Welcome to the Q&A Forum

Thanks again Ryan!

I'd give the sitemap a submission as soon as you get the URLs cleaned up. That should really help. Cheers!

Thanks Travis, I have discovered that for some users the initial page loads up to 3 times nearly immediately without it being visual.  It never happens to me or any or the browser/system combinations I use on remote machine testing - even if I match someones setup who is getting the problem, but there is no question it is happening.  This was triggering the robot message I was giving.  I don't yet know the cause as the typical culprits don't apply.  I relaxed the rule by 1 more load in 30 seconds, which is why you didn't get a message.  Am going to use someone's computer tomorrow that gets the problem to try and narrow it down. Agree on the human testing.  Thanks for the suggestions. take care

For those following, see this link where Ryan has provided some interesting answers regarding the cache and the site:www.. command

Will do.  Forgot to mention Bing is checking into it.  But for the reasons you mentioned I am still going to do the 301s.  Thanks again.

Very glad to see you got it working! You can mark the question as answered to let others know it is fixed.

Hello, I am also having this issue with hundreds of dummy urls that never existed as a part of our website's blog. Do I go into parameters and specify each of the dummy urls to avoid this? Thanks in advance for any help!!!! (and sorry to piggyback this question Theodore-hope you don't mind!)

Thanks Amelia!

No problem, glad I could help!

Martijn,  thanks for your response.  I could see Google saying that on a given page the same source image shouldn't have more than one alt description, and either penalizing such or just picking one of them or ignoring it altogether.  It's the penalty I'm concerned with, of course. . But, I can also see that if they are seeing a blank.gif for the source and some code related to lazy loading they may go ahead and give credit to each alt as though a real src was loaded--and maybe even tying it to the real src image name for image search.  Just looking for a bit more feedback from real-world experience first.. Has anyone else worked with this and determined if it is a pro or con?

Thanks for your reply, but the link you pointed me to isn't my situation.  I'm not redirecting to separate urls.   Mine is this: https://developers.google.com/webmasters/mobile-sites/mobile-seo/configurations/dynamic-serving I HAVE to figure out what Google is doing in my situation because if I don't and I assume wrong, then lots of pages for either my desktop or mobile friendly  won't be indexed. Surely lots of website owners have had their developers create a minimal mobile friendly site with less content and pages than desktop users get and chosen the dynamic-serving approach, but I have yet to receive a reply from anyone who has faced that issue..It's a very serious issue for me because either I have to consider dumping the dynamic serving in favor of separate mobile urls (if that would work), or I have to do a ton of programming to add in content so that all the urls have both mobile and desktop content.

interesting..thanks!

Hi Kristina, I just responded to you on the other (related) issue at http://moz.com/community/q/mobile-search-results-show-desktop-crawled-content#reply_270529  before seeing your response here.  Sorry about that. Thanks for your response.  It really hadn't occurred to me to allow mobile users to use those pages because the experience would be pretty bad for the most part, and a lot slower for those pages, but it definitely is a thought for solving my indexing issue.  I could give the mobile user a popup the first time they venture into the 'unmobile-friendly pages' as a heads up about which parts are mobile friendly and which aren't...I wonder though if Google will penalize the site or those pages in some way since it will not be able to render them as mobile friendly for a mobile device..EDIT: just saw this: http://www.cnet.com/news/make-web-sites-mobile-friendly-or-face-google-search-wrath/....anyway,  interesting alternative, It wouldn't be as easy as it sounds because of the degree of customization in menus I've done for the mobile pages, but may well be a lot easier than other alternatives..  Thanks very much! Ted

OMG! Yes, I see now, I was doing this: header("Location: $goto "); and I need to do something like this: header("HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently"); header("Location: $goto"); What a dunce...Thanks so much!

Hi AMHC, It makes sense that without hardly any backlinks built up Google wont find my upper case URLS since all the page links have been changed, however, I am writing out all of the urls that are redirected into email, and from that I can tell that Google is finding them--I guess they may have a list of urls from prior indexing that they crawl independent of what their crawler comes up with. I'll keep looking to see what they have indexed and if it turns out they just aren't crawling certain pages, will put them in a sitemap to be crawled..It's a good idea for taking care of the problem quickly--so if it progresses too slowly I'll do that. Thanks very much for your answers!

Hi there, Just checking in to see if you figured this one out? I have an alternative theory: Google may be pulling the page title and meta description from Dmoz for both the mobile and the desktop site. That's what I was actually seeing with Amazon. If this is true, then the page title is not indicating that Googlebot mobile is crawling the desktop version of the site (which is good!). Best, Kristina

Hi Giovatto, Thanks for your thoughts.  I had thought that too, but it looks to me like while it crawls both, it indexes only the desktop.  I think it crawls the mobile to see what else mobile links to, but that the main purpose is to see if the pages render well for mobile.  Here's my otherr thread that goes into this in more detail: http://moz.com/community/q/mobile-search-results-show-desktop-crawled-content

Thanks Cyrus.  Very good points!

Monica, I'm going to open a new thread to ask a similar question, as I think I didn't ask it very well. Thanks for your input, Ted