How to block text on a page to be indexed?
-
I would like to block the spider indexing a block of text inside a page , however I do not want to block the whole page with, for example , a noindex tag.
I have tried already with a tag like this :
chocolate pudding
chocolate pudding
However this is not working for my case, a travel related website.
thanks in advance for your support.
Best regards
Gianluca
-
Gianluca,
Rand's whiteboard Friday a couple of weeks ago may help you: http://moz.com/blog/handling-duplicate-content-across-large-numbers-of-urlsThough the Whiteboard Friday is about duplicate content issues, 1 piece you can probably us from it is this: embed an iframe on page of the content to leave the content out of the index and the content will not be perceived to be part of the URL when using iframe. Add “noindex” in the HTML doc in the iframe to be 100% sure that search engines do not index it.
-
There aren't too many ways to achieve this without it looking a little odd to Google. The use of Images is probably the only real world way, but do remember that Google can view images well, and I have always advised anyone wanting to do this, to avoid it.
I haven't tried this myself, but can see it working by using iframes and then Disallowing them in Robots.txt
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15685205/noindex-tag-for-googleAndy
-
@chris - thanks for your reply. yes I realised only after I used it that this solution won't apply to web search. it is a possibility to put the text in an immage, however, since it will be a lot of text in many different product pages, I was looking for something easier to automate. any other possibilities through tags?
-
That was a good line; I will try to remember to give you attribution. Like your stuff on here.
Best -
Unfortunately, I haven't had the opportunity. I'd love to get my hands on one though--it'd be like holding a baby google in your arms
-
Chris,
Do you work with the Search Appliance? Would love to speak with you about it if so.
Thanks, great answer.
Robert
-
Gianluca,
The Googleoff: snippet is not used for web-search, it's only used with the Google Search Appliance. Could you can put the text you want to keep out of the snippet into an image?
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
-
Issues with getting a web page indexed
Hello friends, I am finding it difficult to get the following page indexed on search: http://www.niyati.sg/mobile-app-cost.htm It was uploaded over two weeks back. For indexing and trouble shooting, we have already done the following activities: The page is hyperlinked from the site's inner pages and few external websites and Google+ Submitted to Google (through the Submit URL option) Used the 'Fetch and Render' and 'Submit to index' options on Search Console (WMT) Added the URL on both HTML and XML Sitemaps Checked for any crawl errors or Google penalty (page and site level) on Search Console Checked Meta tags, Robots.txt and .htaccess files for any blocking Any idea what may have gone wrong? Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | RameshNair
Ramesh Nair0 -
My sites "pages indexed by Google" have gone up more than qten-fold.
Prior to doing a little work cleaning up broken links and keyword stuffing Google only indexed 23/333 pages. I realize it may not be because of the work but now we have around 300/333. My question is is this a big deal? cheers,
Technical SEO | | Billboard20120 -
Why is there a difference in the number of indexed pages shown by GWT and site: search?
Hi Moz Fans, I have noticed that there is a huge difference between the number of indexed pages of my site shown via site: search and the one that shows Webmaster Tools. While searching for my site directly in the browser (site:), there are about 435,000 results coming up. According to GWT there are over 2.000.000 My question is: Why is there such a huge difference and which source is correct? We have launched the site about 3 months ago, there are over 5 million urls within the site and we get lots of organic traffic from the very beginning. Hope you can help! Thanks! Aleksandra
Technical SEO | | aleker0 -
How Does Google's "index" find the location of pages in the "page directory" to return?
This is my understanding of how Google's search works, and I am unsure about one thing in specific: Google continuously crawls websites and stores each page it finds (let's call it "page directory") Google's "page directory" is a cache so it isn't the "live" version of the page Google has separate storage called "the index" which contains all the keywords searched. These keywords in "the index" point to the pages in the "page directory" that contain the same keywords. When someone searches a keyword, that keyword is accessed in the "index" and returns all relevant pages in the "page directory" These returned pages are given ranks based on the algorithm The one part I'm unsure of is how Google's "index" knows the location of relevant pages in the "page directory". The keyword entries in the "index" point to the "page directory" somehow. I'm thinking each page has a url in the "page directory", and the entries in the "index" contain these urls. Since Google's "page directory" is a cache, would the urls be the same as the live website (and would the keywords in the "index" point to these urls)? For example if webpage is found at wwww.website.com/page1, would the "page directory" store this page under that url in Google's cache? The reason I want to discuss this is to know the effects of changing a pages url by understanding how the search process works better.
Technical SEO | | reidsteven750 -
Duplicate pages in Google index despite canonical tag and URL Parameter in GWMT
Good morning Moz... This is a weird one. It seems to be a "bug" with Google, honest... We migrated our site www.three-clearance.co.uk to a Drupal platform over the new year. The old site used URL-based tracking for heat map purposes, so for instance www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html ..could be reached via www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=menu or www.three-clearance.co.uk/apple-phones.html?ref=sidebar and so on. GWMT was told of the ref parameter and the canonical meta tag used to indicate our preference. As expected we encountered no duplicate content issues and everything was good. This is the chain of events: Site migrated to new platform following best practice, as far as I can attest to. Only known issue was that the verification for both google analytics (meta tag) and GWMT (HTML file) didn't transfer as expected so between relaunch on the 22nd Dec and the fix on 2nd Jan we have no GA data, and presumably there was a period where GWMT became unverified. URL structure and URIs were maintained 100% (which may be a problem, now) Yesterday I discovered 200-ish 'duplicate meta titles' and 'duplicate meta descriptions' in GWMT. Uh oh, thought I. Expand the report out and the duplicates are in fact ?ref= versions of the same root URL. Double uh oh, thought I. Run, not walk, to google and do some Fu: http://is.gd/yJ3U24 (9 versions of the same page, in the index, the only variation being the ?ref= URI) Checked BING and it has indexed each root URL once, as it should. Situation now: Site no longer uses ?ref= parameter, although of course there still exists some external backlinks that use it. This was intentional and happened when we migrated. I 'reset' the URL parameter in GWMT yesterday, given that there's no "delete" option. The "URLs monitored" count went from 900 to 0, but today is at over 1,000 (another wtf moment) I also resubmitted the XML sitemap and fetched 5 'hub' pages as Google, including the homepage and HTML site-map page. The ?ref= URls in the index have the disadvantage of actually working, given that we transferred the URL structure and of course the webserver just ignores the nonsense arguments and serves the page. So I assume Google assumes the pages still exist, and won't drop them from the index but will instead apply a dupe content penalty. Or maybe call us a spam farm. Who knows. Options that occurred to me (other than maybe making our canonical tags bold or locating a Google bug submission form 😄 ) include A) robots.txt-ing .?ref=. but to me this says "you can't see these pages", not "these pages don't exist", so isn't correct B) Hand-removing the URLs from the index through a page removal request per indexed URL C) Apply 301 to each indexed URL (hello BING dirty sitemap penalty) D) Post on SEOMoz because I genuinely can't understand this. Even if the gap in verification caused GWMT to forget that we had set ?ref= as a URL parameter, the parameter was no longer in use because the verification only went missing when we relaunched the site without this tracking. Google is seemingly 100% ignoring our canonical tags as well as the GWMT URL setting - I have no idea why and can't think of the best way to correct the situation. Do you? 🙂 Edited To Add: As of this morning the "edit/reset" buttons have disappeared from GWMT URL Parameters page, along with the option to add a new one. There's no messages explaining why and of course the Google help page doesn't mention disappearing buttons (it doesn't even explain what 'reset' does, or why there's no 'remove' option).
Technical SEO | | Tinhat0 -
Does hidden text, which appears for an onclick event, get indexed by Google and what SEO impact does this have?
I'm trying to simplify a conversion process with an onclick event to show text rather than having a completely separate page, but wondering if this is going to negatively impact on SEO, especially considering it's hidden text. I've seen a couple of things out there where you could position the text off the screen and the onclick results in it coming on.
Technical SEO | | JuiceBoxOM0 -
Search Result Page, Index or Not?
I believe Google doesn't want to index and show other search result pages in there SERP.
Technical SEO | | DigitalJungle
So instead of adding "noindex, follow" tag i have changed the url in my search result page like this: Original
http://www.mysite.com/kb-search.aspx?=travelguide&type=wiki&s=3 To
http://www.mysite.com/travelguide/attraction-guide.html And the search result page contains the title of the articles, a short descriptions (300 chars.) and a link to the articles. Does it help? Or should i add noindex, follow tag? Helps Please?0 -
What is the best method for indexing blog pages?
I have a client whose blog has hundreds if not thousands of entries. My question is does it help his site if each unique blog entry becomes indexed on Google? Can we do this dynamically? And role does the canonical tag play in blog entries if at all? Thanks, Chris
Technical SEO | | coxen000