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
-
How to Make my Site Appear in google search like the attached image?
Whenever I search for my website, All of the pages appears as different search results. However, I want my website to appear as most of the website out there appears. I have attached an image for your understanding (that's what exactly I want to get). I Shall be very thankful! Oycm2Kd
Technical SEO | | primecoursesfree1 -
How do I avoid this issue of duplicate content with Google?
I have an ecommerce website which sells a product that has many different variations based on a vehicle’s make, model, and year. Currently, we sell this product on one page “www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001” and we show a modal to sort through each make, model, and year. This is important because based on the make, model, and year, we have different prices/configurations for each. For example, for the Jeep Wrangler and Jeep Cherokee, we might have different products: Ultimate Pet Liner - Jeep Wrangler 2011-2013 - $350 Ultimate Pet Liner - Jeep Wrangler 2014 - 2015 - $350 Utlimate Pet Liner - Jeep Cherokee 2011-2015 - $400 Although the typical consumer might think we have 1 product (the Ultimate Pet Liner), we look at these as many different types of products, each with a different configuration and different variants. We do NOT have unique content for each make, model, and year. We have the same content and images for each. When the customer selects their make, model, and year, we just search and replace the text to make it look like the make, model, and year. For example, when a custom selects 2015 Jeep Wrangler from the modal, we do a search and replace so the page will have the same url (www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001) but the product title will say “2015 Jeep Wrangler”. Here’s my problem: We want all of these individual products to have their own unique urls (cargoliner.com/products/2015-jeep-wrangler) so we can reference them in emails to customers and ideally we start creating unique content for them. Our only problem is that there will be hundreds of them and they don’t have unique content other than us switching in the product title and change of variants. Also, we don’t want our url www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001 to lose its link juice. Here’s my question(s): My assumption is that I should just keep my url: www.cargoliner.com/products.php?did=10001 and be able to sort through the products on that page. Then I should go ahead and make individual urls for each of these products (i.e. cargoliner.com/products/2015-jeep-wrangler) but just add a “nofollow noindex” to the page. Is this what I should do? How secure is a “no-follow noindex” on a webpage? Does Google still index? Am I at risk for duplicate content penalties? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | kirbyfike0 -
Google Webmaster tools Sitemap submitted vs indexed vs Index Status
I'm having an odd error I'm trying to diagnose. Our Index Status is growing and is now up to 1,115. However when I look at Sitemaps we have 763 submitted but only 134 indexed. The submitted and indexed were virtually the same around 750 until 15 days ago when the indexed dipped dramatically. Additionally when I look under HTML improvements I only find 3 duplicate pages, and I ran screaming frog on the site and got similar results, low duplicates. Our actual content should be around 950 pages counting all the category pages. What's going on here?
Technical SEO | | K-WINTER0 -
Google Not liking Magento Sites?
Hello, I'm new to the community and I wonder if anyone can help us shed a light on this SEO issue we are having. We have 3 magento websites that is being affected. Whats happening is that those site were ranked for a specific keyword for few months, but all of a sudden, it just drop like crazy. It went from top 10 to about 150 in a bout a weeks period. Some site, it's not even ranked or stopped ranking and visible on the search engine. Is google not liking MAgento for some reason?? Any help or suggestions will be appreciated! thanks
Technical SEO | | solution.advisor0 -
Does turning website content into PDFs for document sharing sites cause duplicate content?
Website content is 9 tutorials published to unique urls with a contents page linking to each lesson. If I make a PDF version for distribution of document sharing websites, will it create a duplicate content issue? The objective is to get a half decent link, traffic to supplementary opt-in downloads.
Technical SEO | | designquotes0 -
Have I Set my joomla site map correctly as google not picking up articles
Hi here is my site map http://www.in2town.co.uk/sitemap-xml?sitemap=1 But i am concerned that i have not set my joomla site map correctly. The reason why i think this is, because i have a lot of articles on the site and google are not picking them up in my google webmaster tools. On my old site google was quick to pick up all the articles. Can anyone offer me any help on this and let me know if my site map should be set to show all of my articles
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860 -
Strange Top URLs for Keywords in Google Webmaster Tools
When we click on one of our keywords under the keywords section of Google Webmaster Tools it shows our top URLs for that keyword. The problem is that it is giving us some very strange URLs that we have searched high and low to try to find but we don't know where they came from. Here is a screenshot: http://bit.ly/pl6mB3 Do you know where this type of URL string could have originated and how to fix it?
Technical SEO | | Hakkasan0 -
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