Google Indexing Feedburner Links???
-
I just noticed that for lots of the articles on my website, there are two results in Google's index. For instance:
http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html
and
Now my Feedburner feed is set to "noindex" and it's always been that way. The canonical tag on the webpage is set to:
rel='canonical' href='http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html' />
The robots tag is set to:
name="robots" content="index,follow,noodp" />
I found out that there are scrapper sites that are linking to my content using the Feedburner link.
So should the robots tag be set to "noindex" when the requested URL is different from the canonical URL? If so, is there an easy way to do this in Wordpress?
-
Hi Stephane
I also do not see duplicate pages indexed in Google. Not this page: http://www.thewebhostinghero.com/articles/tools-for-creating-wordpress-plugins.html or any others searching the few pages of results on a site: search.
Perhaps it was a temporary thing were some got indexed. I've seen that happen on occasion, and then they get removed.
If you're still seeing otherwise definitely feel free to chime back in, and provide screenshots or an example query.
Thanks!
-Dan
-
I was trying to see how fast Google was indexing new content on my site (quite fast, about 15 seconds).
So I just searched "site:mywebsite.com" and two results came up for some pages.
-
Why do you believe that the second page is indexed? What was your search query?
-
Why does google shows duplicate results for the same page then?
-
Long as you have the canonical tag set up, you should be fine. If they link to the url with the feedburner variables attached, it is the equivalent of linking straight to your actual post page.
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
-
Lately I have noticed Google indexing many files on the site without the .html extension
Hello, Our site, while we convert, remains in HTML 4.0. Fle names such as http://www.sample.com/samples/index.shtml are being picked up in the SERPS as http://www.sample.com/samples/ even when I use the "rel="canonical" tag and specify the full file name therein as recommended. The link to the truncated URL (http://www.sample.com/samples/) results in what MOZ shows as fewer incoming links than the full file name is shown as having incoming. I am not sure if this is causing a loss in placement (the MOZ stats are showing a decline of late), which I have seen recently (of course, I am aware of other possible reasons, such as not being in HTML5 yet). Any help with this would be great. Thank you in advance
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | gheh20130 -
Does Google Index URLs that are always 302 redirected
Hello community Due to the architecture of our site, we have a bunch of URLs that are 302 redirected to the same URL plus a query string appended to it. For example: www.example.com/hello.html is 302 redirected to www.example.com/hello.html?___store=abc The www.example.com/hello.html?___store=abc page also has a link canonical tag to www.example.com/hello.html In the above example, can www.example.com/hello.html every be Indexed, by google as I assume the googlebot will always be redirected to www.example.com/hello.html?___store=abc and will never see www.example.com/hello.html ? Thanks in advance for the help!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | EcommRulz0 -
Should I remove all vendor links (link farm concerns)?
I have a web site that has been around for a long time. The industry we serve includes many, many small vendors and - back in the day - we decided to allow those vendors to submit their details, including a link to their own web site, for inclusion on our pages. These vendor listings were presented in location (state) pages as well as more granular pages within our industry (we called them "topics). I don't think it's important any more but 100% of the vendors listed were submitted by the vendors themselves, rather than us "hunting down" links for inclusion or automating this in any way. Some of the vendors (I'd guess maybe 10-15%) link back to us but many of these sites are mom-and-pop sites and would have extremely low authority. Today the list of vendors is in the thousands (US only). But the database is old and not maintained in any meaningful way. We have many broken links and I believe, rightly or wrongly, we are considered a link farm by the search engines. The pages on which these vendors are listed use dynamic URLs of the form: \vendors<state>-<topic>. The combination of states and topics means we have hundreds of these pages and they thus form a significant percentage of our pages. And they are garbage 🙂 So, not good.</topic></state> We understand that this model is broken. Our plan is to simply remove these pages (with the list of vendors) from our site. That's a simple fix but I want to be sure we're not doing anything wring here, from an SEO perspective. Is this as simple as that - just removing these page? How much effort should I put into redirecting (301) these removed URLs? For example, I could spend effort making sure that \vendors\California- <topic>(and for all states) goes to a general "topic" page (which still has relevance, but won't have any vendors listed)</topic> I know there is no distinct answer to this, but what expectation should I have about the impact of removing these pages? Would the removal of a large percentage of garbage pages (leaving much better content) be expected to be a major factor in SEO? Anyway, before I go down this path I thought I'd check here in case I miss something. Thoughts?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MarkWill0 -
"No Index, No Follow" or No Index, Follow" for URLs with Thin Content?
Greetings MOZ community: If I have a site with about 200 thin content pages that I want Google to remove from their index, should I set them to "No Index, No Follow" or to "No Index, Follow"? My SEO firm has advised me to set them to "No Index, Follow" but on a recent MOZ help forum post someone suggested "No Index, No Follow". The MOZ poster said that telling Google the content was should not be indexed but the links should be followed was inconstant and could get me into trouble. This make a lot of sense. What is proper form? As background, I think I have recently been hit with a Panda 4.0 penalty for thin content. I have several hundred URLs with less than 50 words and want them de-indexed. My site is a commercial real estate site and the listings apparently have too little content. Thanks, Alan
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Kingalan10 -
Multiple sitewide (deep)links devalued by Google?
In my experience sitewide links can still be very powerful if used sensibly and in moderation. However, I'm finding that sitewide text blocks with 2 or 3 (deep)links to a single domain appear not to be working that well or not at all in raising the authority of those target pages. Anyone having the same experience? In your experience, is the link value diminished when there are multiple deeplinks to a single domain in a sitewide text area? Is anything more than 1 link per target domain bad? Or could it even be that it's not so much the number of deeplinks to a single domain that matter, but purely the fact that they are sitewide "deeplinks"? Are sitewide deeplinks treated differently than sitewide links linking to an external homepage? Very interested in hearing your personal experience on this matter. Factual experience would be best, but "gut feeling" experience is also appreciated 🙂 Best regards, Joost
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | JoostvanVught0 -
Best way to permanently remove URLs from the Google index?
We have several subdomains we use for testing applications. Even if we block with robots.txt, these subdomains still appear to get indexed (though they show as blocked by robots.txt. I've claimed these subdomains and requested permanent removal, but it appears that after a certain time period (6 months)? Google will re-index (and mark them as blocked by robots.txt). What is the best way to permanently remove these from the index? We can't use login to block because our clients want to be able to view these applications without needing to login. What is the next best solution?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Killing 404 errors on our site in Google's index
Having moved a site across to Magento, obviously re-directs were a large part of that, ensuring all the old products and categories linked up correctly with the new site structure. However, we came up against an issue where we needed to add, delete, then re-add products. This, coupled with a misunderstanding of the csv upload processing, meant that although the old urls redirected, some of the new Magento urls changed and then didn't redirect: For Example: mysite/product would get deleted re-added and become: mysite/product-1324 We now know what we did wrong to ensure it doesn't continue to happen if we weret o delete and re-add a product, but Google contains all these old URLs in its index which has caused people to search for products on Google, click through, then land on the 404 page - far from ideal. We kind of assumed, with continual updating of sitemaps and time, that Google would realise and update the URL accordingly. But this hasn't happened - we are still getting plenty of 404 errors on certain product searches (These aren't appearing in SEOmoz, there are no links to the old URL on the site, only Google, as the index contains the old URL). Aside from going through and finding the products affected (no easy task), and setting up redirects for each one, is there any way we can tell Google 'These URLs are no longer a thing, forget them and move on, let's make a fresh start and Happy New Year'?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seanmccauley0 -
It Doesn’t Matter Where You Point Links, Google Will Pick The Page
Hi Guys, I have a site that ranks quite well in a very competitive vertical and the company is now planning to do a site relaunch. SEO is very important to them and all of the sites within in the top 10 have the primary keyword in the urls example search: key1 key2 site.com/key1-key2/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | VividLime
site.com/ key1key2/
site.com/key1key2.php Our site is the only one that is positioned within the top 10 without the keyword in the url and homepage only listing so the top 10 result looks like search: key1 key2 site.com/key1-key2/ site.com/ key1key2/ site.com/key1key2.php oursite.com sitekey2.com/key1-key2/
key1site.com/key1key2.html Currently we do not have a separate landing page for the target keyword hence why link building is focused on the homepage. As part of the consultation, I recommended we create a landing page for our primary keyword so we get **oursite.com/key1-key2/ **and shift the on-page keyword balance towards this page. the hope is, we get search: key1 key2 site.com/key1-key2/ site.com/ key1key2/ site.com/key1key2.php oursite.com/key1-key2 sitekey2.com/key1-key2/
key1site.com/key1key2.html Would Google simply replace my current domain only list for the most relevant url for a term? Does anyone have any experience with this? Or would i need to build links into the new url for the change to take place. what i'm hoping for and expecting, is for somthing like this to happen http://www.seowizz.net/2011/04/it-doesnt-matter-where-you-point-links-google-will-pick-the-page.html0