How does Google index pagination variables in Ajax snapshots? We're seeing random huge variables.
-
We're using the Google snapshot method to index dynamic Ajax content. Some of this content is from tables using pagination. The pagination is tracked with a var in the hash, something like:
#!home/?view_3_page=1
We're seeing all sorts of calls from Google now with huge numbers for these URL variables that we are not generating with our snapshots. Like this:
#!home/?view_3_page=10099089
These aren't trivial since each snapshot represents a server load, so we'd like these vars to only represent what's returned by the snapshots.
Is Google generating random numbers going fishing for content? If so, is this something we can control or minimize?
-
Thanks for the great replies all. Just to clarify, this is the page we're referencing:
http://www.knackhq.com/business-directory-user-demo/?escaped_fragment=
You can see the one pagination var "next" that points here:
http://www.knackhq.com/business-directory-user-demo/?escaped_fragment=home/?view_3_page=2
As you can see this is pretty simple. There's only one potential variable (the "prev" and "next" links) for introducing these huge numbers and that's pretty limited. We tested the Google URLs up and down the app and haven't seen anything that would send it fishing for larger numbers. But Google keeps hammering us with:
GET /business-directory-user-demo/?escaped_fragment=home/?view_3_page=1000251
For now we're trying to respond to those with 404s and hope they eventually die.
Unfortunately we can't avoid hashbangs.
-
This seems to do this only for parameters that it has decided "changes, re-orders, or narrows content." They may also crawl things that look like URLs in Javascript even when it's part of a function, but it doesn't seem like that's what's happening in this case.
Depending on the setup of the site, you can either manually configure the variable in WMT (don't do this if the parameter is material), write a clever robots.txt rule (e.g. to block anything after a number of digits after the parameter), or (the best solution) re-work the system to generate URLs that don't rely on parameters.
I'm not sure I understand why the server is rendering a page if the URL isn't supposed to exist. Depending on your server config, you may also be able to return a 404 and make a rule for which (valid) pages to render. From there you can just ignore the 404 errors until Google figures it out.
I think that's the best I can do without seeing the site.
-
I agree with Federico. I've seen Google go fishing with URL parameters (?param=xyz) and I've seen it with AJAX and hashbangs as well. How far they take this and when they choose to apply it doesn't seem to follow a consistent pattern . You can see some folks on StackExchange discussing this, too: http://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/25560/does-the-google-crawler-really-guess-url-patterns-and-index-pages-that-were-neve
-
Awesome, thanks for looking into it. We've gotten nowhere with any kind of answer.
-
Hi There
I'm an associate here at Moz, and have asked the other associates if they might know the answer, as this one's a little outside of my experience. Please follow up and let us know if you don't hear from anyone.
Thanks!
-Dan
-
We also noticed some weird crawls last year using random numbers at the end of the URL, checking in google webmaster tools we saw that most of those urls were reported as not found, checking from where the link came from google listed some of our URLs, but didn't had any link to those URLs google was trying to fetch. After 2 or 3 months those crawls stopped. We never knew from where Google got those URLs...
-
Hi Federico, thanks for the response.
Unfortunately this is an SEO solution for a third-party JavaScript product, so removing the hash isn't an option.
I'm still interested in knowing if this is a formal Google practice and if there's some way to control or mitigate this.
-
I think you are right. Google is fishing for content. I would find a solution to make those URL friendly by removing the hash and using some URL rewrite and pushState to paginate that content instead.
Here's a previous question that may help: http://moz.com/community/q/best-way-to-break-down-paginated-content
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
-
I've screwed up. Domain pointers I forgot about. Think I am getting dinged by google.
Hey all. I setup some domain pointers for a client 8 years ago and now think they are hurting them. I am afraid google thinks it duplicate content. They are pointers so you can get to the same page using other domain names. Is my best approach to do a 301 redirect on them? The client is on a shared host so I have to use the web.config file. The site is pretty small so doing it for the 10+ pages is not that big of a deal. My question is this? When should I drop those pointers from the website altogether?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | DougDeVore0 -
Removing Parameterized URLs from Google Index
We have duplicate eCommerce websites, and we are in the process of implementing cross-domain canonicals. (We can't 301 - both sites are major brands). So far, this is working well - rankings are improving dramatically in most cases. However, what we are seeing in some cases is that Google has indexed a parameterized page for the site being canonicaled (this is the site that is getting the canonical tag - the "from" page). When this happens, both sites are being ranked, and the parameterized page appears to be blocking the canonical. The question is, how do I remove canonicaled pages from Google's index? If Google doesn't crawl the page in question, it never sees the canonical tag, and we still have duplicate content. Example: A. www.domain2.com/productname.cfm%3FclickSource%3DXSELL_PR is ranked at #35, and B. www.domain1.com/productname.cfm is ranked at #12. (yes, I know that upper case is bad. We fixed that too.) Page A has the canonical tag, but page B's rank didn't improve. I know that there are no guarantees that it will improve, but I am seeing a pattern. Page A appears to be preventing Google from passing link juice via canonical. If Google doesn't crawl Page A, it can't see the rel=canonical tag. We likely have thousands of pages like this. Any ideas? Does it make sense to block the "clicksource" parameter in GWT? That kind of scares me.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AMHC0 -
Google and PDF indexing
It was recently brought to my attention that one of the PDFs on our site wasn't showing up when looking for a particular phrase within the document. The user was trying to search only within our site. Once I removed the site restriction - I noticed that there was another site using the exact same PDF. It appears Google is indexing that PDF but not ours. The name, title, and content are the same. Is there any way to get around this? I find it interesting as we use GSA and within GSA it shows up for the phrase. I have to imagine Google is saying that it already has the PDF and therefore is ignoring our PDF. Any tricks to get around this? BTW - both sites rightfully should have the PDF. One is a client site and they are allowed to host the PDFs created for them. However, I'd like Mathematica to also be listed. Query: no site restriction (notice: Teach for america comes up #1 and Mathematica is not listed). https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=HSAC_final_rpt_9_2013.pdf&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=pdf&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#q=HSAC_final_rpt_9_2013.pdf+"Teach+charlotte"+filetype:pdf&as_qdr=all&filter=0 Query: site restriction (notice that it doesn't find the phrase and redirects to any of the words) https://www.google.com/search?as_q=&as_epq=HSAC_final_rpt_9_2013.pdf&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=pdf&as_rights=&gws_rd=ssl#as_qdr=all&q="Teach+charlotte"+site:www.mathematica-mpr.com+filetype:pdf
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jpfleiderer0 -
Google suddenly indexing and displaying URLs that haven't existed for years?
We recently noticed google is showing approx 23,000 indexed .jsp urls for our site. These are ancient pages that haven't existed in years and have long been 301 redirected to valid urls. I'm talking 6 years. Checking the serps the other day (and our current SEOMoz pro campaign), I see that a few of these urls are now replacing our correct ones in the serps for important, competitive phrases. What the heck is going on here? Is Google suddenly ignoring rewrite rules and redirects? Here's an example of the rewrite rules that we've used for 6+ years: RewriteRule ^(.*)/xref_interlux_antifoulingoutboards&keels.jsp$ $1/userportal/search_subCategory.do?categoryName=Bottom%20Paint&categoryId=35&refine=1&page=GRID [R=301] Now, this 'bottom paint' url has been incredibly stable in the serps for over a half decade. All of a sudden, a google search for 'bottom paint' (no quotes) brings up the jsp page at position 2-3. This is just one example of something very bizarre happening. Has anyone else had something similar happen lately? Thank You <colgroup><col width="64"></colgroup>
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | jamestown
| RewriteRule ^(.*)/xref_interlux_antifoulingoutboards&keels.jsp$ $1/userportal/search_subCategory.do?categoryName=Bottom%20Paint&categoryId=35&refine=1&page=GRID [R=301] |0 -
Changing Hosting Companies - Site Downtime - Google Indexing Concern
We are getting ready to switch to a new hosting company. When we make the switchover, our sites will be offline for a couple of hours and in some cases perhaps as long as 12 hours while DNS is configured -- should we be worried about Google trying to index pages and finding them unavailable? Any fear of Google de-indexing pages. Our guess was that Google would not de-index anything after just a short period of not being able to find pages -- it would have to be over an extended period of time before GOOGLE or BING would de-index pages -- CORRECT? Just want to gut check this before pulling the trigger on switch over to new hosting company. We appreciate input on this and/or any other thoughts regarding the switch over to new hosting company that we may not have thought of. Thanks, Matt
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MWM37720 -
Pagination Question: Google's 'rel=prev & rel=next' vs Javascript Re-fresh
We currently have all content on one URL and use # and Javascript refresh to paginate pages, and we are wondering if we transition to the Google's recommended pagination if we will see an improvement in traffic. Has anyone gone though a similar transition? What was the result? Did you see an improvement in traffic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline0 -
Why is google automatically showing my competitor's result even when customer types in our brand name on the query?
This is little weird. We run a website specific to mobile phones called as 91mobiles.com. The site has gained lot of user interest and trust in the last 2 years [pre-dominantly indian users]. Lot of our users type mobile phone model and 91mobiles as the query. Example "Sony Xperia P 91mobiles". Google is showing gsmarena.com results on top and then shows our own results below! What's annoying is the fact that google also bolds the term gsmarena [denoting that it's a synonym]. Any idea why this is happening? We are very sure that we are not doing anything wrong..We have worked really hard for the last 2 years to reach where we are..and it's kind of hard to see gsmarena siphoning away our traffic for no reason at all [even when customer types in 91mobiles a part of the query to quality it]...Can some experts here demystify this? Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gaadi0 -
How can we get a site reconsidered for Google indexing?
We recently completed a re-design for a site and are having trouble getting it indexed. This site may have been penalized previously. They were having issues getting it ranked and the design was horrible. Any advise on how to get the new site reconsidered to get the rank where it should be? (Yes, Webmaster Tools is all set up with the sitemap linked) Many thanks for any help with this one!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | d25kart0