Google is indexing bad URLS
-
Hi All,
The site I am working on is built on Wordpress. The plugin Revolution Slider was downloaded. While no longer utilized, it still remained on the site for some time. This plugin began creating hundreds of URLs containing nothing but code on the page. I noticed these URLs were being indexed by Google. The URLs follow the structure: www.mysite.com/wp-content/uploads/revslider/templates/this-part-changes/
I have done the following to prevent these URLs from being created & indexed:
1. Added a directive in my Htaccess to 404 all of these URLs
2. Blocked /wp-content/uploads/revslider/ in my robots.txt
3. Manually de-inedex each URL using the GSC tool
4. Deleted the plugin
However, new URLs still appear in Google's index, despite being blocked by robots.txt and resolving to a 404. Can anyone suggest any next steps? I
Thanks!
-
All of the plugins I can find allow the tag to be deployed on pages, posts etc. You pick from a pre-defined list of existing content, instead of just whacking in a URL and having it inserted (annoying!)
If you put an index.php at that location (the location of the 404), you could put whatever you wanted in it. Might work (maybe test with one). Would resolve a 200 so you'd then need to force a 410 over the top. Not very scalable though...
-
I do agree, I may have to pass this off to someone with more backend experience than myself. In terms of plugins, are you aware of any that will allow you to add noindex tags to an entire folder?
Thanks!
-
Hmm, that's interesting - it should work just as you say! This is the point where you need a developer's help rather than an SEO analysts :') sorry!
Google will revisit 410s if it believes there is a legitimate reason to do so, but it's much less likely to revisit them than it is with 404s (which actively tell Google that the content will return).
Plugins are your friends. Too many will overload a site and make it run pretty slowly (especially as PHP has no multi-threading support!) - but this plugin, you would only need it temporarily anyway.
You might have to start using something like PHPMyAdmin to browse your SQL databases. It's possible that the uninstall didn't work properly and there are still databases at work, generating fresh URLs. You can quash them at the database level if required, however I'd say go to a web developer as manual DB edits can be pretty hazardous to a non-expert
-
Thank you for all your help. I added in a directive to 410 the pages in my htaccess as so: Redirect 410 /revslider*/. However, it does not seem to work.
Currently, I am using Options All -Indexes to 404 the URLs. Although I still remain worried as even though Google would not revisit a 410, could it still initially index it? This seems to be the case with my 404 pages - Google is actively indexing the new 404 pages that the broken plugin is producing.
As I can not seem to locate the directory in Cpanel, adding a noindex to them has been tough. I will look for a plugin that can dynamically add it based on folder structure because the URLs are still actively being created.
The ongoing creation of the URL's is the ultimate source of the issue, I expected that deleting the plugin would have resolved it but that does not seem to be the case.
-
Just remember, the only regex character which is supported is "*". Others like "" and "?" are not supported! So it's still very limited. Changing the response from 404 to 410 should really help, but be prepared to give Google a week or two to digest your changes
Yes, it would be tricky to inject those URLs with Meta no index tags, but it wouldn't be impossible. You could create an index.php file at the directory of each page which contained a Meta no-index directive, or use a plugin to inject the tag onto specific URLs. There will be ways, don't give up too early! That being said, this part probably won't add much more than the 410s will
It wouldn't be a bad idea to inject the no-index tags, but do it for 410s and not for 404s (doing it for 404s could cause you BIG problems further down the line). Remember, 404 - "temporarily gone but will come back", 410 - "gone - never coming back". Really all 410s should be served with no-index tags. Google can read dynamically generated content, but is less likely to do so and crawls it less often. Still - it would at least make the problem begin shrinking over time. It would be better to get the tags into to non-modified source code (server side rendering)
By the way, you can send a no-index directive in the HTTP header if you are really stuck!
https://sitebulb.com/hints/indexability/robots-hints/noindex-in-html-and-http-header/
The above post is quite helpful, it shows no-index directives in HTML but also in the HTTP header
In contrast to that example, you'd be serving 410 (gone) not 200 (ok)
-
Thank you for your response! I will certainly use the regex in my robots.txt and try to change my Htaccess directive to 410 the pages.
However, the issue is that a defunct plugin is randomly creating hundreds of these URL's without my knowledge, which I can not seem to access. As this is the case, I can't add a no-index tag to them.
This is why I manually de-indexed each page using the GSC removal tool and then blocked them in my robots.txt. My hope was that after doing so, Google would no longer be able to find the bad URL's.
Despite this, Google is still actively crawling & indexing new URL's following this path, even though they are blocked by my robots.txt (validated). I am unsure how these URL's even continue to be created as I deleted the plugin.
I had the idea to try to write a program with javascript that would take the status code and insert a no-index tag if the header returned a 404, but I don't believe this would even be recognized by Google, as it would be inserted dynamically. Ultimately, I would like to find a way to get the plugin to stop creating these URL's, this way I can simply manually de-index them again.
Thanks,
-
You have taken some good measures there, but it does take Google time to revisit URLs and re-index them (or remove them from the index!)
Did you know, 404 just means a URL was temporarily removed and will be coming back? The status code you are looking to serve is 410 (gone) which is a harder signal
Robots.txt (for Google) does in-fact support wild cards. It's not full regex, in-fact the only wildcard supported is "*" (asterisk: matching any character or string of characters). You could supplement with a rule like this:
User-agent: * Disallow: /*revslider* That should, theoretically block any URL from indexation if it contains the string "revslider" Be sure to **validate** any new robots.txt rules using Google Search Console to check they are working right! Remember that robots.txt affects crawling and **not indexation!** To give Google a directive not to index a URL, you should use the Meta no-index tag: [https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93710?hl=en](https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/93710?hl=en) **The steps are:**
- Remove your existing robots.txt rule (which would stop Google crawling the URL and thus stop them seeing a Meta no-index tag or any change in status code)
- Apply status 410 to those pages instead of 404
- Apply Meta no-index tags to the 410'ing URLs
- Wait for Google to digest and remove the pages from its index
- Put your robots.txt rule back to prevent it ever happening again
- Supplement with an additional wildcard rule
- Done!
- Hope that helps
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 Google crawl parameter URLs?
Hi SEO Masters, Google is indexing this parameter URLs - 1- xyz.com/f1/f2/page?jewelry_styles=6165-4188-4184-4192-4180-6109-4191-6110&mode=li_23&p=2&filterable_stone_shapes=4114 2- xyz.com/f1/f2/page?jewelry_styles=6165-4188-4184-4192-4180-4169-4195&mode=li_23&p=2&filterable_stone_shapes=4115&filterable_metal_types=4163 I have handled by Google parameter like this - jewelry_styles= Narrows Let Googlebot decide mode= None Representative URL p= Paginates Let Googlebot decide filterable_stone_shapes= Narrows Let Googlebot decide filterable_metal_types= Narrows Let Googlebot decide and Canonical for both pages - xyz.com/f1/f2/page?p=2 So can you suggest me why Google indexed all related pages with this - xyz.com/f1/f2/page?p=2 But I have no issue with first page - xyz.com/f1/f2/page (with any parameter). Cononical of first page is working perfectly. Thanks
Technical SEO | | Rajesh.Prajapati
Rajesh0 -
URL structure
Hello Guys, Quick Question regarding URL strucutre One of our client is an hotel chain, thye have a group site www.example.com and each property is located in a subfolder: www.example.com/example-boston.html , www.example.com/example-ny.html etc. My quesion is : where is better to place the language extension at a subfolder level?
Technical SEO | | travelclickseo
Should i go for www.example.com/en/example-ny.html or it is preferable to specify the language after the property name www.example.com/example-ny/en/accommodation.html? Thanks and Regards, Alessio0 -
Google + and Google Knoladge Graph
I am trying to get things to match up for the company brand websearch and the Google + page and we have had it for years now The knowledge graph on Google is showing the map, address and name (shown in attached image), but is not linked to a G+ page, as when i click the "Are you the business owner?" its is trying to make me create a new G+ business page. Anyone have any ideas on this? Also does the wiki name have to be exact for it to show? As for phone number would that be coming from the DNS record as that is nowhere in the markup rich snippet or normal markup Thanks in advance LC9cWdG
Technical SEO | | David-McGawn0 -
Why is Google replacing our title tags with URLs in SERP?
Hey guys, We've noticed that Google is replacing a lot of our title tags with URLs in SERP. As far as we know, this has been happening for the last month or so and we can't seem to figure out why. I've attached a screenshot for your reference. What we know: depending on the search query, the title tag may or may not be replaced. this doesn't seem to have any connection to the relevance of the title tag vs the url. results are persistent on desktop and mobile. the length of the title tag doesn't seem to correlate with the replacement. the replacement is happening at mass, to dozens of pages. Any ideas as to why this may be happening? Thanks in advance,
Technical SEO | | Mobify
Peter mobify-site-www.mobify.com---Google-Search.png0 -
Google dropping pages from SERPs even though indexed and cached. (Shift over to https suspected.)
Anybody know why pages that have previously been indexed - and that are still present in Google's cache - are now not appearing in Google SERPs? All the usual suspects - noindex, robots, duplication filter, 301s - have been ruled out. We shifted our site over from http to https last week and it appears to have started then, although we have also been playing around with our navigation structure a bit too. Here are a few examples... Example 1: Live URL: https://www.normanrecords.com/records/149002-memory-drawings-there-is-no-perfect-place Cached copy: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.normanrecords.com/records/149002-memory-drawings-there-is-no-perfect-place SERP (1): https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=memory+drawings+there+is+no+perfect+place SERP (2): https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=memory+drawings+there+is+no+perfect+place+site%3Awww.normanrecords.com Example 2: SERP: https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=deaf+center+recount+site%3Awww.normanrecords.com Live URL: https://www.normanrecords.com/records/149001-deaf-center-recount- Cached copy: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.normanrecords.com/records/149001-deaf-center-recount- These are pages that have been linked to from our homepage (Moz PA of 68) prominently for days, are present and correct in our sitemap (https://www.normanrecords.com/catalogue_sitemap.xml), have unique content, have decent on-page optimisation, etc. etc. We moved over to https on 11 Aug. There were some initial wobbles (e.g. 301s from normanrecords.com to www.normanrecords.com got caught up in a nasty loop due to the conflicting 301 from http to https) but these were quickly sorted (i.e. spotted and resolved within minutes). There have been some other changes made to the structure of the site (e.g. a reduction in the navigation options) but nothing I know of that would cause pages to drop like this. For the first example (Memory Drawings) we were ranking on the first page right up until this morning and have been receiving Google traffic for it ever since it was added to the site on 4 Aug. Any help very much appreciated! At the very end of my tether / understanding here... Cheers, Nathon
Technical SEO | | nathonraine0 -
Canonical URL
Hi there Our website www.snowbusiness.com has a non www version and this one has 398 backlinks. What is the best way of transfering this link value if i establish the www. address as the canonical URL? Thanks, Ben
Technical SEO | | SnowFX0 -
Homepage no longer indexed in Google
Have been working on a site and the hompage has recently vanished from Google. I submit the site to Google webmaster tools a couple of days ago and checked today and the homepage has vanished. There are no no follow tags, and no robots.txt stopping the page from being crawled. It's a bit of a worry, the site is http://www.beyondthedeal.com
Technical SEO | | tonysandwich
Any insights would be massively appreciated! Thanks.0 -
Google Reconsideration Request (Penguin) - Will Google give links to remove?
When Penguin v1 hit, our site took a hit for a single phrase (i.e. "widgets") due to the techniques our SEO company was using (network). We've since had those links cleaned up, and our rankings have not recovered. Our SEO company said they submitted a reconsideration request on our behalf, and that Google denied it and didn't provide which links we needed removed. Does Google list links that need removing if they are still not happy with your link profile?
Technical SEO | | crucialx0