Moz Q&A is closed.
After more than 13 years, and tens of thousands of questions, Moz Q&A closed on 12th December 2024. Whilst we’re not completely removing the content - many posts will still be possible to view - we have locked both new posts and new replies. More details here.
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
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
-
Sudden Indexation of "Index of /wp-content/uploads/"
Hi all, I have suddenly noticed a massive jump in indexed pages. After performing a "site:" search, it was revealed that the sudden jump was due to the indexation of many pages beginning with the serp title "Index of /wp-content/uploads/" for many uploaded pieces of content & plugins. This has appeared approximately one month after switching to https. I have also noticed a decline in Bing rankings. Does anyone know what is causing/how to fix this? To be clear, these pages are **not **normal /wp-content/uploads/ but rather "index of" pages, being included in Google. Thank you.
Technical SEO | | Tom3_150 -
Does Google index internal anchors as separate pages?
Hi, Back in September, I added a function that sets an anchor on each subheading (h[2-6]) and creates a Table of content that links to each of those anchors. These anchors did show up in the SERPs as JumpTo Links. Fine. Back then I also changed the canonicals to a slightly different structur and meanwhile there was some massive increase in the number of indexed pages - WAY over the top - which has since been fixed by removing (410) a complete section of the site. However ... there are still ~34.000 pages indexed to what really are more like 4.000 plus (all properly canonicalised). Naturally I am wondering, what google thinks it is indexing. The number is just way of and quite inexplainable. So I was wondering: Does Google save JumpTo links as unique pages? Also, does anybody know any method of actually getting all the pages in the google index? (Not actually existing sites via Screaming Frog etc, but actual pages in the index - all methods I found sadly do not work.) Finally: Does somebody have any other explanation for the incongruency in indexed vs. actual pages? Thanks for your replies! Nico
Technical SEO | | netzkern_AG0 -
Google will index us, but Bing won't. Why?
Bing is crawling our site, but not indexing it, and we cannot figure out why -- plus it's being indexed fine in Google. Any ideas on what the issue with Bing might be? Here's are some details to let you know what we've already checked/established: We have 4 301’s and the rest of our site checks out We’ve already established our Robots is ok, and that we are fixing our site map/it's in fine shape We do not see anything blocking bingbot access to the site There is no varnish or any load balancers, so nothing on that end that would be blocking the access We also don't see any rules in the apache or the .htaccess config that would be blocking the access
Technical SEO | | Alex_RevelInteractive1 -
Redirecting HTTP to HTTPS - How long does it take Google to re-index the site?
hello Moz We know that this year, Moz changed its domain to moz.com from www.seomoz.org
Technical SEO | | joony
however, when you type "site:seomoz.org" you still can find old urls indexed on Google (on page 7 and above) We also changed our site from http://www.example.com to https://www.example.com
And Google is indexing both sites even though we did proper 301 redirection via htaccess. How long would it take Google to refresh the index? We just don't worry about it? Say we redirected our entire site. What is going to happen to those websites that copied and pasted our content? We have already DMCAed their webpages, but making our site https would mean that their website is now more original than our site? Thus, Google assumes that we have copied their site? (Google is very slow on responding to our DMCA complaint) Thank you in advance for your reply.0 -
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 -
Why is a 301 redirected url still getting indexed?
We recently fixed a redirect issue in a website, and although it appears that the redirection is working fine, the url in question keeps on getting crawled, indexed and cached by google. The redirect was done a month ago, and google shows cached version of it, even for a couple of days ago. Manual checking shows that its being redirected, and also a couple of online tools i checked report a 301 redirect. Do you have any idea why this could be happening? The website I'm talking about is www.hotelmajestic.gr and its being redirected to www.hotel-majestic.gr
Technical SEO | | dim_d0 -
Dynamically-generated .PDF files, instead of normal pages, indexed by and ranking in Google
Hi, I come across a tough problem. I am working on an online-store website which contains the functionlaity of viewing products details in .PDF format (by the way, the website is built on Joomla CMS), now when I search my site's name in Google, the SERP simply displays my .PDF files in the first couple positions (shown in normal .PDF files format: [PDF]...)and I cannot find the normal pages there on SERP #1 unless I search the full site domain in Google. I really don't want this! Would you please tell me how to figure the problem out and solve it. I can actually remove the corresponding component (Virtuemart) that are in charge of generating the .PDF files. Now I am trying to redirect all the .PDF pages ranking in Google to a 404 page and remove the functionality, I plan to regenerate a sitemap of my site and submit it to Google, will it be working for me? I really appreciate that if you could help solve this problem. Thanks very much. Sincerely SEOmoz Pro Member
Technical SEO | | fugu0