How do you check the google cache for hashbang pages?
-
So we use http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:x.com/#!/hashbangpage to check what googlebot has cached but when we try to use this method for hashbang pages, we get the x.com's cache... not x.com/#!/hashbangpage
That actually makes sense because the hashbang is part of the homepage in that case so I get why the cache returns back the homepage.
My question is - how can you actually look up the cache for hashbang page?
-
I was actually trying to give you the tools to figure out what's cached and indexed. You can just run a site search for the content and look at the cache, though. For example:
If nothing shows up it's probably not indexed.
-
Thanks Carson but that wasn't the question.
The question was how to check the cache.
-
Generally I'd avoid hashtags or hashbangs if you have large amounts of content you want indexed behind a hashbang. Use pushState instead whenever it makes sense for the user to actually change the URL.
The general rule is that if you can see the content in your page source (ctrl+u version), it's probably being indexed. That means that client-side AJAX behind hashbangs is generally not indexed, where server-side will generally get indexed.
If for some reason you must use hashbangs, AND you must use client-rendering content, create an HTML snapshot of your page for Google. Generally, though, that's more effort than changing one of the above.
-
I think google has stopped responding to cache requests on hashbang pages all together.
See here... **I'm just playing with random urls and don't see google cache 404'ing as it should **http://recordit.co/XBlo3U2A73
You can really put anything there it won't work.
-
Searching for indexed & duplicate content. I put a line or two in quotes and Googled it. I found most of the UTMs that way. Once you do that, it's a simple change to site:yoursite.com inurl:UTM
-
Thanks a lot, Matt.
I'm curious.. how did you exactly find the version with the utm codes that are being cached?
-
Strangely, browseo sees it correctly: http://www.browseo.net/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fplaceit.net%2F%3F_escaped_fragment_%3D%2Fstages%2Fsamsung-galaxy-note-friends-park
I'm not 100% sure why this is happening on your site specifically. Normally the #! isn't too big of an issue for cache but I've seen it have a few hiccups. These pages seem to be indexed fine but they aren't generating cache.
I did find a few working but only those with UTM codes:
This doesn't look like it's working but view the source code - the content is actually there. I found it by Googling the content in " marks.
-
What you're saying make sense and our urls are setup like this but we still don't see just the homepage come up when looking up the google cache with the esc fragment version
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://placeit.net/?escaped_fragment=/stages/samsung-galaxy-note-friends-park
https://placeit.net/?escaped_fragment=/stages/samsung-galaxy-note-friends-park
homepage - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://placeit.net/?escaped_fragment=
-
Let's use a Wix example site (not a client, just a sample from their page) as my example. Say you wanted to check:
http://www.kingskolacheny.com/#!press/crr2
In the source code I see the escaped fragment URL. This is the one you can find a cache for:
http://www.kingskolacheny.com/?escaped_fragment=press/crr2
That leads me to: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.kingskolacheny.com/?escaped_fragment=press/crr2
If your #! URLs are not setup this way, you will struggle to see it. One page websites are ... one page. But if you have escaped fragment URLs setup, you should be able to submit those and go from there.
The easiest way I know to find these is Screaming Frog, Ajax tab, Ugly URL field - try that one.
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
-
Google Indexing & Caching Some Other Domain In Place of Mine-Lost Ranking -Sucuri.net Found nothing
Again I am facing same Problem with another wordpress blog. Google has suddenly started to Cache a different domain in place of mine & caching my domain in place of that domain. Here is an example page of my site which is wrongly cached on google, same thing happening with many other pages as well - http://goo.gl/57uluq That duplicate site ( protestage.xyz) is showing fully copied from my client's site but showing all pages as 404 now but on google cache its showing my sites. site:protestage.xyz showing all pages of my site only but when we try to open any page its showing 404 error My site has been scanned by sucuri.net Senior Support for any malware & there is none, they scanned all files, database etc & there is no malware found on my site. As per Sucuri.net Senior Support It's a known Google bug. Sometimes they incorrectly identify the original and the duplicate URLs, which results in messed ranking and query results. As you can see, the "protestage.xyz" site was hacked, not yours. And the hackers created "copies" of your pages on that hacked site. And this is why they do it - the "copy" (doorway) redirects websearchers to a third-party site [http://www.unmaskparasites.com/security-report/?page=protestage.xyz](http://www.unmaskparasites.com/security-report/?page=protestage.xyz) It was not the only site they hacked, so they placed many links to that "copy" from other sites. As a result Google desided that that copy might actually be the original, not the duplicate. So they basically hijacked some of your pages in search results for some queries that don't include your site domain. Nonetheless your site still does quite well and outperform the spammers. For example in this query: [https://www.google.com/search?q=](https://www.google.com/search?q=)%22We+offer+personalized+sweatshirts%22%2C+every+bride#q=%22GenF20+Plus+Review+Worth+Reading+If+You+are+Planning+to+Buy+It%22 But overall, I think both the Google bug and the spammy duplicates have the negative effect on your site. We see such hacks every now and then (both sides: the hacked sites and the copied sites) and here's what you can do in this situation: It's not a hack of your site, so you should focus on preventing copying the pages: 1\. Contact the protestage.xyz site and tell them that their site is hacked and that and show the hacked pages. [https://www.google.com/search?q=](https://www.google.com/search?q=)%22We+offer+personalized+sweatshirts%22%2C+every+bride#q=%22GenF20+Plus+Review+Worth+Reading+If+You+are+Planning+to+Buy+It%22 Hopefully they clean their site up and your site will have the unique content again. Here's their email flang.juliette@yandex.com 2\. You might want to send one more complain to their hosting provider (OVH.NET) abuse@ovh.net, and explain that the site they host stole content from your site (show the evidence) and that you suspect the the site is hacked. 3\. Try blocking IPs of the Aruba hosting (real visitors don't use server IPs) on your site. This well prevent that site from copying your site content (if they do it via a script on the same server). I currently see that sites using these two IP address: 149.202.120.102\. I think it would be safe to block anything that begins with 149.202 This .htaccess snippet should help (you might want to test it) #-------------- Order Deny,Allow Deny from 149.202.120.102 #-------------- 4\. Use rel=canonical to tell Google that your pages are the original ones. [https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/139066?hl=en) It won't help much if the hackers still copy your pages because they usually replace your rel=canonical with their, so Google can' decide which one is real. But without the rel=canonical, hackers have more chances to hijack your search results especially if they use rel=canonical and you don't. I should admit that this process may be quite long. Google will not return your previous ranking overnight even if you manage to shut down the malicious copies of your pages on the hacked site. Their indexes would still have some mixed signals (side effects of the black hat SEO campaign) and it may take weeks before things normalize. The same thing is correct for the opposite situation. The traffic wasn't lost right after hackers created the duplicates on other sites. The effect build up with time as Google collects more and more signals. Plus sometimes they run scheduled spam/duplicate cleanups of their index. It's really hard to tell what was the last drop since we don't have access to Google internals. However, in practice, if you see some significant changes in Google search results, it's not because of something you just did. In most cases, it's because of something that Google observed for some period of time. Kindly help me if we can actually do anything to get the site indexed properly again, PS it happened with this site earlier as well & that time I had to change Domain to get rid of this problem after I could not find any solution after months & now it happened again. Looking forward for possible solution Ankit
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | killthebillion0 -
How many times will Google read a page?
Hello! Do you know if Google reads a page more than once? We want to include a very robust menu that has a lot of links, so we were thinking about coding a very simple page that loads first and immediately loading the other code that has all the links thinking that perhaps Google will only read the first version but won't read it the second time with all the links. Do you know if we will get penalized? I'm not sure if I got the idea across, let me know if I need to expand more. Thanks,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | alinaalvarez0 -
Does including your site in Google News (and Google) Alerts helps with SEO?
Based on the following article http://homebusiness.about.com/od/yourbusinesswebsite/a/google-alerts.htm in order to check if you are included you need to run site:domain.com and click the news search tab. If you are not there then... I ran the test on MOZ and got no results which surprised me. Next step according to :https://support.google.com/news/publisher/answer/40787?hl=en#ts=3179198 is to submit your site for inclusion. Should I? Will it help? P.S.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BeytzNet
This is a followup question to the following: http://moz.com/community/q/what-makes-a-site-appear-in-google-alerts-and-does-it-mean-anything0 -
Any downsides of (permanent)redirecting 404 pages to more generic pages(category page)
Hi, We have a site which is somewhat like e-bay, they have several categories and advertisements posted by customers/ client. These advertisements disappear over time and turn into 404 pages. We have the option to redirect the user to the corresponding category page, but we're afraid of any negative impact of this change. Are there any downsides, and is this really the best option we have? Thanks in advance!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | vhendriks0 -
Can use of the id attribute to anchor t text down a page cause page duplication issues?
I am producing a long glossary of terms and want to make it easier to jump down to various terms. I am using the<a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p=""></a> <a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p="">Does anyone know whether Google will pick this up as separate duplicate pages?</a> <a id="anchor-text" ="" attribute="" so="" am="" appending="" #anchor-text="" to="" a="" url="" reach="" the="" correct="" spot<="" p="">If so any ideas on what I can do? Apart from not do it to start with? I am thinking 301s won't work as I want the URL to work. And rel=canonical won't work as there is no actual page code to add it to. Many thanks for your help Wendy</a>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chammy0 -
Adding Orphaned Pages to the Google Index
Hey folks, How do you think Google will treat adding 300K orphaned pages to a 4.5 million page site. The URLs would resolve but there would be no on site navigation to those pages, Google would only know about them through sitemap.xmls. These pages are super low competition. The plot thickens, what we are really after is to get 150k real pages back on the site, these pages do have crawlable paths on the site but in order to do that (for technical reasons) we need to push these other 300k orphaned pages live (it's an all or nothing deal) a) Do you think Google will have a problem with this or just decide to not index some or most these pages since they are orphaned. b) If these pages will just fall out of the index or not get included, and have no chance of ever accumulating PR anyway since they are not linked to, would it make sense to just noindex them? c) Should we not submit sitemap.xml files at all, and take our 150k and just ignore these 300k and hope Google ignores them as well since they are orhpaned? d) If Google is OK with this maybe we should submit the sitemap.xmls and keep an eye on the pages, maybe they will rank and bring us a bit of traffic, but we don't want to do that if it could be an issue with Google. Thanks for your opinions and if you have any hard evidence either way especially thanks for that info. 😉
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | irvingw0 -
Dynamic URLs Appearing on Google Page 1\. Convert to Static URLs or not?
Hi, I have a client who uses dynamic URLs thoughout his site. For SEO purposes, I've advised him to convert dynamic URLs to static URLs whenever possible. However, the client has a few dynamic URLs that are appearing on Google Page 1 for strategically valuable keywords. For these URLs, is it still worth it to 301 them to static URLs? In this case, what are the potential benefits and/or pitfalls?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mindflash0