Is it dangerous to use "Fetch as Google" too much in Webmaster Tools?
-
I saw some people freaking out about this on some forums and thought I would ask.
Are you aware of there being any downside to use "Fetch as Google" often? Is it a bad thing to do when you create a new page or blog post, for example?
-
Hi Keri
I did yes, i stumbled upon it and thought i'd give my two pennies worth as an SEO!
Certainly wasnt looking for a backlink as it would be pretty irrelevant for our industry and would never expect a dofollow links from a comments section anyway.
Thanks to you also for your feedback
Cheers!
-
Welcome, LoveSavings. Just wanted to make sure you knew this post is a year old, and that all of the links in Q&A are automatically nofollowed. Thanks for the thoughtful answer!
-
Having done lots of tests on this, i would say that fetching as google is the best wat forward.
Although the steps listed above are all excellent ways of boosting the speed at which google will index your page, none of them seem to be as effective as fetching in webmaster tools. you can a few hundred of these a month, so you shouldnt run out unless you are publishing immense amounts of content - in which case google is likely to be indexing your content very quickly anyway.
www.loveenergysavings.com is still relatively small although we publish excellent, though leadership style content. so, to ensure that our posts are indexed as quickly as possible (as we are competing with some massive sites) we always fetch our posts in google webmaster tools. this is always quicker than tweeting, google+ etc. we also have an xml sitemap which automatically adds our post, this doesnt guarantee rapid indexing though.
having messed around with all of these methods, fetching as g-bot is always the quickest and most effective option. as danatanseo says, its there to be utilised by seo's so why not take full advantage? i can't see why google would ever look unfavourably on a site for wanting its content to be available to the public as quickly as possible?
-
I would say it is not a preferred way to alert Google when you have a new page and it is pretty limited. What is better, and frankly more effective is to do things like:
- add the page to your XML sitemap (make sure sitemap is submitted to Google)
- add the page to your RSS feeds (make sure your RSS is submitted to Google)
- add a link to the page on your home page or other "important" page on your site
- tweet about your new page
- status update in FB about your new page
- Google Plus your new page
- Feature your new page in your email newsletter
Obviously, depending on the page you may not be able to do all of these, but normally, Google will pick up new pages in your sitemap. I find that G hits my sitemaps almost daily (your mileage may vary).
I only use fetch if I am trying to diagnose a problem on a specific page and even then, I may just fetch but not submit. I have only submitted when there was some major issue with a page that I could not wait for Google to update as a part of its regular crawl of my site. As an example, we had a release go out with a new section and that section was blocked by our robots.txt. I went ahead and submitted the robots.txt to encourage Google to update the page sooner so that our new section would be :"live" to Google sooner as G does not hit our robots.txt as often. Otherwise for 99.5% of my other pages on sites, the options above work well.
The other thing is that you get very few fetches a month, so you are still very limited in what you can do. Your sitemaps can include thousands of pages each. Google fetch is limited, so another reason I reserve it for my time sensitive emergencies.
-
https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/158587?hl=en#158587
I just double-checked David, and it looks like the allocation may not be different for different sites. According to Google you get 500 fetches and 10 URL + Linked pages submissions every week.
-
You are welcome David, and no this isn't a lifetime limit at all. I believe it resets at least once every 30 days, maybe more often than that. I manage four different sites, some large, some small and I've never run out of fetches yet.
-
Thanks Dana. Is it possible to get more fetches? Presumably it's not a lifetime limit, right?
-
No, I wouldn't worry about this at all. This is why Google has already allocated a finite number of "Fetches" and URL + Links submissions to your account. These numbers are based on the size of your site. Larger sites are allocated more and smaller sites less. [Please see my revised statement below regarding Google's "Fetch" limits - it isn't based on site size] I don't think enough Webmasters take advantage of the Fetch as often as they should.
Hope that helps!
Dana
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
-
Pages excluded from Google's index due to "different canonicalization than user"
Hi MOZ community, A few weeks ago we noticed a complete collapse in traffic on some of our pages (7 out of around 150 blog posts in question). We were able to confirm that those pages disappeared for good from Google's index at the end of January '18, they were still findable via all other major search engines. Using Google's Search Console (previously Webmastertools) we found the unindexed URLs in the list of pages being excluded because "Google chose different canonical than user". Content-wise, the page that Google falsely determines as canonical instead has little to no similarity to the pages it thereby excludes from the index. False canonicalization About our setup: We are a SPA, delivering our pages pre-rendered, each with an (empty) rel=canonical tag in the HTTP header that's then dynamically filled with a self-referential link to the pages own URL via Javascript. This seemed and seems to work fine for 99% of our pages but happens to fail for one of our top performing ones (which is why the hassle 😉 ). What we tried so far: going through every step of this handy guide: https://moz.com/blog/panic-stations-how-to-handle-an-important-page-disappearing-from-google-case-study --> inconclusive (healthy pages, no penalties etc.) manually requesting re-indexation via Search Console --> immediately brought back some pages, others shortly re-appeared in the index then got kicked again for the aforementioned reasons checking other search engines --> pages are only gone from Google, can still be found via Bing, DuckDuckGo and other search engines Questions to you: How does the Googlebot operate with Javascript and does anybody know if their setup has changed in that respect around the end of January? Could you think of any other reason to cause the behavior described above? Eternally thankful for any help! ldWB9
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SvenRi1 -
Do Google webmaster tool and other backlinks analysis tool ignore the disavow data ?
Hello, Lots of site i have disavow so if i download backlinks of my site from google webmaster so google will ignore the disavow data and give me backlinks other than disavow data? Same if i use backlink tools like moz or semrush or ahref etc for checking backlinks of my site or competitor site so will this tool ignore the disavow data? If such tools not aware of disavow then it is worthless to check competitor links? Thanks! dev
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | devdan0 -
Fetch as Google - Redirected
Hi I have swaped from HTTP to HTTPS and put a redirect on for HTTP to redirect to HTTPS. I also put www.xyz.co.uk/index.html to redirect to www.xyz.co.uk When I fetch as Google it shows up redirect! Does this mean that I have too many 301 looping? Do I need the redirect on index.html to root domain if I have a rel conanical in place for index.html htaccess (Linix) - RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^xyz.co.uk
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Cocoonfxmedia
RewriteRule (.*) https://www.xyz.co.uk/$1 [R=301,L] RewriteRule ^$ index.html [R=301,L]0 -
Webmaster Tools - Structured Data 100% drop. Many people with same issue, nobody seems to understand what might have caused it.
WMT shows a significant drop in structured data markup on June 7th, steep incline by June 21st. Now the same thing happened on August 9th, with no signs of recovery. Lost 45% of our search traffic. There are many people with the same problem, and nobody seems to know what caused it. Here are a few links to some forums: #1 Google Groups, #2 Google Groups, #3 Google Groups, #4 70% drop on GWT on June 7 Google SEO News and Discussion forum at WebmasterWorld. On our end we see a 100% drop in breadcrumbs and a 100% drop in hcards leading to a 45% search traffic drop. Any ideas why might have happened and how to fix this?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PhilippGreitsch0 -
My landing page changed in google's serp. I used to have a product page now I have a pdf?
I have been optimizing this page for a few weeks now and and have seen our page for up from 23rd to 11th on the serp's. I come to work today and not only have I dropped to 15 but I've also had my relevant product page replaced by this page . Not to mention the second page is a pdf! I am not sure what happened here but any advice on how I could fix this would be great. My site is www.mynaturalmarket.com and the keyword I'm working on is Zyflamend.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KenyonManu3-SEOSEM0 -
What is the proper syntax for rel="canonical" ??
I believe the proper syntax is like this [taken from the SEOMoz homepage]: However, one of the sites I am working on has all of their canonical tags set up like this: I should clarify, not all of their canonicals are identical to this one, they simply use this naming convention, which appears to be relative URLs instead of absolute. Doesn't the entire URL need to be in the tag? If that is correct, can you also provide me with an explanation that I can give to management please? They hate it when I say "Because I said so!" LOL
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo0 -
Is there a way to contact Google besides the google product forum?
Our traffic from google has dropped more than 35% and continues to fall. We have been on this forum and google's webmaster forum trying to get help. We received great advice, have waited months, but instead of our traffic improving, it has worsened. We are being penalized by google for many keywords such as trophies, trophies and awards and countless others - we were on page one previously. We filed two reconsideration requests and were told both times that there were no manual penalties. Some of our pages continue to rank well, so it is not across the board (but all of our listings went down a bit). We have made countless changes (please see below). Our busy season was from March to May and we got clobbered. Google, as most people know, is a monopoly when it comes to traffic, so we are getting killed. At first we thought it was Penquin, but it looks like we started getting killed late last year. Lots of unusual things happened - we had a large spike in traffic for two days, then lost our branded keywords, then our main keywords. Our branded keywords came back pretty quickly, but nothing else did. We have received wonderful advice and made most of the changes. We are a very reputable company and have a feeling we are being penalized for something other than spamming. For example, we have a mobile site we added late last year and a wholesale system was added around the same time. Since the date does not coincide with Penquin, we think there is some major technical driver, but have no idea what to do at this point. The webmasters have all been helpful, but nothing is working. We are trying to find out what one does in a situation as we are trying to avoid closing our business. Thank you! Changes Made: 1. We had many crawl errors so we reduced them significantly 2. We had introduced a mobile website in January which we
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trophycentraltrophiesandawards
thought may have been the cause (splitting traffic, duplicate content, etc.),
so we had our mobile provider add the site to their robots.txt file. 3. We were told by a webmaster that their were too many
links from our search provider, so we have them put the search pages in a
robots.txt file. 4. We were told that we had too much duplicate content. This was / is true, as we have hundred of legitate products that are similar:
example trophies and certificates that are virtually the same but are
for different sports or have different colors and sizes. Still, we added more content and added no index tags to many products. We compared our % of dups to competitors and it is far less. 5. At the recommendation of another webmaster, we changed
many pages that might have been splitting traffic. 6. Another webmaster told us that too many people were
linking into our site with the same text, namely Trophy Central and that it
might have appeared we were trying to game the system somehow. We have never bought links and don't even have a webmaster although over the last 10 years have worked with programmers and seo companies (but we don't think any have done anything unusual). 7. At the suggestion of another webmaster, we have tried to
improve our link profile. For example,
we found Yahoo was not linking to our url. 8. We were told to setup a 404 page, so we did 9. We were told to ensure that all of the similar domains
were pointing to www.trophycentral.com/ so we setup redirects 10. We were told that a site that we have linking to us from too many places so we reduced it to 1. Our key pages have A rankings from SEOMOZ for the selected keywords. We have made countless other changes recommended by experts
but have seen no improvements (actually got worse). I am the
president of the company and have made most of the above recent changes myself. Our website is trophycentral.com0 -
Why DBDResults.com is #1 on Google for "Internet Marketing Agency"?
They have a new site, no links, no content, their page isn't optimized for this keyword (it's not even one on the page or their page title)... They only have 5 incoming links with the keyword in it, but its competitors have way more. Can someone solve this mystery?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | elcrazyhorse0