Why are only a few of our pages being indexed
-
Recently rebuilt a site for an auctioneers, however it has a problem in that none of the lots and auctions are being indexed by Google on the new site, only the pages like About, FAQ, home, contact.
Checking WMT shows that Google has crawled all the pages, and I've done a "Fetch as Google" on them and it loads up fine, so there's no crawling issues that is standing out. I've set the "URL Parameters" to no effect too. Also built a sitemap with all the lots in, pushed to Google which then crawled them all (massive spike in Crawl rate for a couple days), and still just indexing a handful of pages.
Any clues to look into would be greatly appreciated.
-
Thanks for this. The /item-details/ are linked to from the Auction pages (e.g: https://www.wilkinsons-auctioneers.co.uk/auction-items/?id=13)
We've looked into the canonical issue and sorted that out, so fingers crossed on that being the issue. I'm only really familiar with canonical being a pain with ecommerce sites, but I know to keep an eye on it for others sites we have using parameters/custom pages.
-
Hi,
I took a quick look at your site, sitemap and index status and only 25 urls in Google, but very many more in the sitemap.
What I couldn't work out is where your /item-details/ urls in the sitemap are linked to from your website? I can't get to them through buying -> catalogue. It won't help indexing status if they aren't being linked to from anywhere.
The biggest issue you have however is the way canonicals are set up on the problem pages. If you go to this page:
https://www.wilkinsons-auctioneers.co.uk/item-details/?ID=2710
It has the following canonical (without the id):
rel='canonical' href='https://www.wilkinsons-auctioneers.co.uk/item-details/' />
If you search on Google, that canonical URL is indexed, so if you fix this by adding the id to the canonical they should start to appear in SERPS.
You have exactly the same problem on your auctions pages. e.g. https://www.wilkinsons-auctioneers.co.uk/auction-items/?id=13&pagenum=51
Another point that will help you rank is to use friendlier / more descriptive URLs for the items.
Hope that helps
George
-
Has the site recently moved to HTTPS:// and have you also reincluded the https:// version in webmaster tools. This may throw up a few errors.
I have also noticed that if you type in http://www you can still get to the site, might be worth a redirect in your htaccess file.
Maybe also add the following to your wordpress header -
Also check any settings in wordpress are not causing a no index issue.
Hope this helps
Tim
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
-
Old pages not mobile friendly - new pages in process but don't want to upset current traffic.
Working with a new client. They have what I would describe as two virtual websites. Same domain but different coding, navigation and structure. Old virtual website pages fail mobile friendly, they were not designed to be responsive ( there really is no way to fix them) but they are ranking and getting traffic. New virtual website pages pass mobile friendly but are not SEO optimized yet and are not ranking and not getting organic traffic. My understanding is NOT mobile friendly is a "site" designation and although the offending pages are listed it is not a "page" designation. Is this correct? If my understanding is true what would be the best way to hold onto the rankings and traffic generated by old virtual website pages and resolve the "NOT mobile friendly" problem until the new virtual website pages have surpassed the old pages in ranking and traffic? A proposal was made to redirect any mobile traffic on the old virtual website pages to mobile friendly pages. What will happen to SEO if this is done? The pages would pass mobile friendly because they would go to mobile friendly pages, I assume, but what about link equity? Would they see a drop in traffic ? Any thoughts? Thanks, Toni
Technical SEO | | Toni70 -
Removing a site from Google index with no index met tags
Hi there! I wanted to remove a duplicated site from the google index. I've read that you can do this by removing the URL from Google Search console and, although I can't find it in Google Search console, Google keeps on showing the site on SERPs. So I wanted to add a "no index" meta tag to the code of the site however I've only found out how to do this for individual pages, can you do the same for a entire site? How can I do it? Thank you for your help in advance! L
Technical SEO | | Chris_Wright1 -
Our protected pages 302 redirect to a login page if not a member. Is that a problem for SEO?
We have a membership site that has links out in our unprotected pages. If a non-member clicks on these links it sends a 302 redirect to the login / join page. Is this an issue for SEO? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | rimix1 -
All of my pages are indexed except for 1\. How could that be?
Yesterday we were ranking #4 for our main keyword and today we're not even indexed. Not robots.txt issue, we've just added a rel canonical to page and submitted our sitemap again. What else could we do?
Technical SEO | | paulb.credible0 -
New pages need to be crawled & indexed
Hi there, When you add pages to a site, do you need to re-generate an XML site map and re-submit to Google/Bing? I see the option in Google Webmaster Tools under the "fetch as Google tool" to submit individual pages for indexing, which I am doing right now. Thanks,
Technical SEO | | SSFCU
Sarah0 -
Are image pages considered 'thin' content pages?
I am currently doing a site audit. The total number of pages on the website are around 400... 187 of them are image pages and coming up as 'zero' word count in Screaming Frog report. I needed to know if they will be considered 'thin' content by search engines? Should I include them as an issue? An answer would be most appreciated.
Technical SEO | | MTalhaImtiaz0 -
Skip indexing the search pages
Hi, I want all such search pages skipped from indexing www.somesite.com/search/node/ So i have this in robots.txt (Disallow: /search/) Now any posts that start with search are being blocked and in Google i see this message A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt – learn more. How can i handle this and also how can i find all URL's that Google is blocking from showing Thanks
Technical SEO | | mtthompsons0 -
I know I'm missing pages with my page level 301 re-directs. What can I do?
I am implementing page level re-directs for a large site but I know that I will inevitably miss some pages. Is there an additional safety net root level re-direct that I can use to catch these pages and send them to the homepage?
Technical SEO | | VMLYRDiscoverability0