404's being re-indexed
-
Hi All,
We are experiencing issues with pages that have been 404'd being indexed. Originally, these were /wp-content/ index pages, that were included in Google's index. Once I realized this, I added in a directive into our htaccess to 404 all of these pages - as there were hundreds. I tried to let Google crawl and remove these pages naturally but after a few months I used the URL removal tool to remove them manually.
However, Google seems to be continually re/indexing these pages, even after they have been manually requested for removal in search console. Do you have suggestions? They all respond to 404's.
Thanks
-
Just to follow up - I have now actually 410'd the pages and the 410's are still being re-indexed.
-
I'll check this one out as well, thanks! I used a header response extension which reveals the presence of x-botots headers called web developer.
-
First it would be helpful to know how you are detecting that it isn't working. What indexation tool are you using to see whether the blocks are being detected? I personally really like this one: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/seo-indexability-check/olojclckfadnlhnlmlekdihebmjpjnoa?hl=en-GB
Or obviously at scale - Screaming Frog
-
Thank you for the quick response,
The pages are truly removed, however, because there were so many of these types of pages that leaked into the index, I added a redirect to keep users on our site - no intentions of being "shady", I just didn't want hundreds of 404's getting clicked and causing a very high bounce rate.
For the x-robots header, could you offer some insight into why my directive isn't working? I believe it's a regex issue on the wp-content. I have tried to troubleshoot to no avail.
<filesmatch <strong="">"(wp-content)">
Header set X-Robots-Tag: "noindex, nofollow"</filesmatch>I appreciate the help!
-
Well if a page has been removed and has not been moved to a new destination - you shouldn't redirect a user anyway (which kind of 'tricks' users into thinking the content was found). That's actually bad UX
If the content has been properly removed or was never supposed to be there, just leave it at a 410 (but maybe create a nice custom 410 page, in the same vein as a decent UX custom 404 page). Use the page to admit that the content is gone (without shady redirects) but to point to related posts or products. Let the user decide, but still be useful
If the content is actually still there and, hence you are doing a redirect - then you shouldn't be serving 404s or 410s in the first place. You should be serving 301s, and just doing HTTP redirects to the content's new (or revised) destination URL
Yes, the HTTP header method is the correct replacement when the HTML implementation gets stripped out. HTTP Header X-Robots is the way for you!
-
Thank you! I am in the process of doing so, however with a 410 I can not leave my JS redirect after the page loads, this creates some UX issues. Do you have any suggestions to remedy this?
Additionally, after the 410 the non x-robots noindex is now being stripped so it only resolves to a 410 with no noindex or redirect. I am still working on a noindex header, as the 410 is server-side, I assume this would be the only way, correct?
-
You know that 404 means "temporarily gone but will be coming back" right? By saying a page is temporarily unavailable, you actively encourage Google to come back later
If you want to say that the page is permanently gone use status code 410 (gone)
Leave the Meta no-index stuff in the HTTP header via X-Robots, that was a good call. But it was a bad call to combine Meta no-index and 404, as they contradict each other ("don't index me now but then do come back and index me later as I'll probably be back at some point")
Use Meta no-index and 410, which agree with each other ("don't index me now and don't bother coming back")
-
Yes, all pages have a noindex. I have also tried to noindex them using htaccess, to add an extra layer of security, but it seems to be incorrect. I believe it is an issue with the regex. Attempting to match anything with wp-content.
<filesmatch "(wp-content)"="">Header set X-Robots-Tag: "noindex, nofollow"</filesmatch>
-
Back to basics. Have you marked those pages/posts as 'no-index'. With many wp plugins, you can no-index them in bulk then submit for re-indexation.
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
-
301 Re-directing 'empty' domains
Hello, My client had purchased a few domains and 301 re-directed them, pointing to our main website. As far as I am aware the 'empty domains' are brand related but no content has ever been displayed on them, and I doubt they have much authority. The issue here is that we took a dive in ranking for our main keyword, I had a look on ahrefs and found the below: | www.empty-domain/our-keyword | 30 | 19 | 1 | fb 0
Technical SEO | | SO_UK
G+ 0
in 4 | REDIRECT 301 TO www.main-domain/our-keyword | 8 Feb '175 d | The ranking dip happened at the same time as the re-direct was re-discovered / re-crawled. Could the 'empty' URL in question been causing us any issues? I understand that this is terrible practice for 301 redirects, I was hoping someone in the community could shed light on any possible solution for this.0 -
Moving wordpress to it's own server
Our company wants to remove wordpress from our current windows OS server at provider 1 and move it to a new server at provider 2. Godaddy handles our DNS. I would like to have it on the same domain without masking. I would like to make a DNS entry on godaddy so that our current server and our new server can use the same URL (ie sellstuff.com). But I only want the DNS to direct traffic to our current server. The goal here is to have the new server using the same URL as the old server so nothing needs to be masked once traffic is redirected with a 301 rule in the htaccess file. But no traffic outside of the 301 rule will end up going to the new server. I would then like to edit the htaccess file on our current server to redirect to the new servers IP address when someone goes to sellstuff.com/blog. Does this make since and is it possible?
Technical SEO | | larsonElectronics0 -
How do you 'close down' a website?
Hello all, If a company acquires a smaller company and 'absorbs' its products and services into its own website, what is the protocol with closing down the smaller company's site? So far we added our branding to the site alerting their visitors to the imminent takeover, and 301 redirected certain pages - soon we'll be redirecting all the pages to their counterparts on the main website. Once that's done, should we noindex the old site? Anything else? Thanks, Caro
Technical SEO | | Caro-O0 -
Google's ability to crawl AJAX rendered content
I would like to make a change to the way our main navigation is currently rendered on our e-commerce site. Currently, all of the content that appears when you click a navigation category is rendering on page load. This is currently a large portion of every page visit’s bandwidth and even the images are downloaded even if a user doesn’t choose to use the navigation. I’d like to change it so the content appears and is downloaded only IF the user clicks on it, I'm planning on using AJAX. As that is the case it wouldn’t not be automatically on the site(which may or may not mean Google would crawl it). As we already provide a sitemap.xml for Google I want to make sure this change would not adversely affect our SEO. As of October this year the Webmaster AJAX crawling doc. suggestions has been depreciated. While the new version does say that its crawlers are smart enough to render AJAX content, something I've tested, I'm not sure if that only applies to content injected on page load as opposed to in click like I'm planning to do.
Technical SEO | | znotes0 -
Pro's & contra's: http vs https
Hi there, We are planning to take the step and go from http to https. The main reason to do this, is to mean trustfull to our clients. And of course the rumours that it would be better for ranking (in the future). We have a large e-commerce site. A part of this site ia already HTTPS. I've read a lot of info about pro's and contra's, also this MOZ article: http://moz.com/blog/seo-tips-https-ssl
Technical SEO | | Leonie-Kramer
But i want to know some experience from others who already done this. What did you encountered when changing to HTTPS, did you had ranking drops, or loss of links etc? I want to make a list form pro's and contra's and things we have to do in advance. Thanx, Leonie0 -
Will you get more 'google juice' if your social links are in your websites header, rather than its footer?
Hi team, I'm in the process of making some aesthetic changes to my website. Its getting quite cluttered so the main purpose is to clean up its look. I currently have 3x social links in the header, right at the top, and i would really like to move these to the footer to remove some clutter in the header. My concern is that moving them may have an impact on the domains ranking in google. Website: www.mountainjade.co.nz We've made some huge gains against our competitors over the past 6 months and I don't want to jeopardise that. Any help would be much appreciated as i'm self taught in SEO and have learnt through making mistakes. This time however, with Moz, i'd rather get some advice before I make any decisions! Thanks is advance, Jake S
Technical SEO | | Jacobsheehan0 -
Specific question about pagination prompted by Adam Audette's Presentation at RKG Summit
This question is prompted by something Adam Audette said in this excellent presentation: http://www.rimmkaufman.com/blog/top-5-seo-conundrums/08062012/ First, I will lay out the issues: 1. All of our paginated pages have the same URL. To view this in action, go here: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/category/audio-technica , scroll down to the bottom of the page and click "Next" - look at the URL. The URL is: http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher, and for every page after it, the same URL. 2. All of the paginated pages with non-unique URLs have canonical tags referencing the first page of the paginated series. 3. http://www.ccisolutions.com/StoreFront/IAFDispatcher has been instructed to be neither crawled nor indexed by Google. Now, on to what Adam said in his presentation: At about minute 24 Adam begins talking about pagination. At about 27:48 in the video, he is discussing the first of three ways to properly deal with pagination issues. He says [I am somewhat paraphrasing]: "Pages 2-N should have self-referencing canonical tags - Pages 2-N should all have their own unique URLs, titles and meta descriptions...The key is, with this is you want deeper pages to get crawled and all the products on there to get crawled too. The problem that we see a lot is, say you have ten pages, each one using rel canonical pointing back to page 1, and when that happens, the products or items on those deep pages don't get get crawled...because the rel canonical tag is sort of like a 301 and basically says 'Okay, this page is actually that page.' All the items and products on this deeper page don't get the love." Before I get to my question, I'll just throw out there that we are planning to fix the pagination issue by opting for the "View All" method, which Adam suggests as the second of three options in this video, so that fix is coming. My question is this: It seems based on what Adam said (and our current abysmal state for pagination) that the products on our paginated pages aren't being crawled or indexed. However, our products are all indexed in Google. Is this because we are submitting a sitemap? Even so, are we missing out on internal linking (authority flow) and Google love because Googlebot is finding way more products in our sitemap that what it is seeing on the site? (or missing out in other ways?) We experience a lot of volatility in our rankings where we rank extremely well for a set of products for a long time, and then disappear. Then something else will rank well for a while, and disappear. I am wondering if this issue is a major contributing factor. Oh, and did I mention that our sort feature sorts the products and imposes that new order for all subsequent visitors? it works like this: If I go to that same Audio-Technica page, and sort the 125+ resulting products by price, they will sort by price...but not just for me, for anyone who subsequently visits that page...until someone else re-sorts it some other way. So if we merchandise the order to be XYZ, and a visitor comes and sorts it ZYX and then googlebot crawls, google would potentially see entirely different products on the first page of the series than the default order marketing intended to be presented there....sigh. Additional thoughts, comments, sympathy cards and flowers most welcome. 🙂 Thanks all!
Technical SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Switching Site to a Domain Name that's in Use
I'm comfortable with the steps of moving a site to a new domain name as recommended by Google. However, in this case, the domain name I'm asked to move to is not really "new" ... meaning it's currently hosting a website and has been for a long time. So my question is, do I do this in steps and take the old website down first in order to "free up" the domain name in they eyes of search engines to avoid large numbers of 404s and then (in step 2) switch to the "new" domain in a few months? Thanks.
Technical SEO | | R2iSEO0