Why isn't Google indexing this site?
-
Hello, Moz Community
My client's site hasn't been indexed by Google, although it was launched a couple of months ago.
I've ran down the check points in this article https://mza.seotoolninja.com/ugc/8-reasons-why-your-site-might-not-get-indexed without finding a reason why.
Any sharp SEO-eyes out there who can spot this quickly?
The url is: http://www.oldermann.no/
Thank you
INEVO, digital agency -
Yeap it's really rare. Even more rare that WMT doesn't scream any error.
To check my mistake, i've run a screaming frog too. Sorry.
-
It shouldn't do as its just an iframe, if that were the case then every site that that used addthis would have a problem (which I know for a fact isn't true as two large sites I work with use it and have no issues).
As far as I'm aware, iframes do not pass on any of their attributes through to a website showing an iframe. The main reason I was curious about your reply was that screaming frog hadn't had any issues, I can understand myself having a small slip up, but a bit of software rarely does.
Back to the original question though, it is curious why there's no indexing by Google, Bing seems to have picked it up, and three days ago atleast. i can't see reason (in my brief look earlier) as to why it shouldn't be. So I came to the conclusion it hadn't been crawled or it had incredibly poor content (which I can't verify as I don't know Norwegian)
-
Damn it. You're right.
I'll retract my self.
Dispite my mistake, is there a chance that the add this iframe may be harming that site?
-
A friend just confirmed it, as you're using developer tools, what you're seeing is actually the fully loaded page, including iframes. So the noindex you have found is addthis. https://gyazo.com/abbdecc7e3d6a2d1f4d3acf65a48e65b
To actually check the source code, right click then click view source. That's the code for the specific site instead of loading all of the extra code you've been seeing. I would strongly advise you do like that from now onwards as the way you are doing is incorrect.
-
You know what, I don't think I am wrong.
Have a look at this source code from Bing's cache, can you see it there? http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.oldermann.no%2F&d=4558460857156532&mkt=en-GB&setlang=en-GB&w=Zicz6YAWVXgY8u0BPAR9qKRHF8OEn7o5 (Disclaimer I got my friend to check as I'm on a mobile)
This gyazo was just taken for example: https://gyazo.com/93c71c3767c57b74cb9f8b482c23c38
Just ran it through this too, showing the same thing: http://www.seoreviewtools.com/bulk-meta-robots-checker/
oh oh and so you know I think I know why you've found the noindex, you're looking at the for addthis.
-
I disagree Thomas. You're wrong.
I retract myself. Thomas has it right.
I've chequed 2 pages and both have the meta robots to nofollow and noindex.
http://www.oldermann.no/
http://www.oldermann.no/kompetanseCheck the image attached
To check that, go to the page source (F12 in chrome) and make a search (clicking in the source code then crtl+F) of 'robots' there you'll find your problem. Just erase that line of code and you'll be just fine.
Best Luck.
GR. -
I've had a quick look, I've been able to crawl it without any issues, the meta robots and robots.txt doesn't seem to be conflicting with anything at all.
It just doesn't look like it's even been found by Google.
Bing doesn't look to be having any issues indexing it: http://www.bing.com/search?q=site%3Aoldermann.no&go=Submit&qs=n&form=QBLH&pq=site%3Aoldermann.no&sc=0-17&sp=-1&sk=&cvid=B677970FF39F4A62A9B040806CF19EE0
What's the quality of the content on the site like? Have you "fetched as google" in the search console?
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
-
Why isn't our complete meta title showing up in the Google SERPS? (cut off half way)
We carry a product line, cutless bearings (for use on boats). For instance, we have one, called the Able, that has the following meta title (and searched by View Page Source to confirm): BOOT 1-3/8" x 2-3/8" x 5-1/2" Johnson Cutless Bearing | BOOT Cutlass However, if I search for it on on Google by part number or name (boot cutless bearing, boot cutlass bearing), the meta title comes back with whole first part chopped off, only showing this : "x 5-1/2" Johnson Cutless Bearing | BOOT Cutlass - Citimarine ..." Any idea why? Here's the url if it will hopefully help: https://citimarinestore.com/en/metallic-inches/156-boot-johnson-cutless-bearing-870352103.html All the products in the category are doing the same. Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Citimarine0 -
301 migration - Indexed Pages rising on old site
Hello, We did a 301 redirect from site a to site b back in March. I would check on a daily basis on the index count using query "site:sitename" The past couple of days, the old domain (that was 301 redirected) indexed pages has been rising which is really concerning. We did a 301 redirect back in march 2016, and the indexed count went from 400k pages down to 78k. However, the past 3 days it went from 78k to 89,500. And I'm worried that the number is going to continue to rise. My question - What would you do to investigate / how to investigate this issue? Would it be screaming frog and look at redirects? Or is this a unique scenario that I'd have to do other steps/procedures?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | ggpaul5620 -
Google Ignoring Canonical Tag for Hundreds of Sites
Bazaar Voice provides a pretty easy-to-use product review solution for websites (especially sites on Magento): https://www.magentocommerce.com/magento-connect/bazaarvoice-conversations-1.html If your product has over a certain number of reviews/questions, the plugin cuts off the number of reviews/questions that appear on the page. To see the reviews/questions that are cut off, you have to click the plugin's next or back function. The next/back buttons' URLs have a parameter of "bvstate....." I have noticed Google is indexing this "bvstate..." URL for hundreds of sites, even with the proper rel canonical tag in place. Here is an example with Microsoft: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:zcxT7MRHHREJ:www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Surface-Book/productID.325716000%3Fbvstate%3Dpg:8/ct:r+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us My website is seeing hundreds of these "bvstate" urls being indexed even though we have a proper rel canonical tag in place. It seems that Google is ignoring the canonical tag. In Webmaster Console, the main source of my duplicate titles/metas in the HTML improvements section is the "bvstate" URLs. I don't necessarily want to block "bvstate" in the robots.txt as it will prohibit Google from seeing the reviews that were cutoff. Same response for prohibiting Google from crawling "bvstate" in Paramters section of Webmaster Console. Should I just keep my fingers crossed that Google honors the rel canonical tag? Home Depot is another site that has this same issue: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:k0MBLFcu2PoJ:www.homedepot.com/p/DUROCK-Next-Gen-1-2-in-x-3-ft-x-5-ft-Cement-Board-172965/202263276%23!bvstate%3Dct:r/pg:2/st:p/id:202263276+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | redgatst1 -
HTML5: Changing 'section' content to be 'main' for better SEO relevance?
We received an HTML5 recommendation that we should change onpage text copy contained in 'section" to be listed in 'main' instead, because this is supposedly better for SEO. We're questioning the need to ask developers spend time on this purely for a perceived SEO benefit. Sure, maybe content in 'footer' may be seen as less relevant, but calling out 'section' as having less relevance than 'main'? Yes, it's true that engines evaluate where onpage content is located, but this level of granular focus seems unnecessary. That being said, more than happy to be corrected if there is actually a benefit. On a side note, 'main' isn't supported by older versions of IE and could cause browser incompatibilities (http://caniuse.com/#feat=html5semantic). Would love to hear others' feedback about this - thanks! 🙂
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mirabile0 -
Google Frequently Indexing - Good or Bad?
Hi, My website is only 4 months old and receives about 40 to 50 organic visits every day. It currently has about 100 pages out of which only 3-4 rank in the top 10 for the target KWs. I usually try to publish, at least 1 article a day but sometimes certain articles are more than 2000 words long with a few of infographics and hence takes way more time (maybe even 3 days to publish one) Only over the last week, I am observing that every time i am publishing a page (usually daily) google is indexing them the same day. This I have heard happens for moderately big sites but my site is really small at this stage. Note: For the first 80 pages, I used to "fetch as googlebot" in webmasters as otherwise my site would be crawled once in 2 weeks but over the last 3-4 weeks, i rely on googles scheduled visits. Is this a good or bad sign? I would like to assume its good because of my engagement. Though for only organic visits, my Gogle Analytics bounce rate is 65% in analytics out of the remaining 35%, the avg time on site >7 mins. That means if someone sticks to my site, they consume a lot of my content. Also, since analytics' bounce rate is not same as the search bounce (back button) I would like to consider that the bounce is actually lesser than that.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | dwautism0 -
Is there anyway to recover my site's rankings?
My site has been top 3 for 'speed dating' on Google.co.uk since about 2003 and it went to below top 50 for a lot of it's main keywords shortly after 27 Oct 2012. I did a re-submission request and was told there was 'no manual spam action'. My conclusions is I was dropped by Google because of poor quality links I've gained over 10+ years. I have a Domain Authority of 40, a regular blog http://bit.ly/oKyi88, a KLOUT of 42, user reviews and quality content. Since Oct 2012 I've done some technical improvements and managed to get a few questionable links removed. I've continued blogging reguarly and got more active on Twitter. I've seen no improvement and my traffic is 80% down on last year. It would be great to be able to produce content that others want to link to but I've not had much success from that in over 10 years of trying and I've not seen many others in my sector, with small budgets having much success. Is there anything I can do to regain favour with Google?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | benners0 -
Best possible linking on site with 100K indexed pages
Hello All, First of all I would like to thank everybody here for sharing such great knowledge with such amazing and heartfelt passion.It really is good to see. Thank you. My story / question: I recently sold a site with more than 100k pages indexed in Google. I was allowed to keep links on the site.These links being actual anchor text links on both the home page as well on the 100k news articles. On top of that, my site syndicates its rss feed (Just links and titles, no content) to this page. However, the new owner made a mess, and now the site could possibly be seen as bad linking to my site. Google tells me within webmasters that this particular site gives me more than 400K backlinks. I have NEVER received one single notice from Google that I have bad links. That first. But, I was worried that this page could have been the reason why MY site tanked as bad as it did. It's the only source linking so massive to me. Just a few days ago, I got in contact with the new site owner. And he has taken my offer to help him 'better' his site. Although getting the site up to date for him is my main purpose, since I am there, I will also put effort in to optimizing the links back to my site. My question: What would be the best to do for my 'most SEO gain' out of this? The site is a news paper type of site, catering for news within the exact niche my site is trying to rank. Difference being, his is a news site, mine is not. It is commercial. Once I fix his site, there will be regular news updates all within the niche we both are in. Regularly as in several times per day. It's news. In the niche. Should I leave my rss feed in the side bars of all the content? Should I leave an achor text link on the sidebar (on all news etc.) If so: there can be just one keyword... 407K pages linking with just 1 kw?? Should I keep it to just one link on the home page? I would love to hear what you guys think. (My domain is from 2001. Like a quality wine. However, still tanked like a submarine.) ALL SEO reports I got here are now Grade A. The site is finally fully optimized. Truly nice to have that confirmation. Now I hope someone will be able to tell me what is best to do, in order to get the most SEO gain out of this for my site. Thank you.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | richardo24hr0 -
Google Not Indexing Description or correct title (very technical)
Hey guys, I am managing the site: http://www.theattractionforums.com/ If you search the keyword "PUA Forums", it will be in the top 10 results, however the title of the forum will be "PUA Forums" rather than using the code in the title tag, and no description will display at all (despite there being one in the code). Any page other than the home-page that ranks shows the correct title and description. We're completely baffled! Here are some interesting bits and pieces: It shows up fine on Bing If I go into GWT and Fetch as Google Bot, it shows up as "Unreachable" when I try to pull the home-page. We previously found that it was pulling 'index.htm' before 'index.php' - and this was pulling a blank page. I've fixed this in the .htaccess however to make it redirect, however this hasn't solved the problem. I've disallowed it from pulling the description .etc from the Open Directory with the use of meta tags - didn't change anything. It's vBulletin and is running vBSEO Any suggestions at all guys? I'll be forever in anyones debt who can solve this, it's proving to be near impossible to fix. Here is the .htaccess file, it may be a part of the issue: RewriteEngine On DirectoryIndex index.php index.html Redirect /index.html http://www.theattractionforums.com/index.php RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} !^www.theattractionforums.com
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | trx
RewriteRule (.*) http://www.theattractionforums.com/$1 [L,R=301] RewriteRule ^((urllist|sitemap_).*.(xml|txt)(.gz)?)$ vbseo_sitemap/vbseo_getsitemap.php?sitemap=$1 [L] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_URI} !(admincp/|modcp/|cron|vbseo_sitemap/)
RewriteRule ^((archive/)?(..php(/.)?)?)$ vbseo.php [L,QSA] RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-f
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !-d
RewriteCond %{REQUEST_FILENAME} !^(admincp|modcp|clientscript|cpstyles|images)/
RewriteRule ^(.+)$ vbseo.php [L,QSA]
RewriteRule ^forum/(.*)$ http://www.theattractionforums.com/$1 [R=301,L]0