Project context
The setting
A WordPress site retained a large unwanted search footprint after a compromise generated malicious URLs.
Challenge
The problem to solve
The technical SEO work had to address malicious URL patterns, sitemap inconsistencies, large-scale error responses, and wasted crawl activity after the infection source was removed.
My role and scope
What I was responsible for
I investigated the indexation pattern in Google Search Console, reviewed sitemap and response behaviour, and managed the technical cleanup and monitoring work.
Investigation and reasoning
- Analysed indexed malicious URL patterns
- Reviewed sitemap inconsistencies and large-scale errors
- Assessed the appropriate response handling for unwanted URLs
Approach and implementation
- Removed affected URLs from active sitemap paths
- Applied appropriate 404 and 410 handling
- Monitored indexation changes in Search Console
Technical Scope
Technical Scope & Verification
Factual records of infrastructure troubleshooting, security hardening, and operational scope completed.
This record refers to the same documented recovery as the 120K+ malicious URL case study. It is retained as a technical SEO view of that work, not as a separate numerical success claim.
- Workstream
- Index cleanup
- Measurement
- Search Console
Evidence note
Google Search Console observations recorded in the existing project data. See the related recovery case study for the documented counts and limitations.
Constraints and lessons
What this work made clear
- Security remediation does not automatically repair search-index signals
- Related records should not double-count the same numerical outcome