Question on Google's Site: Search
-
A client currently has two domains with the same content on each. When I pull up a Cached version of the site, I noticed that it has a Cache of the correct page on it. However, when I do a site: in Google, I am seeing the domain that we don't want Google indexing. Is this a problem? There is no canonical tag and I'm not sure how Google knows to cache the correct website but it does. I'm assuming they have this set in webmaster tools?
Any help is much appreciated!
Thanks!
-
Okay that is what I figured. Thank you
-
OH! I am sorry for the confusion - yes, pick the site you want to index and redirect the site you don't want to be indexed over to the new site.
To answer your question, yes, both sites are being indexed.
-
Hi Patrick,
The name of the business is fairly long so they decided to purchase a shortened version of the site but I believe setting up a redirect would be the best solution... But as for my question, if I do a site: in google and both websites are populating the search results, does this mean that Google is indexing two versions of the website?
-
Hi there
You will want to add canonical tags to the indexing site to the site you want indexed. Is there a particular reason you have two sites?
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
-
Robots.txt & meta noindex--site still shows up on Google Search
I have set up my robots.txt like this: User-agent: *
Technical SEO | | RoxBrock
Disallow: / and I have this meta tag in my on a Wordpress site, set up with SEO Yoast name="robots" content="noindex,follow"/> I did "Fetch as Google" on my Google Search Console My website is still showing up in the search results and it says this: "A description for this result is not available because of this site's robots.txt" This site has not shown up for years and now it is ranking above my site that I want to rank for this keyword. How do I get Google to ignore this site? This seems really weird and I'm confused how a site with little content, that has not been updated for years can rank higher than a site that is constantly updated and improved.1 -
Question about Unpredictability with the Knowledge panel showing up for the same search
The people in my client's office get different results when they search for their company name in Google. For example one person ALWAYS gets the right rail knowledge panel with full details about the company while her boss NEVER sees it. They are both on desktop search. Rosemary
Technical SEO | | RosemaryB0 -
URL Structure On Site - Currently it's domain/product-name NOT domain/category/product name is this bad?
I have a eCommerce site and the site structure is domain/product-name rather than domain/product-category/product-name Do you think this will have a negative impact SEO Wise? I have seen that some of my individual product pages do get better rankings than my categories.
Technical SEO | | the-gate-films0 -
I don't understand how this site is ranking?
This website is ranking for a very high competitive keyword "bail bonds los angeles" http://www.bondgirlsbailbonds.com/ They maybe have one backlink and 10 citations. How are they ranking for 2nd spot? This doesn't seem possible. Almost 5 other domains on page have pr2 and higher and not able to beat this site. Can someone please explain what might be causing this? thanks in advance
Technical SEO | | webbutler130 -
Why is Google's cache preview showing different version of webpage (i.e. not displaying content)
My URL is: http://www.fslocal.comRecently, we discovered Google's cached snapshots of our business listings look different from what's displayed to users. The main issue? Our content isn't displayed in cached results (although while the content isn't visible on the front-end of cached pages, the text can be found when you view the page source of that cached result).These listings are structured so everything is coded and contained within 1 page (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/). But even though the URL stays the same, we've created separate "pages" of content (e.g. "About," "Additional Info," "Contact," etc.) for each listing, and only 1 "page" of content will ever be displayed to the user at a time. This is controlled by JavaScript and using display:none in CSS. Why do our cached results look different? Why would our content not show up in Google's cache preview, even though the text can be found in the page source? Does it have to do with the way we're using display:none? Are there negative SEO effects with regards to how we're using it (i.e. we're employing it strictly for aesthetics, but is it possible Google thinks we're trying to hide text)? Google's Technical Guidelines recommends against using "fancy features such as JavaScript, cookies, session IDs, frames, DHTML, or Flash." If we were to separate those business listing "pages" into actual separate URLs (e.g. http://www.fslocal.com/toronto/auto-vault-canada/contact/ would be the "Contact" page), and employ static HTML code instead of complicated JavaScript, would that solve the problem? Any insight would be greatly appreciated.Thanks!
Technical SEO | | fslocal0 -
Open Site Explorer Question
In OSE I have 3 of my top 5 pages as store.com, store.com/Default.asp, and store.com/default.asp -- I have a canonical version of at store.com/default.asp. I have inbound links coming to all three urls -- b/c OSE is listing these as seperate pages does that mean the link juice is not being consolidated? Or is this not something to worry about?
Technical SEO | | IOSC0 -
Is submitting your site to yahoo & Google still relevant
Good Morning from Sh@t its still raining wetherby UK... I want to just make sure the process i go through when a new site is launched is nort overlooking some fundamentals. Most sites we launch are not brand new, do allready have a link heritage and have been indexed by Google. With that in mid i do not submit a sites url thru the following links: www.google.com/addurl
Technical SEO | | Nightwing
search.yahoo.com/info/submit.html
search.live.com/docs/submit.aspx Am i right in saying you should really only bother with this if the site a newbie ie no history no link heritage and the site is enering cyberspace for the forst time. And i wonder if for example you launched a new site made sure the xml site map was in place and it had a few inbound links anyway it would be indexed anyway. So is the practice of submitting your url to search engined relevant anymore? Any insights welcome 🙂2 -
URL's for news content
We have made modifications to the URL structure for a particular client who publishes news articles in various niche industries. In line with SEO best practice we removed the article ID from the URL - an example is below: http://www.website.com/news/123/news-article-title
Technical SEO | | mccormackmorrison
http://www.website.com/news/read/news-article-title Since this has been done we have noticed a decline in traffic volumes (we have not as yet assessed the impact on number of pages indexed). Google have suggested that we need to include unique numerical IDs in the URL somewhere to aid spidering. Firstly, is this policy for news submissions? Secondly (if the previous answer is yes), is this to overcome the obvious issue with the velocity and trend based nature of news submissions resulting in false duplicate URL/ title tag violations? Thirdly, do you have any advice on the way to go? Thanks P.S. One final one (you can count this as two question credits if required), is it possible to check the volume of pages indexed at various points in the past i.e. if you think that the number of pages being indexed may have declined, is there any way of confirming this after the event? Thanks again! Neil0