rendering is also fine.
The canonicals and robots are properly set with no issues on them.
Not able to figure out what is the problem. Experts advice would help!Regards,
Ryan -
Hey Neil
Wow, we are really chuffed here at Effect Digital! I guess... we have a lot of combined experience - and we also try to give something back to the community (as well as making profit, obviously)
We didn't actually know how many people used the Moz Q&A forum until recently. It seemed like a good hub to demonstrate that, not all agency accounts have to exist to give shallow 1-liner replies from a position of complete ignorance (usually just so they can link spam the comments). Groups of people, **can **be insightful and 'to the point'
Again we're just really thrilled that you found our analysis to be useful. It also shows what goes into what we do. Most of the responses on here which are under-detailed have the potential to lead people down rabbit holes. Sometimes you just have to get into the thick of it right?
I think our email address is publicly listed on our profile page. Feel free to hit us up
-
My Friend,
That is some analysis you have done there!! and I am eternally greatful. It's people like you, who are clearly so passionate about SEO, that make our industry amazing!!
I am going to private message you a longer reply, later but i just wanted to publicly say thank you!!
Regards
Neil
-
Ok let's have a look here.
So this is the URL of the page you want me to look at:
I can immediately tell you that, from my end it doesn't look like Google has even cached this page at all:
- http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nubalustrades.co.uk%2F (live)
- https://d.pr/i/DhmPEr.png (screenshot)
As you know I can't fetch someone else's web page as Google, but I do know Screaming Frog pretty well so let's give that a blast
First let's try a quick crawl with no client-side rendering enabled, see what that comes back with:
- https://d.pr/f/u3bifA.seospider (SF crawl file)
- https://d.pr/f/9TfNR5.xlsx (Excel spreadsheet output)
Seems as if, even without rendered crawling the words are being picked up:
Only the rows highlighted in green (the 'core' site URLs) should have a word count anyway. The other URLs are fragments and resources. They're scripts, stylesheets, images etc (none of which need copy).
Let's try a rendered crawl, see what we get:
- https://d.pr/f/ijprbx.seospider (SF crawl file)
- https://d.pr/f/c8ljoF.xlsx (Excel spreadsheet output)
Again - it seems as if the words are picked up, though oddly fewer are picked up with rendered crawling than with a simple AJAX source scrape:
That could easily be something to do with my time-out or render-wait settings though (that being said I did give a pretty generous 23 seconds so...)
In any case, it seems to me that the content is search readable in either event.
Let's look at the homepage specifically in more detail. Basically if content appears in "inspect element" but not in "view source", **that's **when you know you have a real problem
- view-source:https://www.nubalustrades.co.uk/ - (you can only open this link with Chrome browser, it's free to download from Google)
As you can see, lots of the content does indeed appear in the 'base' source code:
That's a good thing.
That being said, each piece of content seems to be replicated twice in the source code which is really weird and may be creating some content duplication issues, if Google's more simple crawl-bots aren't taking the time to analyse the source code correctly.
Go back here:
- view-source:https://www.nubalustrades.co.uk/ - (this link only works in Chrome!)
Ctrl+F to find the string of text: "issued by the British Standards Institution". Hit enter a few times. You'll see the page jump about.
On the one hand you have this, further up the page which looks alright:
On the other hand you have this further down which looks like a complete mess, embedded within some kind of script or something?
Line 6,212 of the source code is some gigantic JavaScript thing which has been in-lined (and don't get me started on how this site is over-using inline code in general, for CSS, JS - everything). No idea what it's for or does, might be deferred stuff to boost page speed without breaking the visuals or whatever (there are many clever tricks like that, but they make the source code a virtually unreadable mess for a human - let alone a programmed bot!)
What really concerns me is why such a simple page needs to have 6,250 lines of source code. That's mental!
What we all forget is that, whilst the crawl and fetch bots pull information quickly - Google's algorithms have to be run over the top of that source code and data (which is a much more complex affair)
Usually people think that normalizing the code-to-text ratio is a pointless SEO maneuver and in most cases, yes the return is vastly outweighed by the time taken to do it. But in your case it's actually very extreme:
Put your URL in and you'll get this:
I tried like 5-8 different tools and this was the most favorable result :')
It is clear that, even were the page successfully downloaded by Google, their algorithms may have trouble hunting out the nuggets of content within the vast, sprawling and unnecessary coding structure. My older colleagues had always warned me away from Wix... now I can see why, with my own two eyes
Ok. So we know that Google isn't bothering to cache the page, and that - despite the fact your content can 'technically' be crawled, it may be a marathon to do that and dig it out (especially for non-intelligent robots)
But is the content being indexed? Let's check:
- https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Anubalustrades.co.uk+%22issued+by+the+British+Standards+Institution%22
- https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&ei=q_MYXMj3EM_srgSNh6LYCQ&q=site%3Anubalustrades.co.uk+%22product+and+your+happy+with%22
- https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&ei=6vMYXPuLC4yYsAXAoKfAAg&q=site%3Anubalustrades.co.uk+%22Some+customers+like+to+have+more+than+one+balustrade%22
- https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&ei=CPQYXOmJFYu6tQXi8arwBA&q=site%3Anubalustrades.co.uk+%22installations+which+will+help+you+visualise+your+future+project%22
- https://www.google.co.uk/search?num=100&ei=KvQYXMyhC4LStAWopbqACg&q=site%3Anubalustrades.co.uk+%22Cleanly-designed%2C+high-quality+handrail+systems+combined+with+attention%22
Those are all special Google search queries, designed to specifically search for strings of content on your website from all the different, primary content boxes
Good news fella, it's all being found:
Let's make up an invalid text string and see what Google returns when text can't be found, to validate our findings thus-far:
If nothing is found you get this:
So I guess Google can find your content and is indexing your content
Phew, crisis over! Onto the next one...
-
Hi There,
This is the URL:-
https://www.nubalustrades.co.uk/
Be great if you could give me your opinion. I am thinking that this content isn't being indexed.
Regards
Neil
-
If you can share a link to the site I can probably diagnose it. It's probably that the content is within the modified (client-side rendered) source code, rather than the 'base' (non-modified) source code. Google fetches pages in multiple different ways, so using fetch as Google artificially makes it seem as if they always use exactly the same crawling technology. They don't.
Google 'can' crawl modified content. But they don't always do it, and they don't do it for everyone. Rendered crawling takes like... 10x longer than basic source scraping. Their mission is to index the web!
The fetch tool shows you their best-case scenario crawling methodology. Don't assume their indexation bots, which have a mountain to climb - will always be so favourable
-
Just an update on this one
Looks like it may be a problem with Wix
https://moz.com/community/q/wix-problem-with-on-page-optimization-picking-up-seo
I have another client who also uses Wix and they also show now content in screaming frog but worryingly their pages show in a cached version of the site. I know the "cache" isn't the best way to see what content is indexed and the fetch as Google is fine.
I just get the feeling something isn't right.
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
-
Google Webmaster Tools is saying "Sitemap contains urls which are blocked by robots.txt" after Https move...
Hi Everyone, I really don't see anything wrong with our robots.txt file after our https move that just happened, but Google says all URLs are blocked. The only change I know we need to make is changing the sitemap url to https. Anything you all see wrong with this robots.txt file? robots.txt This file is to prevent the crawling and indexing of certain parts of your site by web crawlers and spiders run by sites like Yahoo! and Google. By telling these "robots" where not to go on your site, you save bandwidth and server resources. This file will be ignored unless it is at the root of your host: Used: http://example.com/robots.txt Ignored: http://example.com/site/robots.txt For more information about the robots.txt standard, see: http://www.robotstxt.org/wc/robots.html For syntax checking, see: http://www.sxw.org.uk/computing/robots/check.html Website Sitemap Sitemap: http://www.bestpricenutrition.com/sitemap.xml Crawlers Setup User-agent: * Allowable Index Allow: /*?p=
Technical SEO | | vetofunk
Allow: /index.php/blog/
Allow: /catalog/seo_sitemap/category/ Directories Disallow: /404/
Disallow: /app/
Disallow: /cgi-bin/
Disallow: /downloader/
Disallow: /includes/
Disallow: /lib/
Disallow: /magento/
Disallow: /pkginfo/
Disallow: /report/
Disallow: /stats/
Disallow: /var/ Paths (clean URLs) Disallow: /index.php/
Disallow: /catalog/product_compare/
Disallow: /catalog/category/view/
Disallow: /catalog/product/view/
Disallow: /catalogsearch/
Disallow: /checkout/
Disallow: /control/
Disallow: /contacts/
Disallow: /customer/
Disallow: /customize/
Disallow: /newsletter/
Disallow: /poll/
Disallow: /review/
Disallow: /sendfriend/
Disallow: /tag/
Disallow: /wishlist/
Disallow: /aitmanufacturers/index/view/
Disallow: /blog/tag/
Disallow: /advancedreviews/abuse/reportajax/
Disallow: /advancedreviews/ajaxproduct/
Disallow: /advancedreviews/proscons/checkbyproscons/
Disallow: /catalog/product/gallery/
Disallow: /productquestions/index/ajaxform/ Files Disallow: /cron.php
Disallow: /cron.sh
Disallow: /error_log
Disallow: /install.php
Disallow: /LICENSE.html
Disallow: /LICENSE.txt
Disallow: /LICENSE_AFL.txt
Disallow: /STATUS.txt Paths (no clean URLs) Disallow: /.php$
Disallow: /?SID=
disallow: /?cat=
disallow: /?price=
disallow: /?flavor=
disallow: /?dir=
disallow: /?mode=
disallow: /?list=
disallow: /?limit=5
disallow: /?limit=10
disallow: /?limit=15
disallow: /?limit=20
disallow: /*?limit=250 -
Google Cache showing a different URL
Hi all, very weird things happening to us. For the 3 URLs below, Google cache is rendering content from a different URL (sister site) even though there are no redirects between the 2 & live page shows the 'right content' - see: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/tours/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/about/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/about/team/ We also have the exact same issue with another domain we owned (but not anymore), only difference is that we 301 redirected those URLs before it changed ownership: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.preferredsafaris.com/Kenya/2 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.preferredsafaris.com/accommodation/Namibia/5 I have gone ahead into the URL removal Tool and got denied for the first case above ("") and it is still pending for the second lists. We are worried that this might be a sign of duplicate content & could be penalising us. Thanks! ps: I went through most questions & the closest one I found was this one (http://moz.com/community/q/page-disappeared-from-google-index-google-cache-shows-page-is-being-redirected) but it didn't provide a clear answer on my question above
Technical SEO | | SouthernAfricaTravel0 -
Google using descriptions from other websites instead of site's own meta description
In the last month or so, Google has started displaying a description under links to my home page in its search results that doesn't actually come from my site. I have a meta description tag in place and for a very limited set of keywords, that description is displayed, but for the majority of results, it's displaying a description that appears on Alexa.com and a handful of other sites that seem to have copied Alexa's listing, e.g. similarsites.com. The problem is, the description from these other sites isn't particularly descriptive and mentions a service that we no longer provide. So my questions are: Why is Google doing this? Surely that's broken behaviour. How do I fix it?
Technical SEO | | antdesign0 -
Google picking up wrong page title
Hi, When searching for "Tottenham Forum" on google.co.uk (link below) http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=tottenham+forum&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a The site I manage (THFCTalk.com) is listed as 4th in the search results, but was hacked a few months ago and the search results lists the page title as "Free Shipping. Order Cialis Online. - Online Pharmacy" when the actual page title of THFCTalk is not actually set at that. Any idea how to fix this so Google updates this header on the search results? - as it is surely putting people off from clicking on our search result
Technical SEO | | WalesDragon0 -
Why are old versions of images still showing for my site in Google Image Search?
I have a number of images on my website with a watermark. We changed the watermark (on all of our images) in May, but when I search for my site getmecooking in Google Image Search, it still shows the old watermark (the old one is grey, the new one is orange). Is Google not updating the images its search results because they are cached in Google? Or because it is ignoring my images, having downloaded them once? Should we be giving our images a version number (at the end of the file name)? Our website cache is set to 7 days, so that's not the issue. Thanks.
Technical SEO | | Techboy0 -
Impact on domain when using a subdomain for majority opf site content
Hello, We're looking to use a subdomain for a bookings engine that will also host the majority of our site content as it wil house the details of the courses that we'll be selling online. All content is currently available on www.existingdomain.co.uk A few pages will remain here but the majority will ultimately be hosted on a different IP address under a subdomain: courses.existingdomain.co.uk I am a little concerened about search engine reaction to this content separation. Would this approach dilute the rankings of www.existingdomain.co.uk? Is there anything else we need to be mindful of? We have alternative options if this is a real SEO faux pas. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Urbanfox0 -
Duplicate Content from Google URL Builder
Hello to the SEOmoz community! I am new to SEOmoz, SEO implementation, and the community and recently set up a campaign on one of the sites I managed. I was surprised at the amount of duplicate content that showed up as errors and when I took a look in deeper, the majority of errors were caused by pages on the root domain I put through Google Analytics URL Builder. After this, I went into webmaster tools and changed the parameter handling to ignore all of the tags the URL Builder adds to the end of the domain. SEOmoz recently recrawled my site and the errors being caused by the URL Builder are still being shown as duplicates. Any suggestions on what to do?
Technical SEO | | joshuaopinion0