Best way to handle indexed pages you don't want indexed
-
We've had a lot of pages indexed by google which we didn't want indexed. They relate to a ajax category filter module that works ok for front end customers but under the bonnet google has been following all of the links.
I've put a rule in the robots.txt file to stop google from following any dynamic pages (with a ?) and also any ajax pages but the pages are still indexed on google.
At the moment there is over 5000 pages which have been indexed which I don't want on there and I'm worried is causing issues with my rankings.
Would a redirect rule work or could someone offer any advice?
-
Gavin Since you have added the noindex in the pages, the best way is to let Google crawl those pages, see the noindex and remove them. The other option is to keep everything as is and request these parameter pages via your Google Webmaster Console. Option 1: You never know how long it takes Option 2: This should happen relatively fast I would therefore suggest keeping everything as is and doing a removal request.
-
Right... We think we've been able to get the code noindex code into the dodgy pages. The only way we could think of doing it without breaking the user interface was to put this rule into the PHP.
if(!empty($_SERVER['HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH']) && strtolower($_SERVER['HTTP_X_REQUESTED_WITH']) == 'xmlhttprequest')
{normal code
}
else
{echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '';
echo '404';
echo '';
echo '';
}Its rendering ok for us front end, if anyone would like to test... I'm just hopeful it would work for google?
http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/cycling/cycling-clothing/protective-clothing.html?ajax=1
One thing I am not sure about is how google is going to revisit the said pages. I have put in various rules to the robots.txt files as well as the url parameter handling in webmaster tools to prevent any future pages from being followed... Would these rules need to be removed?
-
The AJAX URLs are used by the site, though, right (for visitors)? If you 404 them, you may be breaking the functionality and not just impacting Google.
Another problem is that, if these pages are no longer crawlable, and you add a page-level directive (whether it's a 404, 301, canonical, NOINDEX, etc.), Google won't process those new instructions. So, they could get stuck in the index. If that's the case, ti may actually be more effective to block the "ajax=" parameter with parameter handling in Google Webmaster Tools (there's a similar option in Bing).
If you know the path is cut and this isn't a recurrent problem, that could be the fastest short-term solution. You do need to monitor, though, as they can re-enter the index later.
-
Gavin, that's a more generic response. In this scenario, unless you can make a 404 happen, it won't work and therefore is not applicable. Noindex and / or the canonical tag are the choices and I would try and get those going if possible.
-
Thanks for all of the replies... My best option seems to be the meta noindex rule but the nature of the pages that are getting indexed are just one long ajax string with no access to the header are. I hope I have already 'prevented' google from following the links in the future by adding the rules to robots.txt but I'm now desperate to clean up (cure) the existing ones.
My next thought would be to put a rule in htaccess and redirect anything with ajax in the url to a 404 page?
I'm worried that this may have even worse side effects with rankings but its based on this article that google publish: https://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=59819
"To remove a page or image, you must do one of the following:
- Make sure the content is no longer live on the web. Requests for the page must return an HTTP 404 (not found) or 410 status code
What would your thoughts be on this?
-
Definitely review George's comment as you need to figure out why they're being crawled. As Andrea said, any solution takes time, I'm sorry to say. Robots.txt is not a good solution for getting pages removed that are already indexed, especially in bulk. It's better at prevention than cure.
META NOINDEX can be effective, or you could rel=canonical these pages to the appropriate non-AJAX URL - not sure exactly how the structure is set up. Those are probably the two fastest and more powerful approaches. Google parameter handling (in Webmaster Tools) is another option, but it's a bit unpredictable whether they honor it and how quickly.
You can only do mass removal if everything is in a folder, if I recall. There's no way to bulk remove unless all of the pages are structurally under one root URL.
-
I'm not sure if you're aware or not, but I think I know why Google is indexing these pages.
Right now, you are outputting URLs into your source code of your page in the form of a JavaScript function call similar to the following:
I believe this is because your page (and this function call) is programmatically created. Instead of outputting the whole URL to the page, you could output only what needs to be there.
For example:
Then change the signature of the JavaScript function so that it accepts this new input and builds the URL from your inputs:
function initSlider(price, low, high, category, subcategory, product, store, ajax, ?) {
// build URL
var URL = 'http://www.outdoormegastore.co.uk/' + category + '/' + subcategory + '/' + product + '.html?_' + store + '&' + ajax;
// continue...
}
Right now, because that URL is being outputted to the page, I think Google sees it as a URL it should follow and index. If you build this URL with the function in an external JavaScript file, I don't think it will be indexed.
Your developer(s) should know what I'm talking about.
Hope this helps!
-
If they are already indexed, it's going to take time for Google to recrawl, read the tag and get them to fall out, so patience will be key. It's not a quick thing to undo.
If the pages are all in one location, you can add a disallow robots/text to Webmaster Tools command to prevent that entire folder from being indexed, but again, it's already done so you are going to have to wait for all those pages to fall out.
-
Thanks for the quick reply! I'm desperate to get these removed as soon as possible now. I've got webmaster tools access but requesting over 5,000 pages to be removed one by one will take too long. You can't do page removal in bulk can you?
I'm going to work on the noindex option
-
OMG, that does not look good. I completely understand. The best way in my opinion would be to add a noindex meta tag on these pages and let Google crawl them. Once they re-index them with the noindex, that should take care of the problem. However, be careful since you want to make sure that noindex tag does not appear on your real pages, just the AJAX ones.
Another option might be to consider the canonical tag, but then technically these pages are not duplicate pages, they just should not exist. Are you verified and using the Google Webmaster Console ? If yes, see if you can get some of these pages excluded via the URL removal tool. The best way is to add the noindex tag in my opinion.
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
-
Sudden Drop in Indexed Pages and Images under Sitemap
Hello! Just a couple days back, realised that under the Google Webmaster Tool > Sitemap, my website www.bibliotek.co has a sudden drop in indexed pages and images. Previously, it was almost fully indexed. However, I checked and the Google Index > Index Status, it is still fully indexed Any reason why and how do I resolve? Any help is very much appreciated! Thanks in advance!
Technical SEO | | Bibliotek1230 -
How to check if an individual page is indexed by Google?
So my understanding is that you can use site: [page url without http] to check if a page is indexed by Google, is this 100% reliable though? Just recently Ive worked on a few pages that have not shown up when Ive checked them using site: but they do show up when using info: and also show their cached versions, also the rest of the site and pages above it (the url I was checking was quite deep) are indexed just fine. What does this mean? thank you p.s I do not have WMT or GA access for these sites
Technical SEO | | linklander0 -
How can I best handle parameters?
Thank you for your help in advance! I've read a ton of posts on this forum on this subject and while they've been super helpful I still don't feel entirely confident in what the right approach I should take it. Forgive my very obvious noob questions - I'm still learning! The problem: I am launching a site (coursereport.com) which will feature a directory of schools. The directory can be filtered by a handful of fields listed below. The URL for the schools directory will be coursereport.com/schools. The directory can be filtered by a number of fields listed here: Focus (ex: “Data Science”) Cost (ex: “$<5000”) City (ex: “Chicago”) State/Province (ex: “Illinois”) Country (ex: “Canada”) When a filter is applied to the directories page the CMS produces a new page with URLs like these: coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago coursereport.com/schools?cost=$>5000&city=buffalo&state=newyork My questions: 1) Is the above parameter-based approach appropriate? I’ve seen other directory sites that take a different approach (below) that would transform my examples into more “normal” urls. coursereport.com/schools?focus=datascience&cost=$<5000&city=chicago VERSUS coursereport.com/schools/focus/datascience/cost/$<5000/city/chicago (no params at all) 2) Assuming I use either approach above isn't it likely that I will have duplicative content issues? Each filter does change on page content but there could be instance where 2 different URLs with different filters applied could produce identical content (ex: focus=datascience&city=chicago OR focus=datascience&state=illinois). Do I need to specify a canonical URL to solve for that case? I understand at a high level how rel=canonical works, but I am having a hard time wrapping my head around what versions of the filtered results ought to be specified as the preferred versions. For example, would I just take all of the /schools?focus=X combinations and call that the canonical version within any filtered page that contained other additional parameters like cost or city? Should I be changing page titles for the unique filtered URLs? I read through a few google resources to try to better understand the how to best configure url params via webmaster tools. Is my best bet just to follow the advice on the article below and define the rules for each parameter there and not worry about using rel=canonical ? https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/1235687 An assortment of the other stuff I’ve read for reference: http://www.wordtracker.com/academy/seo-clean-urls http://www.practicalecommerce.com/articles/3857-SEO-When-Product-Facets-and-Filters-Fail http://www.searchenginejournal.com/five-steps-to-seo-friendly-site-url-structure/59813/ http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2011/07/improved-handling-of-urls-with.html
Technical SEO | | alovallo0 -
Targeting multiple keywords with index page
Quick keyword question.... I just started working with a client that is ranking fairly well for a number of keywords with his index page. Right now he has a bunch of duplicate titles, descriptions, etc across the entire site. There are 5 different keywords in the title of the index page alone. I am wondering if it OK to target 3 different keywords with the index page? Or, if I should cut it down to 1. Think blue widget, red widget, and widget making machines. I want each of the individual keywords to improve but don't want to lose what I have either. Any ideas? THANKS!!!!
Technical SEO | | SixTwoInteractive0 -
How can I best find out which URLs from large sitemaps aren't indexed?
I have about a dozen sitemaps with a total of just over 300,000 urls in them. These have been carefully created to only select the content that I feel is above a certain threshold. However, Google says they have only indexed 230,000 of these urls. Now I'm wondering, how can I best go about working out which URLs they haven't indexed? No errors are showing in WMT related to these pages. I can obviously manually start hitting it, but surely there's a better way?
Technical SEO | | rango0 -
No index directory pages?
All, I have a site built on WordPress with directory software (edirectory) on the backend that houses a directory of members. The Wordpress portion of the site is full of content and drives traffic through to the directory. Like most directories, the results pages are thin on content and mainly contain links to member profiles. Is it best to simply no index the search results for the directory portion of the site?
Technical SEO | | JSOC0 -
Url's don't want to show up in google. Please help?
Hi Mozfans 🙂 I'm doing a sitescan for a new client. http://www.vacatures.tuinbouw.nl/ It's a dutch jobsite. Now the problem is here: The url http://www.vacatures.tuinbouw.nl/vacatures/ is in google.
Technical SEO | | MaartenvandenBos
On the same page there are jobs (scroll down) with a followed link.
To a url like this: http://www.vacatures.tuinbouw.nl/vacatures/722/productie+medewerker+paprika+teelt/ The problem is that the second url don't show up in google. When i try to make a sitemap with Gsitecrawler the second url isn't in de sitemap.. :S What am i doing wrong? Thanks!0 -
How do I use the Robots.txt "disallow" command properly for folders I don't want indexed?
Today's sitemap webinar made me think about the disallow feature, seems opposite of sitemaps, but it also seems both are kind of ignored in varying ways by the engines. I don't need help semantically, I got that part. I just can't seem to find a contemporary answer about what should be blocked using the robots.txt file. For example, I have folders containing site comps for clients that I really don't want showing up in the SERPS. Is it better to not have these folders on the domain at all? There are also security issues I've heard of that make sense, simply look at a site's robots file to see what they are hiding. It makes it easier to hunt for files when they know the directory the files are contained in. Do I concern myself with this? Another example is a folder I have for my xml sitemap generator. I imagine google isn't going to try to index this or count it as content, so do I need to add folders like this to the disallow list?
Technical SEO | | SpringMountain0