Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Hi Steven, I assume in the coverage part of search console? If that is the case then Google can find them on your site. You may have a more serious issues Everett suggested. You need to be investigating this pretty quickly. Let us know what you find and I am sure we will be able to help.

Thanks that is what i suspected. Very helpful, many thanks.

Just remember to evaluate performance. With the mega menu links gone, some of those deeper pages may now receive less SEO authority which could sting the long-tail. But the benefit should be, less bleed from higher level pages which connect with higher-tier search terms For different sites, different approaches can be better or worse. Don't be afraid to roll back if it doesn't work as you anticipated!

Not a problem

Sounds like you had the best of intentions by giving a non-JS fallback but that it came back to bite you By the way, this gives evidence to something else that I'm always, always banging on about - Google 'can' render JS and do headless browser renders of a web-page when crawling, but they don't do this for everyone and they don't do it all the time (even for sites large enough to warrant such increased crawl resources). Rendered crawling is like 10x slower than basic source code scraping, and Google's mission is to index the web. Obviously they're not going to take a 10x efficiency hit on their MO for just anyone Sorry about that, needed to get it off my chest as people are always linking articles saying "LOOK! Google can do JS crawling now we don't have to make sure our non-modified source code is solid any more". YES YOU DO - INTERNET Ok done now. Let's focus on the query at hand So you have this lovely page here which you have quoted: https://www.yoursclothing.de/kleider-grosse-groessen It looks like this: https://d.pr/i/QVNfKR.png (screenshot) And you can scroll it down, and it infinitely loads - and you only see the bottom of the results (with no page changing button) when results run out, like this: https://d.pr/i/XECK5Q.png (screenshot) But when JS is disabled (or if you're fast like some kind of ninja cat, and you scroll down to the bottom of the page and find the button before the infinite load modifies the page-contents... but no mainly, just when JS is disabled) - then you get this button here: https://d.pr/i/4Y9T9Y.png (screenshot) ... and when you click the button you end up on another page like this one: https://www.yoursclothing.de/kleider-grosse-groessen?filter=true&view=32&categoryid=3440&page=2 ... where you see "&page=2" at the end there, which is the parameter modifier which changes the active page of contents Google are sometimes choosing the sub-pages of results as canonical when you guys don't want them to do that. You want to know why, what you have done isn't really working and what you could do instead. Got it IMPORTANT Disclaimer: Google decides to rank pages for a number of reasons. If Google really does feel that sometimes, sub-pages of your results are 'better' (maybe they have better products on some of the paginated URLs, a better mix of products or products which fit Google's idea of fair pricing better than the default feed...)  - there is no guarantee that 'correcting' this 'error' will result in the same rankings you have now. I just want to be 100% clear on that point, you might even lose some rankings if Google is really decided. They have told you, they are overriding your choice and usually there's some kind of reason on that. Sometimes it's a 'just past the post' decision where you can correct them and get basically the same rankings on other pages, other times you can lose rankings or they just won't shift it Still with me? Ok let's look at what you did here: On the page 2  (and page 3, and however many paginated URLs there are) you have a canonical tag pointing to the parent And you have blocked the paginated URLs in robots.txt I need to start by querying the fact that you say the page 2s (and assumedly other sub pages, like page 3s - e.g: https://www.yoursclothing.de/kleider-grosse-groessen?filter=true&view=32&categoryid=3440&page=3) - are blocked in robots.txt DeepCrawl's indexation plugin doesn't see them as blocked: https://d.pr/i/1cRShK.png (screenshot) It says about the canonical tag, but it says nothing about the robots.txt at all! So lets look at your robots.txt file: https://www.yoursclothing.de/robots.txt https://d.pr/i/YbyEGl.png (screenshot) Nothing under # BlockSecureAreas handles pagination But then under # NoIndex we have this entry: Disallow: /filter=true That _should _handle it, as pagination never occurs without a filter being applied (at least as far as I can see) Indeed using this tool that I like, if I just paste in only the relevant parts: https://d.pr/i/TVafTL.png (screenshot) **We can see that the block is effective **(so DeepCrawl, your Chrome tool is probably wrong somehow - maybe they will see this new link, read and fix it!) I did notice that there's some weird, unrequired indentation in your robots.txt file. Could that cause problems for Google? Could it, at the least - make Google think "well if there's syntax errors in here, maybe it's not worth obeying as it's probably wrong" - quite possibly In my opinion that's not likely to be part of it So if it's not that, then what!? Well it could be that you're using robots.txt in the wrong capacity. Robots.txt _doesn't _stop Google from indexing web pages or tell them not to index web-pages (which is why it's funny that you have commented with "# NoIndex" - that's not what robots.txt does!) Robots.txt dissuades Google from 'crawling' (but not indexing) a URL. If they can find signals from around the web (maybe backlinks) or if they believe the content on the URL is better via other means, they can (and will) still index a URL without necessarily crawling it. Robots.txt does not do, what Meta no-index does (which can be fired through the HTTP header, or via HTML) Also, riddle me this if you will. If Google isn't allowed to crawl your URLs any more, how will it continue to find your canonical tags and find any new no-index tags? Why give Google a directive (canonical tags) on a URL which Google isn't allowed to crawl, and thus they will never see the directive? Sounds backwards to me My proposed steps: Read, understand and make  your own decision on the "disclaimer" I wrote up earlier in this very post If you still want to go ahead, enact the following (otherwise don't!) Remove the robots.txt block so Google can crawl those URLs, or if that rule covers more than just the paginated URLs - leave it in place but add an exclusion for the paginated URLs so they may be crawled Leave all the canonical tags on, good work. Maybe supplement these with a 'no-index' directive which would tell Google not to index those pages (there is no guarantee the canonical URL will replace the no-indexed URL, but you can try your luck - read the disclaimer) Maybe serve status code 410, only to Googlebot (user-agent) when it visits the paginated URLs specifically - to try and encourage Google to think of those URLs as gone. Leave the contents alone, otherwise it's cloaking. Serve the same content to Google and users, but serve googlebot a 410 (gone) status Before enacting the super-aggressive 410 stance, give Google plenty of time to swallow the new "no-index" tags on paginated URLs which weren't there before. A 410 whilst powerful, may cause these not to be read - so do give Google time (a few weeks IMO) If you do adopt the 410 stance, one down-side will be that Google will think your JS fallback is a broken link and this will appear in Google Search Console. To make this less severe (though it probably still will happen), add no-follow directives to the pagination JS-fallback link / button where it appears Once Google seems to have swallowed your wishes and seems to have removed most of these URLs from their index, THEN put the robots.txt block for paginated URLs back on (so it won't all happen again in the future) Try removing the weird indentation formatting from your robots.txt file Smile Well, that's it from me. Thanks for this one, it was pretty interesting

Hi Plenty of opportunity, post an article weekly.  Add in launch date, description, more photo's etc. Reviews set a target of say 50 and see how you go..  Appearing in your local search pack on maps should drive some good brand agnostic leads.. All the best.

Google will sometimes use the description tag from a page to generate a search results snippet if we think it gives users a more accurate description than would be possible purely from the on-page content." (Bold is mine) https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/35624?hl=en

No point in repeating. Depending on the city, it could make your URL too long as well. Try to keep a simple structure such as: domain.com/collection-agency/dallas

Perfect - thx Alex.

Hi Nick, Thanks for your response. At the moment we have around 2000 products and some of the canonical pages do rank, others don't so it does seem the search engine in confused. The article on SiteBulb is really interesting and I agree with your reasoning to canonicalise to either the most vanilla or popular product variant. Many thanks, Simon

Thanks Nick, We use SH404SEF on our site, We will ask them if their tool can help with this. Ian

No problem, whatsoever. Glad to help a fellow Mozzer out!

Hi Natalie, As SEO Elevated said, the issue is most probably caused by the hreflang tag being within the canonical... Canonical should point to itself for each language version so to speak, have nothing to do with rel alternate or hreflang. Baisc example for language versions, required in both English and French Headers: <ink rel="alternate" hreflang="fr" href="yoursite.com fr="" "=""></ink rel="alternate" hreflang="fr" href="yoursite.com> Hope I've understood correctly, I looked at the homepage but feel free to share Good luck! Nick P.S Might be worth checking this tool out: https://technicalseo.com/seo-tools/hreflang/ There's quite a few of these "hreflang" validator type tools which can be useful in troubleshooting

Hi, I am using category pages on my blog, but what to do with a view all page of all the articles? Example: articles 1-10 are in category A, articles 11-20 in category B and articles 21-30 in category C. But there is also a view all category page with articles 1-30. Should I 'noindex' this page (although this isn't really duplicate content since the articles per page are not the same as in the separate categories) or can I just let it be indexed?

Thanks for the info! One of the issues I have been dealing with is speed. Good to know addressing the redirects chain will help with this as well.

Hi MrDeeBee, I think you answered your own question. "Also out right deleting the content would go against our openness and transparency of past selections advised." So you could no index the older posts or if they bring in any traffic leave them as is. Also you could start 301 redirecting old posts to newer posts within the same categories or events. This could be useful if the content is about the same sports team or player. This way you still get the traffic but it is directed to newer more relevant content. Thanks, Don Silvernail

Ah I get you. It could be down to your specific mobile deployment being somehow less-indexable than your desktop deployment (more common than you might think). I you can share a few URLs that rank on desktop but not on mobile at all, I (or someone else) will soon take a look at them for you!

Thanks for your reply Today I redirect most of these links to the right post, but it was such a borning task. https://guilaneman.ir/