Tens of duplicate homepages indexed and blocked later: How to remove from Google cache?
-
Hi community,
Due to some WP plugin issue, many homepages indexed in Google with anonymous URLs. We blocked them later. Still they are in SERP. I wonder whether these are causing some trouble to our website, especially as our exact homepages indexed. How to remove these pages from Google cache? Is that the right approach?
Thanks
-
Hi Nigel,
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm going to use "Remove URLs" tool from GSC. They have been created due to a bug in the Yoast SEO plugin. Very unfortunate and we paid for no mistake from our end.
Removing from SERP means removing from Google index also? Or Google will still consider them and just stops showing us? My intention is: Anyway we blocked them, but whether they will cause some distraction to our ranking efforts being there in results being cached.
Thanks
-
Thanks!
A agree - I have just done a similar clean up by:
1. Don't let them be created
2. Redirect all previous versions!One site I just worked on had 8 versions of the home page! lol
http
https
/index.php
/index.php/A mess!
We stopped them all being created and 301'd all versions just in case they were indexed anywhere or linked externally.
Cheers
-
It is assuredly true that, just like in any number of fields (medicine) - in SEO, prevention is better than cleanup based methodology. If your website doesn't take its medicine, you get problems like this one
I think your advice here was really good
-
Good solid advice
They can be created in any number of ways but it's normally simple enough to specify the preferred URL on the server then move any variations in htaccess, such as those with www (if the none www is preferred), those with a trailing slash at the end etc.
The self canonical on all will sort out any other duplicates.
As for getting rid of them - the search console way is the quickest. If they don't exist after that then the won't be reindexed unless they are linked from somewhere else. In such cases, they will 301 from htaccess so it shouldn't be a problem.
if you 410 you will lose any benefit from those links going to the pages and it's a bad experience for a visitor. Always 301 do not 410 if it is a version.
410s are fine for old pages you never want to see in the index again but not for a home page version.
Regards
Nigel
-
It's likely that you don't have access to edit the coding on these weird plugin URLs. As such, normal techniques like using a Meta no-index tag in the HTML may be non-viable.
You could use the HTTP header (server level stuff) to help you out. I'd advise adding two strong directives to the afflicted URLs through the HTTP header so that Google gets the message:
-
Use the X-Robots deployment of the no-index directive on the affected URLs, at the HTTP header (not the HTML) level. That linked pages tells you about the normal HTML implementation, but also about the X-Robots implementation which is the one you need (scroll down a bit)
-
Serve status code 410 (gone) on the affected URLs
That should prompt Google to de-index those pages. Once they are de-indexed, you can use robots.txt to block Google from crawling such URLs in the future (which will stop the problem happening again!)
It's important to de-index the URLs before you do any robots.txt stuff. If Google can't crawl the affected URLs, it can't find the info (in the HTTP header) to know that it should de-index those pages
Once Google is blocked from both indexing and crawling these pages, they should begin to stop caching them too
Hope that helps
-
-
+1 for "Make sure that they are not created in the first place" haha
-
Hi again vtmoz!
1. Make sure that they are not created in the first place
2. Make sure that they are not in the sitemap
3. Go to search console and remove any you do not want - it will say temporary removal but they will not come back if they are not in the structure or the sitemap.More:
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1663419?hl=en
Note: Always self canonicalize the home page to stop versions with UTM codes (created by Facebook, Twitter etc) appearing in SERPS
Regards
Nigel
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
-
Have there been any google algorithm updates in the past 2 weeks?
Hi guys - we have noticed a site we work one has taken a hit on its rankings over the past week. We have been through all the usual reason - hacking, duplicate content, back links, other sites copying text etc - but can not find any reason why its rankings have been affected. Has any one else noticed unexplained changes in rankings with sites about a week ago? Thanks in advance! Phil
Algorithm Updates | | Globalgraphics1 -
Google Search Subsections
Hi! I want to know how can I put the URL from a page like that: http://i.imgur.com/qK1NLjq.png?1 I mean: "www.calafate.com › El Chaltén" Is it possible? Thanks!!!
Algorithm Updates | | Seomediabros0 -
Does Google use dateModified or date Published in its SERPs?
I was curious as to the prioritization of dateCreated / datePublished and dateModified in our microdata and how it affects google search results. I have read some entries online that say Google prioritizes dateModified in SERPs, but others that claim they prioritize datePublished or dateCreated. Do you know (or could you point me to some resources) as to whether Google uses dateModified or date Published in its SERPs? Thanks!
Algorithm Updates | | Parse.ly0 -
Number of Items As a Google Ranking Factor??
If I search for "hiking boots" and scan down the SERPs I see the following... Google reports "483 items" for the Zappos.com page. Google reports "Results 1 - 36 of 85" for the Shoebuy.com page (and that does not appear in their code). So, Google is obviously paying attention to the depth of your information or the number of items that you are showing. If they think that is important enough to count and report in the SERPs, might they also be using that information as a ranking factor?? PRACTICAL APPLICATION FOR SEO: If google is using this information, perhaps people should list all of their color, size, etc variants on a single page. For example if you sell widgets in five colors, instead of making one page for each color, list all five on the same page.
Algorithm Updates | | EGOL1 -
Is there a direct correlation between google places and organic listing ?
Basically, I have examined several examples that the sites which are included in Google places are not listed in organic results in page 1. For example, If my site is listed in google places. is it going to affect my ranking for the same keyword?.
Algorithm Updates | | Abith0 -
Google is showing crazy results
Google is showing crazy results in these days sometimes my sites are on top of all keywords sometimes far behind in search engine in same day what is going on ????
Algorithm Updates | | GM0070 -
Google and Content at Top of Page Change?
We always hear about how Google made this change or that change this month to their algorithm. Sometimes it's true and other times it's just a rumor. So this week I was speaking with someone in the SEO field who said that this week a change occurred at Google and is going to become more prevalent where content placed at the "top of the fold" on merchant sites with products are going to get better placement, rather than if you have your products at top with some content beneath them at the bottom of the page. Any comments on this?
Algorithm Updates | | applesofgold0