Load Balancer issues on Search Console
-
The top linked domains in search console are coming from our load balancer setup. Does anyone know how to remove these as unique sites pointing back to our primary domain? I was told Google is smart enough to ignore these as duplicate domains but if that was the case, why would they be listed as the top linked domains in search console? Most concerned....
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
-
Does redirecting a duplicate page NOT in Google‘s index pass link juice? (External links not showing in search console)
Hello! We have a powerful page that has been selected by Google as a duplicate page of another page on the site. The duplicate is not indexed by Google, and the referring domains pointing towards that page aren’t recognized by Google in the search console (when looking at the links report). My question is - if we 301 redirect the duplicate page towards the one that Google has selected as canonical, will the link juice be passed to the new page? Thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lewald10 -
Redirection: Load balancer or CNAME?
We had a bunch of domains which no longer have sites tied to them but many have decent links pointing to them. In most cases we have other relevant content on live sites we can redirect these URL's to. We have been given the choice of redirection through the load balancer or direct as a cname on our CDN. I only have experience of 301's - What would be the preferred choice from an SEO perspective? Thanks, Sam
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Samsam00000 -
Issue with site not being properly found in Google
We have a website [domain name removed] that is not being properly found in Google. When we run it through Screaming Frog, it indicates that there is a problem with the robot.txt file. However, I am unsure exactly what this problem is, and why this site is no longer properly being found. Any help here on how to resolve this would be appreciated!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gavo1 -
Do search engine consider this duplicate or thin content?
I operate an eCommerce site selling various equipment. We get product descriptions and various info from the manufacturer's websites offered to the dealers. Part of that info is in the form of User Guides and Operational Manuals downloaded in pdf format written by the manufacturer, then uploaded to our site. Also we embed and link to videos that are hosted on the manufacturer's respective YouTube or Vimeo channels. This is useful content for our customers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | MichaelFactor
My questions are: Does this type of content help our site by offering useful info, or does it hurt our SEO due to it being thin and or duplicate content? Or does the original content publishers get all the benefit? Is there any benefit to us publishing this stuff? What exactly is considered "thin content"?0 -
Site Redesign Inconsistent Trailing Slash Issue
I'm looking at a site that has implemented trailing slashes inconsistently across multiple pages. For instance:
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | GrouchyKids
http://www.examplesite.co.uk/ (WITH)
http://www.examplesite.co.uk/product-range (WITHOUT)
http://www.examplesite.co.uk/product (WITHOUT)
http://www.examplesite.co.uk/blog/ (WITH)
http://www.examplesite.co.uk/blog/blog-article/ (WITH) The blog was created later in Wordpress which is one of the reasons why this issue exists. Looking at the inbound links unsurprisingly the lions share go to the home page but lots of other pages have links as well, particularly the product pages, no to many to the blog pages. This pattern is similar in terms of which pages rank, the home page ranks well for a variety of phrases, the product pages also do quite well. I know that ideally the URL's should be identical to the existing site, or if you have to you should 301 redirect old to new. The client wants to switch the whole site over to Wordpress which will be default implement a consistent URL structure across the board, thereby changing at least some of the URL's no matter what I do. I remember a Matt Cutts video that stated that even a 301 redirect will loose a clicks worth of link juice see: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Filv4pP-1nw The existing site has a poor UX compared to the new proposed design so this should help us. Has anyone got any experience with a similar issue or any advice about how best to proceed?0 -
Block search bots on staging server
I want to block bots from all of our client sites on our staging server. Since robots.txt files can easily be copied over when moving a site to production, how can i block bots/crawlers from our staging server (at the server level), but still allow our clients to see/preview their site before launch?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | BlueView13010 -
Where is the SEOmoz search operator guide?
It was available on this URL: http://www.seomoz.org/article/the-professionals-guide-to-advanced-search-operators but I can't seem to find it anymore. Anyone know where it is?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Chuck-Boom0 -
Could this URL issue be affecting our rankings?
Hi everyone, I have been building links to a site for a while now and we're struggling to get page 1 results for their desired keywords. We're wondering if a web development / URL structure issue could be to blame in what's holding it back. The way the site's been built means that there's a 'false' 1st-level in the URL structure. We're building deeplinks to the following page: www.example.com/blue-widgets/blue-widget-overview However, if you chop off the 2nd-level, you're not given a category page, it's a 404: www.example.com/blue-widgets/ - [Brings up a 404] I'm assuming the web developer built the site and URL structure this way just for the purposes of getting additional keywords in the URL. What's worse is that there is very little consistency across other products/services. Other pages/URLs include: www.example.com/green-widgets/widgets-in-green www.example.com/red-widgets/red-widget-intro-page www.example.com/yellow-widgets/yellow-widgets I'm wondering if Google is aware of these 'false' pages* and if so, if we should advise the client to change the URLs and therefore the URL structure of the website. This is bearing in mind that these pages haven't been linked to (because they don't exist) and therefore aren't being indexed by Google. I'm just wondering if Google can determine good/bad URL etiquette based on other parts of the URL, i.e. the fact that that middle bit doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, my colleague Steve asked this question on a blog post that Dr. Pete had written. Here's a link to Steve's comment - there are 2 replies below, one of which argues that this has no implication whatsoever. However, 5 months on, it's still an issue for us so it has me wondering... Many thanks!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Gmorgan0