Lately I have noticed Google indexing many files on the site without the .html extension
-
Hello,
Our site, while we convert, remains in HTML 4.0.
Fle names such as http://www.sample.com/samples/index.shtml are being picked up in the SERPS as http://www.sample.com/samples/ even when I use the "rel="canonical" tag and specify the full file name therein as recommended. The link to the truncated URL (http://www.sample.com/samples/) results in what MOZ shows as fewer incoming links than the full file name is shown as having incoming.
I am not sure if this is causing a loss in placement (the MOZ stats are showing a decline of late), which I have seen recently (of course, I am aware of other possible reasons, such as not being in HTML5 yet).
Any help with this would be great.
Thank you in advance
-
Can you clarify what you're concerned about for 301 redirects in terms of link juice?
301 redirects don't carry as much link juice as a direct link, but it doesn't impact correct links, just the links that, otherwise, wouldn't get link juice to your end destination at all. (Though, if your canonical is working correctly, it'll pass the same amount of link juice as a 301 redirect.)
Dr. Pete goes into this a bit more over here: https://mza.bundledseo.com/community/q/do-canonical-tags-pass-all-of-the-link-juice-onto-the-url-they-point-to
-
Many thanks for taking the time to respond Kristina.
-
I don't like to do redirects, as so many have warned of the consequences in terms of link juice
-
No, I don't link to the pages in question using "/" rather than the ".shtml" version of the page indexed.
-
A few external sources use the "/" version (recent linkers) I have found, but they likely only did so as they saw it displayed as such in the SERPs previously. No commercial or other affiliate sites do.
The reason I was really confused is that some pages are indexed using the "/", while others are not -- with no apparent reason I could locate. The "/" version for pages still remains on the first page for keywords, even with far less domain authorities and pages linking to them (for now!). We will be moving to another platform with a different default extension, so I wonder how that will be handled. Endless mysteries.
Thank you again for your time and suggestions,
Greg
-
-
Hmm, that doesn't seem good. It's hard to say whether this is causing the decline in your rankings, but either way, you want to make sure that you're not splitting your link equity between your / and .shtml pages. Here's what I'd do:
- If you can, 301 redirect / pages to .shtml pages. Obviously, it'd be easier if the canonical worked, but it sounds like it doesn't.
- Use ScreamingFrog or DeepCrawl to look through internal pages on your site to see if you're ever linking to the / version of pages rather than the .shtml pages. When Google chooses a different version of a URL over the canonical one, it's often because that's how it sees internal links pointing to the page. Make sure that you only have links to the .shtml version of the page.
- Use a tool like Moz or Ahrefs to find all internal links to your site. For any links that you built or have a partnership with the owners, make sure that they're linking to the .shtml version of the page. I could especially see your ad partners using / because it's a cleaner before parameters than .shtml.
After that, wait and see if Google fixes the problem.
Also worth noting: have you thought about changing your default to /? That's more common today, so you're probably getting a lot of external links with / instead of .shtml, and you'll never be able to fix that problem. If that's a possible solution, you may want to explore it.
Good luck!
Kristina
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
-
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 -
Google favoring old site over new site...
Hi, I started a new site for a client: www.berenjifamilylaw.com. His old site: www.bestfamilylawattorney.com was too loaded up with bad links. Here's the weird part: when you Google: "Los Angeles divorce lawyer" you see the old site come up on the 21st page, but Google doesn't even show the new site (even though it is indexed). It's been about 2 weeks now and no change. Has anyone experienced something like this? If so, what did you do (if anything). Also, I did NOT do a 301 redirect from old to new b/c of spammy links. Thanks.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | mrodriguez14400 -
Client site is lacking content. Can we still optimize without it?
We just signed a new client whose site is really lacking in terms of content. Our plan is to add content to the site in order to achieve some solid on-page optimization. Unfortunately the site design makes adding content very difficult! Does anyone see where we may be going wrong? Is added content really the only way to go? http://empathicrecovery.com/
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | RickyShockley0 -
Can links indexed by google "link:" be bad? or this is like a good example by google
Can links indexed by google "link:" be bad? Or this is like a good example shown by google. We are cleaning our links from Penguin and dont know what to do with these ones. Some of them does not look quality.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bele0 -
De-indexed by Google! ?
So it looks as though the content from myprgenie.com is no longer being indexed. Anyone know what happened and what they can do to fix it fast?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | siteoptimized0 -
Sitemap - % of URL's in Google Index?
What is the average % of links from a sitemap that are included in the Google index? Obviously want to aim for 100% of the sitemap urls to be indexed, is this realistic?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | stats440 -
Why my site is "STILL" violating the Google quality guidelines?
Hello, I had a site with two topics: Fashion & Technology. Due to the Panda Update I decided to change some things and one of those things was the separation of these two topics. So, on June 21, I redirected (301) all the Fashion pages to a new domain. The new domain performed well the first three days, but the rankings dropped later. Now, even the site doesn't rank for its own name. So, I thought the website was penalized for any reason, and I sent a reconsideration to Google. In fact, five days later, Google confirmed that my site is "still violating the quality guidelines". I don't understand. My original site was never penalized and the content is the same. And now when it is installed on the new domain becomes penalized just a few days later? Is this penalization only a sandbox for the new domain? Or just until the old URLs disappear from the index (due to the 301 redirect)? Maybe Google thinks my new site is duplicating my old site? Or just is a temporal prevention with new domains after a redirection in order to avoid spammers? Maybe this is not a real penalization and I only need a little patience? Or do you think my site is really violating the quality guidelines? (The domain is http://www.newclothing.co/) The original domain where the fashion section was installed before is http://www.myddnetwork.com/ (As you can see it is now a tech blog without fashion sections) The 301 redirect are working well. One example of redirected URLs: http://www.myddnetwork.com/clothing-shoes-accessories/ (this is the homepage, but each page was redirected to its corresponding URL in the new domain). I appreciate any advice. Basically my fashion pages have dropped totally. Both, the new and old URLs are not ranking. 😞
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | omarinho0 -
Pages un-indexed in my site
My current website www.energyacuity.com has had most pages indexed for more than a year. However, I tried cache a few of the pages, and it looks the only one that is now indexed by Goggle is the homepage. Any thoughts on why this is happening?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | abernatj0