Have you had any sort of caching?

Also have you tried cloudflares free cdn? They offer minifying and it makes it really easy.

I don' think Martijn's statement is quite correct as I have made different experiences in an accidental experiment. Crawling is not the same as indexing. Google will put pages it cannot crawl into the index ... and they will stay there unless removed somehow. They will probably only show up for specific searches, though

---

Completely agree, I have done the same for a website I am doing work with, ideally we would noindex with meta robots however that isn't possible. So instead we added to the robots.txt, the number of indexed pages have dropped, yet when you search exactly it just says the description can't be reached.

So I was happy with the results as they're now not ranking for the terms they were.

I would use the search console "fetch as google" it can take a few weeks for Google to crawl and update your site in the serps. Usually I leave 4-6 weeks for any change (on a small site) with larger sites normally being crawled more frequently. When you do cache:yourdomain.com in google chrome, is the time listed sooner than you did the changes?

For those wondering, I haven't been able to find a solution and the people I have spoken to have agreed that we don't think this is possible (to warrant the amount of work we would need to do)

Sorry the title may not make the most sense as I'm not entirely sure what my question would be phrased as.

https://developers.google.com/structured-data/breadcrumbs#examples

We have breadcrumbs on our site, these are generated by a plugin.

So for example we have:

• Where am I:

• Homepage

• Page 1

• [Page 2](../../Page 2 "Page 2")

• <a id="ctl00_RptBreadcrumbs_ctl04_link" title="Page 3">Page 3</a>

Do we have any way where we can implement this without development being involved?

Alternatively is there anyway to use the current url? (as we do use folders) so an example being: http://domain.com/page1/page2/page3

Probably not possible but I live in hope.

This is strange, what does google suggest on their pagespeed tool for you to do?

What would be wrong with addthis? It's used by a large amount of sites. I don't believe there would be any negative impact from you adding this to your site.

I have had something similar, this is response I received:

You don’t have canonical tags on the URL and that’s expected.

On pages where BVSEO is implemented, canonical tags must be updated or removed when the product contains more than one page (more than eight) of reviews. BVSEO paginates the product page so all reviews are in the search engines’ index. Canonical tags that point away from a pagination URL will cause search engines to ignore the paginated content.

When any of the BVSEO pagination parameters are present (bvstate, bvrrp, bvqap, bvsyp, bvpage), do one of the following:

•Remove the canonical tag. This is the most common, recommended solution.

•Append the "name=value" pair to the canonical URL.

Hello,

We've currently got 9500 products live on our site at the moment with ~2000 in this category that we're adding the new products in. All of these products we're adding are coming from a site that we own and we're trying to expand the range on our site (the 9500 product site has a lot more visitors than the 4000 product site).

However, all these products imported I believe are atleast duplicates from the 4000 product site, but the first ones I have seen (500) are manufacturer duplicates.

What issues are we potentially going to run in to?

Just for extra information:

We have no control over canonical/noindex/robots etc

Hello all,

We want to block something that has the following at the end:

http://www.domain.com/category/product/some+demo+-text-+example--writing+here

So I was wondering if doing:

/*example--writing+here

would work?

Am I correct in saying that the allow/disallow is only applied to msnbot_mobile?

mobile robots file

User-agent: Googlebot-Mobile

User-agent: YahooSeeker/M1A1-R2D2

User-agent: MSNBOT_Mobile

Allow: /

Disallow: /1

Disallow: /2/

Disallow: /3

Disallow: /4/

We're looking at expanding our robots.txt, we currently don't have the ability to noindex/nofollow. We're thinking about adding the following:

• Checkout
• Basket

Then possibly:

• Price
• Theme
• Sortby
• other misc filters.

What do you include?

I would say it depends on how bad the current page is. If you're going against known best practices I would do a redesign and then do element by element.

However if you're close and just trying to squeeze every penny possible, I would do individual elements on a 50/50 (or 30/30/30 or something like that if more variants) if possible. You don't want your users to load one time and see something completely different the next time.

Are you using a CMS? There are some great plugins for various different platforms.

Hi Ruth,

Appreciate your response. Trying to get these sorted at a code level, but we currently have six different issues all providing various issues, along with a variety of other features not working correctly. (The joys of working with a 10 year old system that is behind in a few areas)

You say the following:

• Make sure that the pages your canonical tags point to are very similar to the pages the tags are on - if they're too different, Google may decide they both need to be indexed.

Is it strange that the canonicals that are not the exact duplicates (category filters on ecommerce) are the main ones that are obeyed, the product canonicals (with exact duplicates, excluding changes to the breadcrumbs) are the ones being ignored.

There are pages that are receiving search traffic, but not a massive amount (atleast compared to the true versions of these pages, some of these pages get 10s to 100s of clicks, the canonical pages get thousands/tens of thousands)

Would a viable strategy to try and deal with these by redirecting these non-canonical urls to their canonical format? (short term until we can get issues sorted)

Final query, if Google ignores the canonical is this potentially going to be penalising us? If the answer is believed to be yes then it'll be a higher priority item to deal with.

Same as Peter, I would be happy to offer some free advice.

Sent an email, have you received it?

Hi Tom,

I use Moz, Screaming Frog and this canonical checker: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/canonical/dcckfeohihhlbeobohobibjbdobjbhbo?utm_source=chrome-app-launcher-info-dialog I'm sure that these canonicals are set up correctly.

I will send you an email to the email you have included on your profile.

Thanks,

Tom

Thank you for your responses. Hopefully someone who may have experienced this before will be able to contribute. It seems there's very little in this area about the potential impacts.

Yep clean URLs there.

So, do you believe that Google ignoring these canonicals is something we should be worried about? (Basically setting a high priority so development sorts these issues out)