Sudden Indexation of "Index of /wp-content/uploads/"
-
Hi all,
I have suddenly noticed a massive jump in indexed pages. After performing a "site:" search, it was revealed that the sudden jump was due to the indexation of many pages beginning with the serp title "Index of /wp-content/uploads/" for many uploaded pieces of content & plugins.
This has appeared approximately one month after switching to https. I have also noticed a decline in Bing rankings. Does anyone know what is causing/how to fix this? To be clear, these pages are **not **normal /wp-content/uploads/ but rather "index of" pages, being included in Google.
Thank you.
-
Using the htaccess I 404'd all the pages using "Options All -Indexes". Will this resolve the issue?
-
We use Worpdress as our CMS and do indeed use Yoast. We have never had an issue with /wp-content/ being indexed before, and I have been very conscientious about keeping our index clean.
Why I am confused is that this is an index of our wp-content, similar to a sitemap. I do not have robots.txt blocked for this as I do not know what is making the index.
Thanks!
-
Can you share the URL of the site in question, please? I'd be happy to take a look for you. Those resources should be blocked from being crawled in the robots.txt file, at the bare minimum.
- What CMS is the website running?
- Do you have a plugin like Yoast running?
Ranking declines could indicate a poor migration from HTTP to HTTPS, but would require some investigation.
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
-
Can you use no-index to counter duplicate content across separate domains?
Hi Moz Community, I have a client who is splitting out a sub brand from a company website to its own domain. They have lots of content around the theme and they want to migrate most of the content out to the new domain, but they also wanted to keep that content on the main site as the main site gets lots of traffic. My question is, as they want search traffic to go to the new site, but want to keep the best content on the original site too, so it can be found in the nav, if they no-index identical content on main site and index content on the new site will they still be penalised for duplicate content? Our advice has been to keep the thematic content on both sites but make them different enough so they are not considered duplicate - we routinely write the same blog post in 50 different ways for them but their Head of Web asked if the no-index is a route, which means they don't need to pay for and wait for brand new content? They are comfortable in losing traffic until the new domain gets traction. In theory, if they are telling Google not to index or rank the main site content, the new site shouldn't be penalised but I'm not confident giving that advice as I've never been asked to do this before. Thoughts?
Technical SEO | | Algorhythm_jT0 -
Image Search / sudden drop in traffic
One of our sites in Germany had a very sudden drop in traffic (starting Oct. 7th). The site gets most of it's organic traffic from Image Search. Checking in Search Console revealed that search volume for keywords increased in that period our average position is stable our click rate dropped dramatically (we double checked - searching the keyword in "anonymous mode" still showed our results for main keywords in top image positions (first 2 rows)). As an example (see attached screencopy) - keyword had clickrate of 1% (average) - dan dropped to 0.06% while the position remained stable. Germany is still using the "old" version of image search (unlike the rest of the world) - which gives the site preview rather than just the image slider when you click on a result in image search. Our first thought that this was changed - but it seems that it didn't change. Ideas what might cause this dramatic drop in click%? There have been no major technical modifications on the site for the last 2 months. thanks, Dirk GjlV8CW.jpg
Technical SEO | | DirkC0 -
Redirect /label/ to /tags/
Hi guys, I have noticed loads of errors in webmaster, page not found.. /label/..... what i need to do is to a 301 redirect to /tags/... can some one tell me the redirect code to help fix this issue Regards T
Technical SEO | | Taiger0 -
Is it necessary to 301 rewrite /index.php to /?
Hi, We have build a lot of external link to http://www.oursite.com/ Do I have to do a 301 redirect from http://www.oursite.com/index.php to http://www.outsite.com/? Thanks
Technical SEO | | LauraHT0 -
Handling "legitimate" duplicate content in an online shop.
The scenario: Online shop selling consumables for machinery. Consumable range A (CA) contains consumables w, x, y, z. The individual consumables are not a problem, it is the consumables groups I'm having problems with. The Problem: Several machines use the same range of consumables. i.e. Machine A (MA) consumables page contains the list (CA) with the contents w,x,y,z. Machine B (MB) consumables page contains exactly the same list (CA) with contents w,x,y,z. Machine A page = Machine B page = Consumables range A page Some people will search Google for the consumables by the range name (CA). Most people will search by individual machine (MA Consumables, MB Consumables etc). If I use canonical tags on the Machine consumable pages (MA + MB) pointing to the consumables range page (CA) then I'm never going to rank for the Machine pages which would represent a huge potential loss of search traffic. However, if I don't use canonical tags then all the pages get slammed as duplicate content. For somebody that owns machine A, then a page titled "Machine A consumables" with the list of consumables is exactly what they are looking for and it makes sense to serve it to them in that format. However, For somebody who owns machine B, then it only makes sense for the page to be titled "Machine B consumables" even though the content is exactly the same. The Question: What is the best way to handle this from both a user and search engine perspective?
Technical SEO | | Serpstone0 -
Will blocking the Wayback Machine (archive.org) have any impact on Google crawl and indexing/SEO?
Will blocking the Wayback Machine (archive.org) by adding the code they give have any impact on Google crawl and indexing/SEO? Anyone know? Thanks! ~Brett
Technical SEO | | BBuck0 -
"noindex" internal search result urls
Hi, Would applying "noindex" on any page (say internal search pages) or blocking via robots text, skew up the internal site search stats in Google Analytics? Thanks,
Technical SEO | | RaksG0 -
International Websites: rel="alternate" hreflang="x"
Hi people, I keep on reading and reading , but I won't get it... 😉 I mean this page: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=189077&topic=2370587&ctx=topic On the bottom of the page they say: Step 2: Use rel="alternate" hreflang="x" Update the HTML of each URL in the set by adding a set of rel="alternate" hreflang="x" link elements. Include a rel="alternate" hreflang="x" link for every URL in the set, like this: This markup tells Google's algorithm to consider all of these pages as alternate versions of each other. OK! Each URL needs this markup. BUT: Do i need it exactly as written above, or do I have to put in the complete URL of the site, like: The next question is, what happens exactly in the SERPS when I do it like this (an also with Step1 that I haven't copied here)? Google will display the "canonical"-version of the page, but wehen a user from US clicks he will get on http://en-us.example.com/**page.htm **??? I tried to find other sites which use this method, but I haven't found one. Can someone give me an example.website??? Thank you, thank you very much! André
Technical SEO | | waynestock0