Fetching & Rendering a non ranking page in GWT to look for issues
-
Hi
I have a clients nicely optimised webpage not ranking for its target keyword so just did a fetch & render in GWT to look for probs and could only do a partial fetch with the below robots.text related messages:
Googlebot couldn't get all resources for this page
Some boiler plate js plugins not found & some js comments reply blocked by robots (file below):
User-agent: *
Disallow: /wp-admin/
Disallow: /wp-includes/As far as i understand it the above is how it should be but just posting here to ask if anyone can confirm whether this could be causing any prrobs or not so i can rule it out or not.
Pages targeting other more competitive keywords are ranking well and are almost identically optimised so cant think why this one is not ranking.
Does fetch and render get Google to re-crawl the page ? so if i do this then press submit to index should know within a few days if still problem or not ?
All Best
Dan
-
ok thanks !
nothing has changed just hoped it might do something
-
If anything changed between the 15th and today, it'll help ensure it gets updated. But that's all.
-
thanks Donna ! yes its all there and cache date is 15 Jan but still thought worthwhile fetching & rendering & submitting again, or does that do nothing more if its already indexed apart from asking G to take another look ?
-
Can you see if it's cached? Try cutting and pasting the entire URL into the search window, minus the http://. If it's indexed, it should show up in search results. Not the address bar, the search window.
-
Thanks for commenting Donna !
And providing the link to the interesting Q&A although this isn't the scenario i'm referring to with my original question.
The page isn't ranking at all although its very well optimised (and not overly so) and the keyword isn't that competitive so i would expect to be somewhere in the first 3-4 pages but its not even in first 100
Very similarly optimised pages (for other target keywords which are more competitive) are ranking well. Hence the fetch and render & submit to index i did, just to double check Googles seeing the page.
Cheers
Dan
-
Hi Dan,
You might find this Q&A helpful. It offers suggestions for what to do when an unexpected page is ranking for your targeted keyword phrase. I think most, if not all, suggestions apply in your case as well. Good luck!
-
Marvellous !
Many Thanks Robert !
All BEst
Dan
-
Yes there are a lot of overlaps when it comes to GWT - for the most part if you are making a submission request for crawling, it is indexed simultaneously - I believe the difference lies in some approaches which allow you to crawl as Google as opposed to submitting for official index.
In other words, what you have done is a definitive step in crawling and indexing, as opposed to seeing what Google would find if it were to crawl your site (as a test). "Submit to Index" is normally something I reserve for completed sites (as opposed to Stub content) to avoid accidental de-indexing.
In your circumstances, however, I don't think it will hurt you and it may help you identify any outstanding issues. Just remember to avoid it if you don't want a site indexed before it is ready!
Hope this helps,
Rob
-
Hi Robert,
Thanks for your help again !
That's great thanks, but what about 'submit to index' which i did also ? As in did i need to do that or not ?(since GWT says all pages submitted are indexed in sitemap section of GWT, so i take it i didn't need to, but did anyway as a precaution) ?
All Best
Dan
-
Hello again, Dan,
From what I can tell from your description, you have done what you can to make this work. We would expect JS to be blocked by that robots.txt file.
To answer your questions:
Fetch & render does allow Google to re-crawl the page using GWT. A request of this nature typically takes between 1-3 days to process, so you should know where you stand at that point.
Feel free to put an update here and if there is further information I will see what I can do to help out.
Cheers!
Rob
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
-
Log files vs. GWT: major discrepancy in number of pages crawled
Following up on this post, I did a pretty deep dive on our log files using Web Log Explorer. Several things have come to light, but one of the issues I've spotted is the vast difference between the number of pages crawled by the Googlebot according to our log files versus the number of pages indexed in GWT. Consider: Number of pages crawled per log files: 2993 Crawl frequency (i.e. number of times those pages were crawled): 61438 Number of pages indexed by GWT: 17,182,818 (yes, that's right - more than 17 million pages) We have a bunch of XML sitemaps (around 350) that are linked on the main sitemap.xml page; these pages have been crawled fairly frequently, and I think this is where a lot of links have been indexed. Even so, would that explain why we have relatively few pages crawled according to the logs but so many more indexed by Google?
Technical SEO | | ufmedia0 -
Why Google ranks a page with Meta Robots: NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW?
Hi guys, I was playing with the new OSE when I found out a weird thing: if you Google "performing arts school london" you will see w w w . mountview . org. uk at the 3rd position. The point is that page has "Meta Robots: NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW", why Google indexed it? Here you can see the robots.txt allows Google to index the URL but not the content, in article they also say the meta robots tag will properly avoid Google from indexing the URL either. Apparently, in my case that page is the only one has the tag "NO INDEX, NO FOLLOW", but it's the home page. so I said to myself: OK, perhaps they have just changed that tag therefore Google needs time to re-crawl that page and de-index following the no index tag. How long do you think it will take to don't see that page indexed? Do you think it will effect the whole website, as I suppose if you have that tag on your home page (the root domain) you will lose a lot of links' juice - it's totally unnatural a backlinks profile without links to a root domain? Cheers, Pierpaolo
Technical SEO | | madcow780 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
ATG & Endeca Integration & SEO implications
Does anyone have any first hand experience or must have recommendations around ATG & Endeca integration? I am somewhat familiar with ATG and the Oracle ATG guide, but if anyone has any specific SEO considerations they'd like to share? i.e. jumpservlet and SEO URLs Thanks!
Technical SEO | | ACNINTERACTIVE0 -
Duplicate Pages Issue
I noticed a problem and I was wondering if anyone knows how to fix it. I was a sitemap for 1oxygen.com, a site that has around 50 pages. The sitemap generator come back with over a 2000 pages. Here is two of the results: http://www.1oxygen.com/portableconcentrators/portableconcentrators/portableconcentrators/services/rentals.htm
Technical SEO | | chuck-layton
http://www.1oxygen.com/portableconcentrators/portableconcentrators/1oxygen/portableconcentrators/portableconcentrators/portableconcentrators/oxusportableconcentrator.htm These are actaully pages somehow. In my FTP there in the first /portableconentrators/ folder there is about 12 html documents and no other folders. It looks like it is creating a page for every possible folder combination. I have no idea why you those pages above actually work, help please???0 -
Nofollowing to boost internal page rankings.
I have a site with 200 links on the homepage, how much will it boost nofollowing the other links boost the 50 pages we care most about?
Technical SEO | | adamzski0 -
We have been hit with the "Doorway Page" Penalty - fixed the issue - Got MSG that will still do not meet guidelines.
I have read the FAQs and checked for similar issues: YES / NO
Technical SEO | | LVH
My site's URL (web address) is:www.recoveryconnection.org
Description (including timeline of any changes made): We were hit with the Doorway Pages penalty on 5/26/11. We have a team of copywriters, and a fast-working dev dept., so we were able to correct what we thought the problem was, "targeting one-keyword per page" and thin content. (according to Google) Plan of action: To consolidate "like" keywords/content onto pages that were getting the most traffic and 404d the pages with the thin content and that were targeting singular keywords per page. We submitted a board approved reconsideration request on 6/8/11 and received the 2nd message (below) on 6/16/11. ***NOTE:The site was originally designed by the OLD marketing team who was let go, and we are the NEW team trying to clean up their mess. We are now resorting to going through Google's general guidelines page. Help would be appreciated. Below is the message we received back. Dear site owner or webmaster of http://www.recoveryconnection.org/, We received a request from a site owner to reconsider http://www.recoveryconnection.org/ for compliance with Google's Webmaster Guidelines. We've reviewed your site and we believe that some or all of your pages still violate our quality guidelines. In order to preserve the quality of our search engine, pages from http://www.recoveryconnection.org/ may not appear or may not rank as highly in Google's search results, or may otherwise be considered to be less trustworthy than sites which follow the quality guidelines. If you wish to be reconsidered again, please correct or remove all pages that are outside our quality guidelines. When such changes have been made, please visit https://www.google.com/webmasters/tools/reconsideration?hl=en and resubmit your site for reconsideration. If you have additional questions about how to resolve this issue, please see our Webmaster Help Forum for support. Sincerely, Google Search Quality Team Any help is welcome. Thanks0