Development/Test Ecommerce Website Mistakenly Indexed
-
My question is - relatively speaking, how damaging to SEO is it to have BOTH your development/testing site and your live version indexed/crawled by Google and appearing in the SERPs?
We just launched about a month ago, and made a change to the robots text on the development site without noticing ... which lead to it being indexed too.So now the ecommerce website is duplicated in Google ... each under different URLs of course (and on diff servers, DNS etc)
We'll fix it right away ... and block crawlers to the development site. But again, may general question is what is the general damage to SEO ... if any ... created by this kind of mistake. My feeling is nothing significant
-
No my friend, no! I'm saying we'll point the existing staging/testing environment to the production version and will stop using it as staging instead of closing it completely like I mentioned earlier. And, we'll launch a fresh instance for staging/testing use case.
This will help us transferring majority if the link juice of already indexed staging/testing instance.
-
Why would you want to 301 a staging/dev environment to a production site? Unless you plan on making live changes to the production server (not safe), you'd want to keep them separate. Especially for eCommerce it would be important to have different environments to test and QA before pushing a change live. Making any change that impacts a number of pages could damage your ability to generate revenue from the site. You don't take down the development/testing site, because that's your safe environment to test changes before pushing updates to production.
I'm not sure I follow your recommendation. Am I missing a critical point?
-
Hi Eric,
Well, that's a valid point that bots might have considered your staging instances as the main website and hence, this could end up giving you nothing but a face palm.
The solution you suggested is similar to the one I suggested where we are not getting any benefit from the existing instance by removing it or putting noindex everywhere.
My bad! I assumed your staging/testing instance(s) got indexed recently only and are not very powerful from domain & page authority perspective. In fact, being a developer, I should have considered the worst case only
Thanks for pointing out the worst case Eric i.e when your staging/testing instances are decently old and you don't want to loose their SEO values while fixing this issue. And, here'e my proposed solution for it: don't removed the instance, don't even put a noindex everywhere. The better solution would be establishing a 301 redirect bridge from your staging/testing instance to your original website. In this case, ~90% of the link juice that your staging/testing instances have earned, will get passed. Make sure each and every URL of the staging/testing instance is properly 301 redirecting to the original instance.
Hope this helps!
-
It could hurt you in the long run (Google may decide the dev site is more relevant than your live site), but this is an easy fix. No-index your dev site. Just slap a site-wide noindex meta tag across all the pages, and when you're ready to move that code to the production site you remove that instance of code.
Disallowing from the robots.txt file will help, but that's a soft request. The best way to keep the dev site from being indexed is to use the noindex tag. Since it seems like you want to QA in a live environment that would prevent search engines from indexing the site, and still allow you to test in a production-like scenario.
-
Hey,
I recently faced the same issue when the staging instances got indexed accidentally and we were open for the duplicate content penalty (well, that's not cool). After a decent bit of research, I followed the following steps and got rid of this issue:
- I removed my staging instances i.e staging1.mysite.com, staging2.mysite.com and so on. Removing such instances helps you deindex already indexed pages faster than just blocking the whole website from robots.txt
- Relaunched the staging instances with a slightly different name like new-staging1.mysite.com, new-staging2.mysite.com and disallow bots on these instances from the day zero to avoid this mess again.
This helped me fixing this issue asap. Hope this 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
-
What does Disallow: /french-wines/?* actually do - robots.txt
Hello Mozzers - Just wondering what this robots.txt instruction means: Disallow: /french-wines/?* Does it stop Googlebot crawling and indexing URLs in that "French Wines" folder - specifically the URLs that include a question mark? Would it stop the crawling of deeper folders - e.g. /french-wines/rhone-region/ that include a question mark in their URL? I think this has been done to block URLs containing query strings. Thanks, Luke
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | McTaggart0 -
Sitemap indexing
Hi everyone, Here's a duplicate content challenge I'm facing: Let's assume that we sell brown, blue, white and black 'Nike Shoes model 2017'. Because of technical reasons, we really need four urls to properly show these variations on our website. We find substantial search volume on 'Nike Shoes model 2017', but none on any of the color variants. Would it be theoretically possible to show page A, B, C and D on the website and: Give each page a canonical to page X, which is the 'default' page that we want to rank in Google (a product page that has a color selector) but is not directly linked from the site Mention page X in the sitemap.xml. (And not A, B, C or D). So the 'clean' urls get indexed and the color variations do not? In other words: Is it possible to rank a page that is only discovered via sitemap and canonicals?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Adriaan.Multiply1 -
The images on site are not found/indexed, it's been recommended we change their presentation to Google Bot - could this create a cloaking issue?
Hi We have an issue with images on our site not being found or indexed by Google. We have an image sitemap but the images are served on the Sitecore powered site within <divs>which Google can't read. The developers have suggested the below solution:</divs> Googlebot class="header-banner__image" _src="/~/media/images/accommodation/arctic-canada/arctic-safari-camp/arctic-cafari-camp-david-briggs.ashx"/>_Non Googlebot <noscript class="noscript-image"><br /></span></em><em><span><div role="img"<br /></span></em><em><span>aria-label="Arctic Safari Camp, Arctic Canada"<br /></span></em><em><span>title="Arctic Safari Camp, Arctic Canada"<br /></span></em><em><span>class="header-banner__image"<br /></span></em><em><span>style="background-image: url('/~/media/images/accommodation/arctic-canada/arctic-safari-camp/arctic-cafari-camp-david-briggs.ashx?mw=1024&hash=D65B0DE9B311166B0FB767201DAADA9A4ADA4AC4');"></div><br /></span></em><em><span></noscript> aria-label="Arctic Safari Camp, Arctic Canada" title="Arctic Safari Camp, Arctic Canada" class="header-banner__image image" data-src="/~/media/images/accommodation/arctic-canada/arctic-safari-camp/arctic-cafari-camp-david-briggs.ashx" data-max-width="1919" data-viewport="0.80" data-aspect="1.78" data-aspect-target="1.00" > Is this something that could be flagged as potential cloaking though, as we are effectively then showing code looking just for the user agent Googlebot?The devs have said that via their contacts Google has advised them that the original way we set up the site is the most efficient and considered way for the end user. However they have acknowledged the Googlebot software is not sophisticated enough to recognise this. Is the above solution the most suitable?Many thanksKate
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | KateWaite0 -
Domain Authority... http://www.domain.com/ vs. http://domain.com vs. http://domain.com/
Hey Guys, Looking at Page Authority for my Site and ranking them in Decending Order, I see these 3 http://www.domain.com/ | Authority 62 http://domain.com | Authority 52 http://domain.com/ | Authority 52 Since the first one listed has the highest Authority, should I be using a 301 redirects on the lower ranking variations (which I understand how works) or should I be using rel="canonical" (which I don't really understand how it works) Also, if this is a problem that I should address, should we see a significant boost if fixed? Thanks ahead of time for anyone who can help a lost sailor who doesn't know how to sail and probably shouldn't have left shore in the first place. Cheers ZP!
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Mr_Snack0 -
Index, Nofollow Issue
We are having on our site a couple of pages that we want the page to be indexed, however, we don't want the links on the page to be followed. For example url: http://www.printez.com/animal-personal-checks.html. We have added in our code: . Bing Webmaster Tools, is telling us the following: The pages uses a meta robots tag. Review the value of the tag to see if you are not unintentionally blocking the page from being indexed (NOINDEX). Question is, is the page using the right code as of now or do we need to do any changes in the code, if so, what should we use for them to index the page, but not to follow the links on the page? Please advise, Morris
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | PrintEZ0 -
XML Sitemap index within a XML sitemaps index
We have a similar problem to http://www.seomoz.org/q/can-a-xml-sitemap-index-point-to-other-sitemaps-indexes Can a XML sitemap index point to other sitemaps indexes? According to the "Unique Doll Clothing" example on this link, it seems possible http://www.seomoz.org/blog/multiple-xml-sitemaps-increased-indexation-and-traffic Can someone share an XML Sitemap index within a XML sitemaps index example? We are looking for the format to implement the same on our website.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Lakshdeep0 -
Duplicate Content/ Indexing Question
I have a real estate Wordpress site that uses an IDX provider to add real estate listings to my site. A new page is created as a new property comes to market and then the page is deleted when the property is sold. I like the functionality of the service but it creates a significant amount of 404's and I'm also concerned about duplicate content because anyone else using the same service here in Las Vegas will have 1000's of the exact same property pages that I do. Any thoughts on this and is there a way that I can have the search engines only index the core 20 pages of my site and ignore future property pages? Your advice is greatly appreciated. See link for example http://www.mylvcondosales.com/mandarin-las-vegas/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | AnthonyLasVegas0 -
Indexing techniques
Hi, I just want a confirmation about my indexing technique, if is good or can be improved. The technique is totally whitehat and can be done by one person. Any suggestions or improvements are welcome. I create the backlinks ofcource first 🙂 I make a list on public doc from Google. On the doc are only ten links. After I digg it , and add some more bookmarks 5-6. I tweet the digg and each doc. (my 2 twitter accounts have page authority 98) I like them in Fb. I ping them thru ping serviecs. Thats it. Works ok for moment. Is anything what I can do to improve my technique? Thanks lot
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nyanainc0