[Hiring] Adult KVS Tube Technical SEO - 2,361 URLs Discovered but Not Indexed

[dattajav]

Hello,

I am looking for an experienced Adult SEO / Technical SEO specialist to audit and fix an indexing problem on my adult tube website.

Website details:
- CMS: KVS Ultimate
- Website age: nearly 2 months
- Approximately 1,000 video pages
- Google Search Console currently shows around 2,361 URLs as:
"Discovered - currently not indexed"
- Most /video/ URLs are not being crawled/indexed.

What I have already checked:
- Google Search Console Live Test says the video URLs are indexable.
- Google can access the pages.
- Google successfully detects the videos.
- robots.txt is accessible.
- Sitemap has been submitted to Google Search Console.
- Server responses to Googlebot are mostly HTTP 200.

I need someone who has real experience with Adult Tube / KVS websites to investigate the root cause.

I would like you to check:
- Google crawl/indexing problems
- KVS SEO configuration
- Sitemap
- robots.txt
- Canonical / noindex issues
- Internal linking and crawl depth
- Video page structure
- Thin/duplicate content issues
- Site architecture
- Crawl budget
- Server/performance problems affecting Googlebot
- Other technical SEO problems that could prevent indexing

I am NOT looking for backlink packages or traffic packages at this stage.

I want the indexing/technical problem investigated first.

If you provide this service, please reply or PM me with:

1. Your experience with Adult Tube / KVS SEO
2. What you would check/fix
3. Audit price
4. Price to implement the fixes
5. Estimated time needed

Please do not send generic SEO packages. I am specifically looking for someone experienced with Google indexing problems on adult tube websites.

Thank you.

 

[dattajav]

Besides frequency and status codes, ask for timestamp, full request path, Googlebot IP and user agent, bytes sent, total request time, upstream response time, and cache hit/miss. Compare the same fields for /video/ URLs, category pages, the homepage, and sitemap fetches.

The useful patterns are 403/429 responses, intermittent 5xx errors, timeouts, unusually slow TTFB under bot traffic, repeated requests to duplicate URL variants, and category pages being crawled while their linked video pages are ignored. Check whether the exact 100-page test set receives requests after you add direct internal links; that is more informative than an aggregate Googlebot count.

Also verify that the requests are genuine Googlebot rather than only matching the user-agent string. The hosting provider can validate the IPs with reverse and forward DNS. If possible, keep a dated export for 7–14 days so you can compare crawl behavior before and after the internal-linking change.

Thanks. I checked the server access logs. Googlebot is fetching the sitemap frequently, but actual /video/ crawling is extremely limited. The homepage itself is also being crawled successfully.

I will create a controlled test set of 100 video URLs and make them directly accessible through internal links, then monitor those exact URLs for 7–14 days.

I can also collect timestamp, Googlebot IP/user-agent, HTTP status, bytes sent, request time, upstream response time and cache status for homepage, sitemap, category and video requests.

What I want to determine now is whether Google is discovering the video URLs but choosing not to crawl them, or whether server performance/internal linking is preventing deeper crawling.

I’ll post the comparison results here.

 

[aiangels_offici]

Adding a data point since we went through something similar. On one of our sites, a large batch of URLs sat in "discovered – currently not indexed" and more sitemaps didn't change anything. What helped was cutting near-duplicate URLs and linking the pages we cared about from pages Google already crawls daily (homepage plus a couple of hub pages).

jimp's point about the language versions is the big one: every extra language multiplies the URLs Google has to judge on a domain it doesn't trust yet.

 

[jimp]

Yeah, the hub page part matches what I've seen. Cutting the near-dupes is the one most people skip bc it feels like losing pages, but on a tube the tag and search URLs multiply fast and they all eat the same budget. Good that it moved for you.

 

[10xlinks]

Your 100 URL test is a good idea, and I'd pair it with split sitemaps so the data is easier to read. Put the test set in its own small sitemap, then split the rest into sitemaps of a few hundred URLs by publish week. In Search Console you can filter the indexing report by sitemap, so you can see which batch gets crawled first and whether older videos get picked up faster than new ones. Keep lastmod honest and only change it when the page really changes, because a sitemap that cries wolf gets trusted less. Also give each test video a unique title, a real description and a few related videos linked on the page, otherwise you won't know if the links or the content made the difference.

Post automatically merged: Oct 21, 2026

Your 100 URL test is a good idea, and I'd pair it with split sitemaps so the data is easier to read. Put the test set in its own small sitemap, then split the rest into sitemaps of a few hundred URLs by publish week. In Search Console you can filter the indexing report by sitemap, so you can see which batch gets crawled first and whether older videos get picked up faster than new ones. Keep lastmod honest and only change it when the page really changes, because a sitemap that cries wolf gets trusted less. Also give each test video a unique title, a real description and a few related videos linked on the page, otherwise you won't know if the links or the content made the difference.

 

[erolove]

The number that stands out to me is 2,361 discovered against about 1,000 videos, so more than half of what Google found isn't video pages at all. On tube scripts that is usually tag, model, search and sorting URLs, and if each of those is a thin page of thumbnails Google tends to slow down crawling for the whole site, the real video pages included. I'd export the URL list from that report and group it by pattern before changing anything else, then noindex or take out of the sitemap whatever isn't a video or a real category, and make sure every video page has its own title and a few lines of text that aren't copied from the next one. On a two-month-old domain part of it is just Google waiting to trust the site, but cutting the low-value URLs is the part you can control.

 

[aiangels_offici]

@jimp yeah, the near-dupes are the hard sell because a big page count feels like an asset. What made the call easier for us was checking which tag and search URLs had ever earned a single click in Search Console. It's usually a small slice. Keep those, fold the rest into the hub pages, and the crawl budget goes back to the video pages that actually matter.

 

[jimp]

@jimp yeah, the near-dupes are the hard sell because a big page count feels like an asset. What made the call easier for us was checking which tag and search URLs had ever earned a single click in Search Console. It's usually a small slice. Keep those, fold the rest into the hub pages, and the crawl budget goes back to the video pages that actually matter.

Did you 301 the folded tag pages into the hubs or just noindex them? i always went back and forth on that one

 

[aiangels_offici]

@jimp I'd split it by whether the tag has a real home. If it's basically a synonym or a narrower slice of an existing hub (same intent, same videos mostly), 301 it there. If there's no clean match, noindex it and drop it from the sitemap and internal links instead of redirecting to something only loosely related, because a pile of redirects to a semi-relevant hub tends to get treated like soft 404s anyway.
Two exceptions I'd make: anything with external links pointing at it gets the 301 regardless, and anything still pulling clicks stays as it is. Also leave the noindexed ones crawlable for a few weeks so Google actually sees the tag before you remove them completely.