Google Cache Version and Text Only Version are different
-
Across various websites we found Google cache version in the browser loads the full site and all content is visible. However when we try to view TEXT only version of the same page we can't see any content.
Example: we have a client with JS scroller menu on the home page. Each scroller serves a separate content section on the same URL.
When we copy paste some of the page content in Google, we can see that copy indexed in Google search results as well as showing in Cache version . But as soon as we go into Text Only version we cant see the same copy.
We would like to know which version we should trust, Google cache version or the TEXT only version.
-
Thanks for your reply
I thought the same. But when I am trying to check a portion of my site content, its appearing in Google SERPs while trying different set of text its not coming up.
I dont know this is do do with the different JS files we are using and possibility some Google can pass through and be able to crawl content within them and some not.
Any thoughts?
-
Google is able to crawl a lot of javascript these days. If you are seeing the text in their index when you search for it, then its indexed!
As far as I know, the text-only cache leaves out javascript. This was especially useful before Googlebot was able to crawl that stuff, so you could see if parts of your content were hidden from view.
I say, trust the SERPs! Text-only is probably leaving out all your (still crawlable) content wrapped in js.
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 Cache showing a different URL
Hi all, very weird things happening to us. For the 3 URLs below, Google cache is rendering content from a different URL (sister site) even though there are no redirects between the 2 & live page shows the 'right content' - see: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/tours/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/about/ http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://giltedgeafrica.com/about/team/ We also have the exact same issue with another domain we owned (but not anymore), only difference is that we 301 redirected those URLs before it changed ownership: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.preferredsafaris.com/Kenya/2 http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.preferredsafaris.com/accommodation/Namibia/5 I have gone ahead into the URL removal Tool and got denied for the first case above ("") and it is still pending for the second lists. We are worried that this might be a sign of duplicate content & could be penalising us. Thanks! ps: I went through most questions & the closest one I found was this one (http://moz.com/community/q/page-disappeared-from-google-index-google-cache-shows-page-is-being-redirected) but it didn't provide a clear answer on my question above
Technical SEO | | SouthernAfricaTravel0 -
Google webmaster showing 0 indexed, yet I can see them all them Google search?
I can see them all the pages showing up in Google when i search for my site. But in webmaster tools under the sitemaps section in the indexed pages - the red bar is showing 0 indexed pages, even though they seem to be indexed. Any idea why is this showing like this? I don’t really think it’s that important as the pages are still indexed, but it just seems odd. Please see in the image.
Technical SEO | | Perfect0070 -
Google bot notification
Hi there! I've just made some changes in my website in order to optimize it but I don't know if there's a way to notify the googlebot that some aspects of the configuration (metas) have changed and must be "taken into account". The spider visited my site two days ago and obviously processed the sitemap file. I've heard that it's possible to do a ping to certain websites. Is this the way to proceed? I must say that there're not many updates in the site (just one way information) as the social media activity is still low. Thanks in advanced.
Technical SEO | | juanmiguelcr0 -
Google indexing tags help
Hey everyone, So yesterday someone pointed out to me that Google is indexing tags and that will likely hurt search engine results. I just did a "site:thetechblock.com" and I notice that tags are still being pulled. http://d.pr/i/WmE6 Today, I went into my Yoast settings and checked "noindex,follow" tags in the Taxomomies settings. I just want to make sure what I'm doing is right. http://d.pr/i/zmbd Thanks guys
Technical SEO | | ttb0 -
Differences in Sitemaps SEO wise?
I'm a bit confused about sitemaps. I'm just learning SEO so forgive me if this is a basic question. I've submitted my site to google webmaster using http://pro-sitemaps.com and the sitemap generator it creates. I've also seen sites do this: http://www.johnlewis.com/Shopping/ProductList.aspx and http://www.thesafestcandles.com/site-map.html so I did something similar for my site (www.ldnwicklesscandles.com). You figure you see everyone do it you might as well try it too and hope it works. 😉 So I've done both 1 and 2. Which sitemap is best for SEO purposes or should I do both? Is there any format that should or shouldn't be used for Option 2? Any site examples for good practice would be helpful.
Technical SEO | | cmjolley0 -
Google Analtyics Changes?
Did anyone else's google analtyics numbers jump up this month? Our unique visitors increased some, but our pageviews tripled and our bounces dropped significantly. We have been working to optimize the sites and did have a huge drop in errors in our campaign reports.
Technical SEO | | Stevej240 -
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 -
Is this against google rules
Hi i am wanting to know if this is against google rules. I am building a website which will have lots of different sections and i wanted to know if you were allowed to have a new domain name pointing to a section of the site. so for example if i had a site with a domain name of manchester and then i wanted a section of the site to be called www.manchester.com/complimentary health I want to know if to help with traffic to the site and to have a better domain name, if it was allowed to have a new domain name pointing to that section of the site which could be called www.complimentaryhealth.com and have that pointing to the section. would love to hear your thoughts on this
Technical SEO | | ClaireH-1848860