Geo ip filtering / Subdomain can't be crawled
-
My client has "load balancing" site traffic in the following way:
- domain: www.example.com
- traffic from US IP redirected to usa.example.com
- traffic from non-US IP redirected to www2.example.com
The reason for doing this is that site contents on the www2 contains herbal medicine info banned by FDA."usa.example.com" is a "cleaned" site.
Using HK IP, when I google an Eng keyword, I can see that www.example.com is indexed. When googling a Chi keyword, nothing is indexed - neither the domain or www2 subdomain.
From Google Search Console, it shows a Dell Sonicwall geo ip filtering alert for www2 (Connection initiated from country: United States). GSC data also confirms that www2 has never been indexed by Google.
Questions:
- Is geo ip filtering the very reason why www2 isn't indexed?
- What should I do in order to get www2 to be indexed?
Thanks guys!
-
Thanks a lot for your advice, James!
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 adding text to SERP title which isn't relevant
Hi guys, I have a site with around 300 articles on it and these articles came from three old domains which were migrated during a Wordpress domain migration almost four months back. There The problem I'm having is that for quite a lot of the articles in the SERP, Google is adding '- Maine Coons' to the end of the title. One of our old domains was related to this breed of cat so at least in Google's eyes it must have something to do with this I guess. I've attached a screenshot that shows one such example. What's odd is a lot of the new content that has been created also has this suffix added and it doesn't show in any other search engine. So, it doesn't appear in other search engines and it's not coming from the article itself (proved also via developer tools inspecting the code). So, Google is adding it but as you can see in this example (there are many more) it has absolutely no relevance to the post. Has anyone seen this behavior or have any idea how to fix it? I've tried all kinds of things and have even hired SEO 'experts' that haven't been able to see any problems. Any clues? Thanks, Matt K71Y3P9
Technical SEO | | mattpettitt0 -
Received A Notice Regarding Spammy Structured Data. But we don't have any structured data or do we?
Got a message that we have spammy structured data on our site via webmaster tools and have no idea what they are referring to. We do not use any structured data using schema.org mark up. Could they be referring to something else? The message was: To: Webmaster of <a>http://www.lulus.com/</a>, Google has detected structured markup on some of your pages that violates our structured data quality guidelines. In order to ensure quality search results for users, we display rich search results only for content that uses markup that conforms to our quality guidelines. This manual action has been applied to lulus.com/ . We suggest that you fix your markup and file a reconsideration request. Once we determine that the markup on the pages is compliant with our guidelines, we will remove this manual action. What could we be showing them that would be interpreted as structured data, and or spammy structured data?
Technical SEO | | KentH0 -
Can anyone tell me - in layman's terms - any SEO implications of a Netscaler redirect?
We are in the midst of exploring the best options for developing a "microsite" experience for a client and how we manage the site - subdomain vs. subdirectory... Netscaler redirect vs DNS change. We understand that a subdirectory is best for SEO purposes; however, we anticipate technical limitations when integrating the different hosting platforms and capabilities into the existing site. The proposed solutions that were provided are a netscaler redirect and/or dns changes. Any experience with these solutions?
Technical SEO | | jgrammer0 -
Test site got indexed in Google - What's the best way of getting the pages removed from the SERP's?
Hi Mozzers, I'd like your feedback on the following: the test/development domain where our sitebuilder works on got indexed, despite all warnings and advice. The content on these pages is in active use by our new site. Thus to prevent duplicate content penalties we have put a noindex in our robots.txt. However off course the pages are currently visible in the SERP's. What's the best way of dealing with this? I did not find related questions although I think this is a mistake that is often made. Perhaps the answer will also be relevant for others beside me. Thank you in advance, greetings, Folko
Technical SEO | | Yarden_Uitvaartorganisatie0 -
Duplicate Page Content error but I can't see it
Hi All We're getting a lot of Duplicate Page Content errors but I can't match it up. For example this page: http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/32-antique-cottage It is saying the on page properties as follows: Title DayTripFinder - Things to do reviewed by you - 7,000 attractions <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">Meta Description</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">Read Reviews, Browse Opening Hours and Prices. View Photos, Maps. 7,000 UK Visitor Attractions.</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">But this isn't the page title or meta description.
Technical SEO | | KateWaite85
</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">And it's showing five (many others) example pages that share it. Again the page titles and description are different.</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/mckinlay-theatre</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/bakers-dolphin</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/shipley-park-fishing</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/king-johns-lodge-and-gardens</dt> <dt style="color: #5e5e5e; font-family: Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: normal;">http://www.daytripfinder.co.uk/attractions/city-hall
</dt> Any ideas? Not sure if I'm missing something here! Thanks!0 -
Carl errors on urls that don't normally exist
Hi, I have been having heaps (thousands) of SEOMoz crawl errors on urls that don't exist normally like: mydomain.com/RoomAvailability.aspx?DateFrom=2012-Oct-26&rcid=-1&Nights=2&Adults=1&Children=0&search=BestPrice These urls are missing siteids and other parameters and I can't see how they are gererated. Does anyone have any ideas on where MOZ is finding them ? Thanks Stephen
Technical SEO | | digmarketingguy0 -
Subdomain mozTrust - does other parkd domains can affect that ?
Hi , I have my domain www.mydomain.com and it have dpmain authority 26 , domain mozRank around 3 , domain mozTrust 1.63 , page authority 31, Google PR 2.0 etc etc So I am not in very bottom of scores, but my SUBDOMAIN MOZTRUST is only 0.961 and I've checked other websites that I've made some time ago and they have it like 4.0. So it is quite bad. I am having some domain parked within my hosting package. they have different names like www.mydomain2.co.uk , www.mydomain3.com etc. I can acces those domains as wel by typing : mydomain2.mydomain.com mydomain3**.mydomain.com** and have some testing subdomains there as well (just if I need to test something like drupal , wordpress or testing shoping cart etc.) Can that fact affect my subdomain rank ? Because I am having those domains parked there or I've made some subdomains that are not in use and nobody is linking to them and they are visible in Google ?
Technical SEO | | sever3d0 -
Different version of site for "users" who don't accept cookies considered cloaking?
Hi I've got a client with lots of content that is hidden behind a registration form - if you don't fill it out you can not proceed to the content. As a result it is not being indexed. No surprises there. They are only doing this because they feel it is the best way of capturing email addresses, rather than the fact that they need to "protect" the content. Currently users arriving on the site will be redirected to the form if they have not had a "this user is registered" cookie set previously. If the cookie is set then they aren't redirected and get to see the content. I am considering changing this logic to only redirecting users to the form if they accept cookies but haven't got the "this user is registered cookie". The idea being that search engines would then not be redirected and would index the full site, not the dead end form. From the clients perspective this would mean only very free non-registered visitors would "avoid" the form, yet search engines are arguably not being treated as a special case. So my question is: would this be considered cloaking/put the site at risk in any way? (They would prefer to not go down the First Click Free route as this will lower their email sign-ups.) Thank you!
Technical SEO | | TimBarlow0