Seo Consulting Services for Indexation Problems: Find Noindex, Canonical and Sitemap Errors before They Reduce Search Visibility

Indexation problems are often invisible until organic traffic has already weakened. A page may be published, internally linked and technically accessible, yet still fail to appear in Google because of a noindex directive, a conflicting canonical tag, an incorrect sitemap entry or a crawl path that search engines cannot reliably follow.

This is where technical SEO consulting services become commercially important. A structured investigation can identify whether your pages are being crawled, selected for indexing, indexed under the correct URL and ranking for the intended search intent. It can also reveal related keyword cannibalization, where several pages compete for similar queries and split search rankings across URLs.

SEO Letters supports this wider workflow through a publishing platform built for people who manage content at scale. The SEO Letters app can help you move from keyword research and search intent mapping to structured article creation, internal linking, schema and publication, while your technical SEO process checks that the resulting pages are actually eligible to perform.

Why Indexation Problems Require More Than a Basic SEO Check

Indexation is not the same as crawling, and crawling is not the same as ranking. These stages are connected, but Google evaluates each one separately.

A simplified search visibility sequence looks like this:

Discovery: Google finds a URL through an internal link, sitemap, external link or another known source.
Crawling: Googlebot requests and processes the page.
Rendering: Google attempts to understand JavaScript, page resources and visible content.
Indexing: Google decides whether the page is useful and eligible to enter its index.
Canonical selection: Google chooses which version of similar or duplicate pages should represent the content.
Ranking: The selected URL competes for relevant queries.
Search presentation: The page may appear with snippets, rich results, sitelinks or other search features.

A failure at any stage can reduce organic visibility. A page can be crawled but excluded from the index. It can be indexed but canonicalised to another URL. It can be indexed correctly yet lose visibility because another page on the same site targets the same keyword more effectively.

That is why an indexation audit should not stop at Google Search Console’s Page Indexing report. The report is useful, but it is only one part of the evidence.

The commercial impact of poor indexation

Indexation errors can affect:

Product and category visibility
Lead generation pages
Affiliate content
Local landing pages
Supporting blog content
New content launches
Content refresh campaigns
Internal link equity
Crawl budget on large websites
Keyword performance reporting
Conversion attribution

The impact is often uneven. A small error on a high-value service page may be more damaging than hundreds of excluded low-priority URLs. This is why technical SEO consulting should connect indexation findings to business value, search demand and conversion data.

Key takeaway: Do not ask only whether a URL is indexed. Ask whether the correct URL is indexed, whether it targets the correct intent and whether it is the page you want Google to rank.

The Core Indexation Issues You Need to Investigate

Most indexation problems fall into a few recurring categories. They can overlap, which is where the investigation becomes more technical.

Problem	Typical signal	Main risk	Recommended action
`noindex` directive	Page is excluded despite being crawlable	Valuable page cannot appear in results	Remove the directive where indexing is intended
Incorrect canonical	Google selects another URL	Signals are consolidated away from the target page	Review canonical logic and duplicate content
Sitemap errors	Sitemap includes redirects, 404s or excluded URLs	Crawl signals become less reliable	Clean and segment XML sitemaps
Robots.txt blocking	URL cannot be crawled properly	Google may not see important directives	Remove unnecessary blocks
Soft 404	Thin or empty page appears technically live	Page may be excluded or devalued	Improve content or return a valid 404
Duplicate URLs	Parameters, trailing slashes or variants resolve separately	Signals and rankings can fragment	Standardise URL handling
Keyword cannibalization	Several pages rank for overlapping terms	Split search rankings and unstable positions	Consolidate, differentiate or re-target pages
Orphan pages	No internal links point to the URL	Discovery and authority transfer weaken	Add relevant contextual links

Some problems are direct configuration errors. Others are symptoms of an unclear content architecture. A canonical tag may be technically valid while still pointing to the wrong strategic page. A sitemap may be syntactically correct while containing URLs that should never have been published.

Step 1: Establish the Indexation Baseline

Before changing directives or merging pages, create a baseline. This gives you a point of comparison and reduces the risk of making broad changes without knowing what improved.

Collect the following data:

Total known URLs from the CMS
URLs in XML sitemaps
Indexed URLs shown in Google Search Console
Organic landing pages from analytics
Pages with impressions but no clicks
Pages with clicks but declining traffic
URLs returning non-200 status codes
Pages marked noindex
Canonical targets
Duplicate or near-duplicate page groups
Internal links to important URLs
Backlinks to excluded or redirected URLs

For larger websites, export the data into a spreadsheet or crawl database. Assign each URL a status such as:

Indexable and indexed
Indexable but not indexed
Non-indexable by design
Incorrectly non-indexable
Duplicate or canonicalised
Redirected
Broken
Orphaned
Potentially cannibalising another URL

A useful priority score can combine business value, organic demand and technical risk:

Priority score = business value × search opportunity × indexation risk

You can use a simple one-to-five scale for each factor. This whole thing is not about creating a perfect mathematical model. It is about stopping a low-value archive page from receiving the same attention as a service page responsible for qualified enquiries.

What to compare in the baseline

Dataset	What it tells you	Common limitation
Google Search Console	Google’s reported indexing and performance signals	Sampling and reporting delays
XML sitemap	Which URLs you are actively presenting to search engines	Often contains stale or unsuitable URLs
Site crawl	What a crawler can access and how directives are configured	May not reproduce Google’s exact processing
Analytics	Which pages receive visits and conversions	Does not prove indexation quality
Server logs	How Googlebot and other crawlers access the site	Requires technical access and interpretation
Rank tracking	Which URLs appear for target keywords	Usually limited to tracked queries

A sound audit compares these sources rather than treating one platform as definitive. When the datasets disagree, that disagreement is often the clue.

Step 2: Find and Interpret `noindex` Errors

The noindex directive tells search engines not to include a page in search results. It can appear in an HTML meta tag or an HTTP response header.

The HTML version usually looks like this:

<meta name="robots" content="noindex, follow">

An HTTP header may look like this:

X-Robots-Tag: noindex

The directive itself is not an error. It becomes an error when it is applied to a page that should attract organic traffic.

Common causes of accidental `noindex`

Accidental exclusions often come from:

A staging setting carried into production
A CMS template applying noindex to an entire content type
A plugin rule covering a directory too broadly
A migration that changed indexation defaults
A product filter creating pages that should remain indexable
A developer deployment flag
A page-level SEO setting that was copied from another template
A JavaScript application rendering the directive after initial HTML delivery

Some problems are surprisingly mundane. A single checkbox can remove a commercial landing page from Google, and the page can remain live for users, which means the issue is easy to miss.

How to audit `noindex` properly

Use a crawler capable of extracting:

Meta robots directives
X-Robots-Tag headers
Canonical tags
HTTP status codes
Redirect chains
Indexability status
Rendered HTML where JavaScript is involved

Then compare the results against your intended URL policy.

For each noindex URL, ask:

Is this page deliberately excluded?
Does it receive organic impressions or backlinks?
Does it support a valuable topic cluster?
Is another page intended to target the same search intent?
Should it be consolidated, redirected, improved or indexed?
Is the directive visible in the initial HTML response?
Is the URL included in an XML sitemap despite being excluded?

A page with noindex should generally not be included in your XML sitemap. Including it sends mixed signals about its importance and eligibility.

`noindex` versus robots.txt blocking

These directives are often confused.

noindex: Google can usually crawl the page and see the instruction not to index it.
Robots.txt disallow: Google may be prevented from crawling the page, so it may not be able to see the page-level directive.
Canonical tag: Suggests which duplicate or similar URL should represent the content, but does not guarantee that Google will follow the suggestion.

If a URL is blocked in robots.txt and also carries noindex, Google may not be able to process the noindex instruction. The block should be reviewed first.

Step 3: Diagnose Canonical Errors and Conflicting Signals

Canonicalisation helps search engines identify the preferred URL when multiple pages are substantially similar. It is essential for sites with product variants, tracking parameters, print versions, pagination, regional pages and syndicated content.

A canonical tag normally appears in the head of a page:

<link rel="canonical" href="https://example.com/preferred-page/" />

The canonical URL should usually be:

A live 200-status URL
Indexable
Relevant to the page content
Accessible to search engines
Consistent with internal links
Included in the appropriate XML sitemap
Preferred for ranking and reporting

An incorrect canonical can quietly divert ranking signals from a page you actually want to perform.

Common canonical mistakes

Look for these patterns:

Every page in a template points to the homepage
HTTP versions canonicalise to HTTPS inconsistently
Trailing slash variants disagree
Product variants all canonicalise to a discontinued product
Mobile and desktop URLs use conflicting canonicals
Regional pages canonicalise to the wrong country version
Blog posts canonicalise to a category page
Canonical targets return a redirect or 404
A page points to itself, but Google selects another URL
Canonicals are inserted incorrectly by JavaScript
Canonical tags conflict with internal links and sitemap entries

A self-referencing canonical is generally sensible for a unique, indexable page. It does not solve duplicate content elsewhere, though. If five pages contain almost identical copy and each self-canonicalises, Google still has to determine which page is most useful.

Google-selected canonical versus user-declared canonical

Google Search Console may report two different concepts:

User-declared canonical: The canonical URL specified on the page.
Google-selected canonical: The URL Google believes best represents the content group.

If these differ, do not automatically assume Google is wrong. Investigate the broader signal set:

Page content similarity
Internal link prominence
Sitemap inclusion
External backlinks
Redirects
Hreflang implementation
Page quality and depth
HTTP status
Mobile rendering
Structured data consistency

A canonical tag is a hint, not a command. This is a crucial point in technical SEO consulting because changing the tag alone may not resolve the underlying duplication or architecture problem.

Step 4: Audit XML Sitemaps for Indexation Signals

An XML sitemap should contain the URLs you want search engines to discover and consider for indexing. It is not a full inventory of every URL on a website.

Each sitemap URL should ideally be:

Canonical
Indexable
Status code 200
Useful to searchers
Included in your content strategy
Not blocked by robots.txt
Free from redirect chains
Consistent with your preferred URL format

Sitemap errors that reduce clarity

Common sitemap issues include:

noindex pages listed as preferred URLs
Redirected URLs
404 and soft 404 URLs
Parameter URLs
Duplicate URL formats
Paginated archive URLs with little value
Internal search result pages
Thin tag or author archives
Expired product pages
Non-canonical regional variants
URLs with inconsistent casing
Stale URLs generated by the CMS

Search engines can process imperfect sitemaps, so one bad entry will not usually destroy visibility. The problem is scale. A large sitemap full of unsuitable URLs makes it harder to understand the site’s intended indexable set and can hide important anomalies.

Recommended sitemap structure

For a growing website, separate sitemaps by content type:

Pages
Blog articles
Products
Categories
Locations
Languages or regions
Video or image content where relevant

This segmentation improves diagnostic visibility. If the product sitemap contains thousands of noindex URLs, you can identify the problem quickly instead of searching through one enormous file.

Sitemap quality benchmark

Use these checks as a practical benchmark:

Check	Healthy target
200-status URLs	As close to 100% as possible
Canonical URLs	100% of sitemap entries
Indexable URLs	100% unless intentionally managed otherwise
Redirected entries	0%
404 entries	0%
`noindex` entries	0%
Last modification dates	Accurate and maintained
Sitemap coverage	All important indexable content types

The lastmod value should reflect meaningful content changes. Updating it for every automated system event can reduce its usefulness and make your freshness signals less credible.

Keyword Cannibalization and Indexation: The Overlooked Connection

Keyword cannibalization happens when multiple pages on the same website target the same or closely related search intent. The result may be split search rankings, unstable URL selection and diluted internal authority.

This is not always a technical error. Several pages can rank for similar terms without causing a problem if each page has a distinct purpose. The issue appears when Google cannot determine which URL is the best answer.

Signs of keyword cannibalization

A keyword cannibalization audit should look for:

Several URLs ranking for the same primary query
Rankings switching between URLs over time
Impressions spread across several pages
One page receiving backlinks while another receives clicks
Similar titles and H1 headings
Overlapping content sections
Internal links using identical anchor text to different URLs
Multiple pages targeting the same commercial intent
A category page and a blog post competing for one term
Product pages competing with buying guides

For example, imagine a software company has these pages:

/seo-writing-tool/
/ai-blog-writer/
/best-ai-blog-writing-tool/
/automated-seo-content/

If each page claims to be the primary solution for “AI blog writer”, Google may rotate the ranking URL. Users may land on a less relevant page, while link equity and engagement data become fragmented.

Search intent mapping before consolidation

Before merging content, map the intent behind the queries. Classify each keyword by its dominant purpose:

Search intent	Typical query	Suitable page type
Informational	How do canonical tags work?	Guide or technical article
Commercial investigation	Best SEO writing software	Comparison or product-led guide
Transactional	SEO content platform pricing	Product or pricing page
Navigational	SEO Letters app	Brand or login page
Local	Technical SEO consultant London	Service or location page

The key question is not simply whether two pages mention the same keyword. Ask whether the same searcher expects the same answer.

A practical consolidation decision tree

Do the pages serve the same search intent?
- If no, differentiate their titles, structure and internal links.
- If yes, continue.
Does one page have stronger backlinks, traffic or conversions?
- If yes, consider making it the primary URL.
- If no, assess quality and topical completeness.
Can the content be combined without creating an unfocused page?
- If yes, implement a content consolidation strategy.
- If no, separate the topics more clearly.
Would users benefit from both pages existing?
- If yes, strengthen differentiation and create a clear internal linking hierarchy.
- If no, merge or redirect.
Are both pages indexed with conflicting canonicals?
- Resolve the technical signals after deciding the content architecture.

Do not use canonical tags as a shortcut for genuinely distinct pages. Canonicalisation is not a replacement for editorial decisions.

Internal Linking Optimisation for Better Indexation

Internal links help search engines discover pages, understand relationships and assess relative importance. They also help you control how authority flows through a topic cluster.

A page can be technically indexable but practically invisible if no meaningful internal links point to it. This is especially common with automated publishing systems, faceted navigation and older blog content.

Internal linking checks

Review:

Click depth from the homepage
Links from high-authority pages
Contextual links within related articles
Anchor text variation
Links to canonical URLs rather than duplicates
Links to pages marked noindex
Broken internal links
Redirecting internal links
Orphaned pages
Excessive links in navigation or footers
Links between overlapping articles

A useful structure might look like this:

A pillar page explains the broad topic.
Cluster articles cover specific problems.
Service pages connect the information to a commercial solution.
Supporting pages link back to the pillar using descriptive, natural anchors.

For the topic of indexation, a technical guide may link to a crawl audit service page, a sitemap troubleshooting article and a content consolidation guide. The links should make sense to the reader first.

Anchor text and cannibalization

If several internal links use the same exact anchor text but point to different URLs, the site is sending unclear topical signals. This can contribute to keyword cannibalization.

For example, linking to three pages with the anchor “technical SEO consulting services” may suggest that all three pages target the same phrase. A better approach is to use anchors that reflect the specific destination:

Indexation audit
Crawl budget assessment
Canonical tag review
Technical SEO consultancy
Sitemap diagnostics

Internal linking optimisation is not about adding links everywhere. It is about creating a deliberate relationship between pages.

A Technical SEO Consulting Workflow for Indexation Problems

A repeatable process helps you avoid isolated fixes that create new conflicts elsewhere.

Stage 1: Technical discovery

Collect:

Crawl exports
Search Console data
Analytics landing pages
Sitemap files
Robots.txt directives
Server response data
CMS URL inventories
Keyword and ranking data
Backlink reports

At this point, do not change the site. Establish the evidence.

Stage 2: URL classification

Classify each URL by:

Content type
Business value
Search intent
Indexation status
Canonical status
Organic performance
Conversion contribution
Link equity
Duplication risk

A simple classification system could use four labels:

Keep and improve
Consolidate
Redirect or remove
Exclude intentionally

This makes decisions more consistent across large websites.

Stage 3: Signal comparison

Compare the following signals for priority pages:

Signal	Desired state
HTTP status	200
Robots.txt	Crawlable
Meta robots	Index, follow where appropriate
Canonical	Self-referencing or strategically correct
Sitemap	Included if indexable
Internal links	Several relevant links
Content	Satisfies the mapped intent
Structured data	Accurate and eligible
Mobile rendering	Complete and usable
Page experience	Stable and accessible

When these signals align, Google receives a clearer interpretation of the page. When they conflict, the page may still rank, but the outcome becomes less predictable.

Stage 4: Remediation

Typical fixes include:

Removing accidental noindex directives
Correcting canonical templates
Cleaning XML sitemaps
Removing unnecessary robots.txt blocks
Redirecting duplicate URLs
Rewriting thin pages
Consolidating cannibalising articles
Improving internal links
Repairing broken navigation
Updating hreflang references
Correcting structured data
Resolving HTTP to HTTPS inconsistencies

Apply changes in controlled batches where possible. If you alter thousands of URLs at once, diagnosing the effect becomes difficult.

Stage 5: Validation and monitoring

After implementation:

Test representative URLs in Google Search Console.
Re-crawl affected templates.
Confirm status codes and directives.
Resubmit updated sitemaps.
Monitor indexed pages and exclusions.
Track ranking URLs for cannibalised keywords.
Review organic clicks and impressions.
Check conversions, not just traffic.
Inspect server logs for Googlebot behaviour.
Document what changed and when.

Indexation changes can take time to settle. A short-term fluctuation does not necessarily mean the fix failed, but a continuing fall in impressions deserves investigation.

Using SEO Letters to Build and Maintain an Indexable Content Operation

Technical fixes matter, but they should connect to a reliable publishing workflow. If your team keeps producing overlapping articles, inconsistent URL structures and pages without internal links, the same indexation problems will return.

SEO Letters is designed as an AI writing engine for people who publish regularly. It supports keyword research, difficulty ratings, topical authority clusters, site-gap analysis and structured article generation, then helps move content towards publication without the usual copy-and-paste process.

You can use the SEO Letters app to support a workflow that includes:

Keyword discovery and prioritisation
Search intent mapping
Content cluster planning
Competitor gap analysis
Brand voice configuration
Article outlines and long-form drafts
Internal link suggestions
Schema generation
Image support
Product-aware content
Multi-language generation across 21 languages
Direct publishing to WordPress and Shopify
Webhook-based publishing workflows
Content performance monitoring

The important distinction is process control. An AI blog writer should not simply generate another article for every keyword variation. It should help you decide whether a new page is needed, whether an existing page should be refreshed and how the article fits into the wider site architecture.

Automated publishing without automated indexation mistakes

SEO Letters includes campaign scheduling so you can set a topic, cadence and publishing destination. That can be useful for teams managing consistent output, but the campaign should sit inside a technical governance framework.

Before a scheduled campaign begins, define:

Approved URL patterns
Content types that may be indexed
Required internal links
Canonical rules
Sitemap inclusion rules
Target search intent
Primary and secondary keywords
Duplicate content thresholds
Review and approval requirements
Refresh intervals

This helps prevent content volume from becoming the goal. Publishing more pages does not automatically create more search visibility. In some cases, it increases cannibalization and makes crawling less efficient.

Content refresh campaigns and indexation health

Existing pages often offer more value than another new article. A content refresh campaign can identify outdated statistics, weak sections, missing internal links and opportunities to better satisfy search intent.

Refresh a page when:

Impressions are declining
The ranking URL has changed repeatedly
The page is indexed but receives few clicks
Competitors provide more complete answers
The page has outdated information
Internal links no longer reflect the site structure
A related article is competing for the same keyword
The page has backlinks but weak content

A refresh should not automatically change the URL. If the existing page has authority and a clear intent, improving it may be safer than starting again.

Hypothetical Example: Recovering Visibility After an Indexation Audit

Consider a B2B software site with 1,800 published URLs. Organic traffic falls by 24% over four months, while the CMS reports no major publishing issue.

A technical SEO consultant compares the sitemap, crawl data and Search Console reports and finds:

86 commercial pages with accidental noindex
140 sitemap URLs returning redirects
35 blog posts competing for five high-value topics
17 important service pages with no contextual internal links
Product variants canonicalised to discontinued URLs
A robots.txt rule blocking a JavaScript resource required for rendering

The remediation plan is prioritised rather than applied randomly:

Restore indexability to the commercial pages.
Correct product canonical rules.
Remove redirects and excluded URLs from the sitemap.
Consolidate overlapping blog posts.
Add internal links from high-authority guides.
Review rendering and robots.txt access.
Monitor the affected query groups and conversions.

The first improvement may appear in impressions before clicks. That is normal. Google needs to recrawl, reassess and select URLs again. The meaningful outcome is not simply more indexed pages, but better visibility for the pages that support revenue.

Measuring the Results of Indexation Remediation

A technical SEO project should have defined KPIs. Otherwise, the work can become a collection of screenshots and opinions.

Track the following metrics:

Indexation metrics

Valid indexed URLs
Excluded URLs by reason
Indexed-to-submitted sitemap ratio
Indexation rate for priority templates
Canonical mismatch count
noindex error count
Orphan page count
Soft 404 count

Search performance metrics

Impressions for priority query groups
Clicks and click-through rate
Average position
Number of ranking URLs per keyword
Ranking URL stability
Non-brand organic traffic
Featured snippet or rich result visibility

Commercial metrics

Organic leads
Product trials
Purchases
Assisted conversions
Revenue from organic landing pages
Conversion rate by content type
Cost per qualified organic lead

Content architecture metrics

Internal links to priority pages
Average click depth
Articles per topic cluster
Cannibalisation cases resolved
Content consolidation outcomes
Refreshes completed
New pages approved through the content governance process

A useful dashboard separates technical health, search visibility and commercial performance. A website can show improved indexation while still attracting the wrong traffic, so these categories should not be combined into one headline number.

Common Mistakes in Indexation Consulting

Treating every excluded URL as an error

Some URLs should not be indexed. Login pages, internal search results, duplicate parameters and certain filtered pages may be excluded deliberately.

The goal is not maximum indexation. It is appropriate indexation.

Removing every canonical tag

Canonical tags are useful when multiple URL versions exist. Removing them without resolving the underlying duplication can make Google’s selection process less clear.

Adding noindex to solve cannibalization

noindex may remove a competing page, but it can also remove useful content, backlinks and long-tail visibility. First consider whether consolidation, differentiation or internal linking would solve the issue more safely.

Assuming a sitemap forces indexing

A sitemap helps discovery and communicates preferred URLs. It does not guarantee inclusion in Google’s index.

Publishing articles for every keyword variation

This is one of the most common causes of content bloat. Keyword research should identify distinct opportunities, not provide a reason to produce near-identical pages repeatedly.

Measuring only rankings

Rankings can move while traffic and conversions remain unchanged. Track the complete journey from indexation to revenue.

Expert Review Checklist for Priority URLs

Use this checklist for service pages, product pages and important content assets:

The URL returns a 200 status code.
The page is not blocked in robots.txt.
The page does not contain an accidental noindex.
The canonical points to the correct preferred URL.
The canonical target is indexable and returns 200.
The URL is included in the correct sitemap.
The page has relevant internal links.
The page matches one clear search intent.
The title and H1 reflect the target topic.
The content is materially useful and differentiated.
Structured data matches visible page content.
Mobile content is complete.
The page is not competing unnecessarily with another URL.
Organic impressions and conversions are monitored.

If several boxes remain unchecked, the page may need a combined technical and content review rather than a single tag adjustment.

When to Use SEO Consulting Services

You should consider specialist technical SEO consulting if:

Organic traffic has fallen without an obvious cause.
Important pages are missing from search results.
Google-selected canonicals differ across key templates.
A site migration has recently taken place.
Your XML sitemap contains large numbers of excluded URLs.
The website has thousands of parameter or faceted URLs.
Several pages rank for the same commercial keywords.
JavaScript controls important content or navigation.
Publishing is happening faster than your quality assurance process.
Your team lacks a reliable way to connect technical findings with content priorities.

A consultant can help separate urgent indexation errors from normal exclusions and low-priority technical noise. That distinction saves time and protects the pages that matter.

For teams that also need to produce and maintain content, SEO Letters can support the operational side of the programme. Its workflow connects keyword research, authority clusters, article generation, internal links, schema, images, publishing and performance monitoring in one environment, with support for your own AI keys and routing across Gemini, OpenAI or Claude.

Final Takeaway: Fix Indexation Before Scaling Content

Noindex directives, canonical errors and poor sitemap hygiene can reduce search visibility long before anyone notices a broken page. Keyword cannibalization adds another layer, causing split search rankings and unstable URL selection even when every competing page is technically indexable.

The strongest approach combines:

Technical crawling and indexation diagnostics
Search intent mapping
Canonical and sitemap governance
Keyword cannibalization audits
Content consolidation strategy
Internal linking optimisation
Controlled publishing
Continuous performance monitoring

Start with the URLs that have business value. Confirm which page should rank, align the technical signals around that decision and only then scale the content programme.

If you want to reduce the manual work between keyword discovery and a published, structured article, visit the SEO Letters app. If you need to discuss a specific indexation, cannibalization or technical SEO issue, use the rightbar contact path to connect your site requirements with the appropriate next step.