Google sees redirect when there isn't any?
-
I've posted a question previously regarding the very strange changes in our search positions here http://www.seomoz.org/q/different-pages-ranking-for-search-terms-often-irrelevant
New strange thing I've noticed - and very disturbing thing - seems like Google has somehow glued two pages together. Or, in other words, looks like Google sees a 301 redirect from one page to another.
This, actually, happened to several pages, I'll illustrate it with our Flash templates page.
URL: http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Has been #3 for 'Flash templates' in Google.Reasons why it looks like redirect:
Reason #1
Now this http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php page is ranking instead of http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Also, http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php is not in the index.
That what would typically happen if you had 301 from Flash templates to logo templates page.Reason #2
If you search for cache:http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php Google will give the cahced version of http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php!!!
If you search for info:www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php you again get info on http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php instead!Reason #3
In Google Webmaster Tools when I look for the external links to http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php I see all the links from different sites, which actually point to http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php listed as "Via this intermediate link: http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php" As I understand Google makes this "via intermediate link" when there's a redirect? That way, currently Google thinks that all the external links we have for Flash templates are actually pointing to Logo templates?The point is we NEVER had any kind of redirect from http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php to http://www.templatemonster.com/logo-templates.php
I've seen several similar situations on Google Help forums but they were never resolved.
So, I wonder if anybody can explain how that could have happened, and what can be done to solve that problem?
-
Funny, we had that self-pointing canonical tag since July 8th - just removed it less than a day ago as we thought it might be harmful. So, that means that it didn't help as it was there all the time.
-
It is perfectly standard for the "real" page to show a canonical to itself. For example, look at the code for this Q&A question. It has a canonical tag pointing to itself.
A loop would be created only if you made an error. If you set the canonical for Page A as B, then you set the canonical for Page B as A, then you would have created a loop which should be fixed. If you designate the canonical for Page A as B, and the canonical for Page B as B, that would be perfectly valid.
In summary, yes I am suggesting that all pages involving /flash-templates.php including the page itself should use the canonical tag. At the very least add it to both the flash-templates.php page and the logo-templates.php page, each pointing to themselves.
-
Actually, we do use canonical on pages with parameters such as this one:
http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php?aff=affiliate
or this
http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php?from=2&type=9Do you suggest that we place canonical on the page itself, won't it create some kind of infinite loop? If http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php refers to itself as canonical?
-
I noticed you still have not added the canonical tag to your pages. If you do not wish to add them to all the pages in your site would you consider at least adding it to a couple of your affected pages to see if there is any impact?
You wont notice any difference until the pages are crawled again, but if you don't make any change at all this issue may remain.
I would also suggest your site requires a higher level of security then most e-commerce sites. Your audience and customers are often developers with various levels of experience. Any unhappy customer or developer will often have at least some knowledge related to website security, not to mention your competitors.
If you use a solid backup system you can compare the files from your current site with the files from a backup taken in June to see if you have any infected files.
-
Can you determine whether this is happening to any other pages right now?
Whenever we see this type of thing, we look at the development schedule to see which dev changes have recently been implemented. As everyone else has noted, I don't see anything out of place either but sometimes it's easier to look at specific recent dev changes.
Has the page been crawled since last cache? If not, maybe it would be a good idea to 'help' google crawl it a little more quickly to see if things get resolved.
-
A few other points.
site:templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Doesn't show anything, (except the few items which you have blocked by robots.txt, so that is normal) which leads me to believe you had an issue as Ryan said on July 19th. Luckily they kept you in the results for "Flash templates" even with a different page.
I would also advise to add descriptions to all pages at the same time you are adding canonicals. Why does the 'Problem' page flash-templates.php not have a description tag? Perhaps a coding issue that is causing this issue as well?
-
I have looked at your page header codes, anchor links, html code on both pages along with the robots.txt for your site. There is no apparent reason for this issue.
The google cache URL for your logo-templates page is: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.templatemonster.com/flash-templates.php
Your Google cache is clearly displaying the wrong page as it appeared on July 19th.
You have two options. You can do nothing and see if the issue resolves itself after the next Google update. Another choice, which I would recommend, is to add the canonical tag to all your pages. The canonical tag is helpful for numerous reasons. I add the tag to every page. That tag should clear up any confusion that occurred.
-
P.S. have you tried using the Fetch as Googlebot tool in WMT?
-
So you are certain that you never had any type of redirect or canonical tag that might account for this. Hmmm, this looks weird.
After looking at this issue and your previous question, I'm stumped. I don't see any redirects, canonicals, etc that could cause this. My best suggestion is to try to get the ear of someone at Google (maybe try Matt Cutts?).
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
-
My keywords aren't performing for my Umbraco site
A client of mine has just redesigned their site which was pretty small (homepage, about us page and contact us page) and now it includes homepage, about us page, 3 services pages, 5 blog posts and a contact us page. their domain authority is 5, so that gives you an idea of their size. We updated their key pages with keyword optimised content and added the keyword to their meta title and meta description. they're in the process of adding the alt tags and also they need to enable meta tags for the blog posts. Everything is quite in the process at the moment and their organic traffic is low. But I believe that some of the keywords should start moving places for the pages that have been optimised and they haven't. Is there any reason for this? I believe the services pages which have meta tags should have started ranking at least in very low position for the selected keywords. Is there something I'm missing? Thank you!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chris_Wright0 -
Interlinking vs. 'orphaning' mobile page versions in a dynamic serving scenario
Hi there, I'd love to get the Moz community's take on this. We are working on setting up dynamic serving for mobile versions of our pages. During the process of planning the mobile version of a page, we identified a type of navigational links that, while useful enough for desktop visitors, we feel would not be as useful to mobile visitors. We would like to remove these from our mobile version of the page as part of offering a more streamlined mobile page. So we feel that we're making a fine decision with user experience in mind. On any single page, the number of links removed in the mobile version would be relatively few. The question is: is there any danger in “orphaning” the mobile versions of certain pages because links don’t exist pointing to those pages on our mobile pages? Is this a legitimate concern, or is it enough that none of the desktop versions of pages are orphaned? We were not sure whether it’s even possible, in Googlebot’s eyes, to orphan a mobile version of a page if we use dynamic serving and if there are no orphaned desktop versions of our pages. (We also plan to link to "full site" in the footer.) Thank you in advance for your help,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Eric_R
Eric0 -
Want to merge high ranking niche websites into a new mega site, but don't want to lose authority from old top level pages
I have a few older websites that SERP well, and I am considering merging some or all of them into a new related website that I will be launching regardless. My old websites display real estate listings and not much else. Each website is devoted to showing homes for sale in a specific neighborhood. The domains are all in the form of Neighborhood1CityHomes.com, Neighborhood2CityHomes.com, etc. These sites SERP well for searches like "Neighborhood1 City homes for sale" and also "Neighborhood1 City real estate" where some or all of the query is in the domain name. Google simply points to the top of the domain although each site has a few interior pages that are rarely used. There is next to zero backlinking to the old domains, but each links to the other with anchor text like "Neighborhood1 Cityname real estate". That's pretty much the extent of the link profile. The new website will be a more comprehensive search portal where many neighborhoods and cities can be searched. The domain name is a nonsense word .com not related to actual key words. The structure will be like newdomain.com/cityname/neighborhood-name/ where the neighborhood real estate listings are that would replace the old websites, and I'd 301 the old sites to the appropriate internal directories of the new site. The content on the old websites is all on the home page of each, at least the content for searches that matter to me and rank well, and I read an article suggesting that Google assigns additional authority for top level pages (can I link to that here?). I'd be 301-ing each old domain from a top level to a 3rd level interior page like www. newdomain/cityname/neighborhood1/. The new site is better than the old sites by a wide margin, especially on mobile, but I don't want to lose all my top positions for some tough phrases. I'm not running analytics on the old sites in question, but each of the old sites has extensive past history with AdWords (which I don't run any more). So in theory Google knows these old sites are good quality.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gogogomez0 -
Error reports showing pages that don't exist on website
I have a website that is showing lots of errors (pages that cannot be found) in google webmaster tools. I went through the errors and re-directed the pages I could. There are a bunch of remaining pages that are not really pages this is why they are showing errors. What's strange is some of the URL's are showing feeds which these were never created. I went into Google webmaster tools and looked at the remove URL tool. I am using this but I am confused if I need to be selecting "remove page from search results and cache" option or should I be selecting this other option "remove directory" I am confused on the directory. I don't want to accidentally delete core pages of the site from the search engines. Can anybody shed some light on this or recommend which I should be selecting? Thank you Wendy
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | SOM240 -
Are links that are disavowed with Google Webmaster Tools removed from the Google Webmaster Profile for the domain?
Hi, Two part question - First, are links that you disavow using google webmaster tools ever removed from the webmaster tools account profile ? Second, when you upload a file to disavow links they ask if you'd like to replace the previously uploaded file. Does that mean if you don't replace the file with a new file that contains the previously uploaded urls those urls are no longer considered disavowed? So, should we download the previous disavow file first then append the new disavow urls to the file before uploading or should we just upload a new file that contains only the new disavow urls? Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bgs0 -
How can I see all the pages google has indexed for my site?
Hi mozers, In WMT google says total indexed pages = 5080. If I do a site:domain.com commard it says 6080 results. But I've only got 2000 pages in my site that should be indexed. So I would like to see all the pages they have indexed so I can consider noindexing them or 404ing them. Many thanks, Julian.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | julianhearn0 -
301 redirect changed googles cached title tags ??
Hi, This is a new one to me ?! I recently added some 301 redirects from pages that I've removed from my site. Most of them just redirect to my home page, whilst a few redirect to appropriate replacement pages. The odd thing is that when I now search my keywords googles serp shows my website with a title that was on some of the old (now removed and redirected) pages. Is this normal? If so, how should I prevent this from happening? What is going on? The only reasons I set up the redirects was to collect any link juice from the old pages and prevent 404s. Should I remove the 301s? I fetched as google and submitted - to see if that updates the tags. (not been indexed yet) Any help would be appreciated. Kind Regards Tony
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | thephoenix250 -
Any way to find which domains are 301 redirected to competitors' websites?
By looking at the work from an SEO collegue it became clear that his weak linkbuilding graph probably is not the cause for his good rankings for a pretty competitive keyword. (also no social mentions where found) I was wondering what it could be, site structure and other on page optimization factors seems to be ok and I don't think there will be exceptionally good or bad user behavior... Finally I looked at the competitors and found that they have more links, better content en better design, so I got a little stuck. The only reason I can think of is that he is doing 301 redirects (or is rel=canonical tags). Is there a way to trace these redirects back to the source in order to include this important variable in your competitor research? thnx
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | djingel10