Wooh00! I don't have access just yet, but I'll keep hard refreshing ;)

neat. lots of good data there.

A lot of "Crawled - currently not indexed", not good.

This should be really good.

Hmmm... I just got access and I do not see any of this? At least - not ranking data. Also no link data either (which would be fine by me...)

Scratch that - I see how you got the overlays now.

I don't have access just yet, but

As soon as they let you know by email about one site, try using the dropdown to shift to any & all other sites. They will probably show up in the new format even if only selected sites have received email notification.

On the face of it, being able to see which pages are or are not indexed should be useful. In practice, it leads to vast numbers of new categories of GSC Messages To Ignore. “Page with redirect” includes routine directory redirects that should never have been requested in the first place. “Crawl anomaly” sounds dire, but includes requests that get a 410 response. “Submitted URL seems to be a Soft 404” reveals that they have changed their definition of Soft 404 to something too mushy and meaningless to be of any use.

“Learn more” page:
[support.google.com...]
Note in particular (emphasis mine):

Excluded: The page is not included in the index for reasons that you typically cannot affect. The page might be in an intermediate stage of the indexing process, or is deliberately excluded by you (for example by a noindex directive) and is therefore behaving as expected.

This is a new sense of the phrase “cannot be affected by you” which I had not previously encountered.

So far I have not figured out how to constrain the report to pages. Sorry, Google, but a file with .midi extension is not a page (and how the heck would it be indexed anyway?).

“Submitted URL not selected as canonical”. Again, Google, give me a hint: If this URL (which happens to be the only URL the page has got) is not canonical, what is? Perhaps the previous URL, which redirects to the current one? (Answer after test search: Apparently yes. But they are perfectly happy to index the new URL of a different page that was redirected in exactly the same way at exactly the same time.)

Some random exact-text searches reveal that in at least some cases the “not indexed” assertion is absolutely correct. I am stunned. I always thought Google indexed everything. Fortunately the claim is not always true. (wtf have they got against Bourquin or Kleinschmidt? Answer: Nothing whatsoever; they're just trying to scare me.)

Edit: I just realized the expanded GSC format can be used to investigate sites that have moved from http to https (another reason for keeping both active in GSC). Select http version of https sites, verify that NO pages are indexed, and then scroll down to confirm that the vast majority of them are because “page has been redirected”. Whew.

Here's something that's weird.

I have 6 sites in GSC and they're listed in the order of "site health". The order in which they are listed has been the same for a long time (until now), but it's never made any sense because the site with the worst "health" is the one that gets the most traffic. I've never understood how this "site health" is determined, although I once spent some time trying to figure it out. As I said, it's never made any sense.

[Aside: Another strange thing is that the order of the listing is always reversed, so that the site with the "worst" health is at the top of the list.]

Anyway, yesterday I got emails telling me that the new performance data is now available for 2 of the sites. When I checked, those 2 sites have been moved from the middle of the pack in "site health" so that they now have the "best health".

I haven't made any changes to any of these sites lately, so why would implementing the new performance data cause the rankings in "site health" to change. It's weird.

So far they've sent me 3 notifications, all for the versions of sites that are not indexed - the versions that you can't visit because they 301 to the indexed version. Just peculiar.

:: detour to fish google emails out of trash ::

Heh, I hadn't even noticed that detail. One of the emails pertained to my preferred version of a sitename. The other pertained to a non-preferred version (right https, wrong www). But all eight versions (three sites) are available on the new-format dropdown even if they haven't bothered to tell me about it.

the versions that you can't visit because they 301 to the indexed version

On my sites, custom responses such as 410 kick in before the domain-name-canonicalization redirect, so it's possible to get an error at the originally requested URL even if the https and/or www is wrong. This means that for any given site, if it's been around for a while, there will be a few “crawl anomalies” mixed in with the redirects.

Received a couple emails early this morning, each announcing my sites' new GSC. Once there, my different sites were available from the dashboard like before.

Played around with the new layout for a few minutes. There's still a lot missing that is either still in the process of migrating from the old GSC, or new features still under development. There's even a suggestion box.

Looks nicer than the old GSC on mobile.

As far as I can tell, the information is not consistent with what's in the 'old' GSC as far as 404 errors. It shows different errors and apparently you click to 'Validate' them rather than mark them as fixed. Definitely valid 404s. After clicking to 'Validate', they send an email with a link to follow the progress. I have to think they imagine people with nothing better to do.

Another oddity is that it lists links (URLs) as 'Indexed, though blocked by robots.txt'. I certainly hope that they have not indexed those URLs because they are only for tracking which is why they're disallowed in robots.txt. They are not URLs of pages. I can't imagine a good UX in any index. :(

Indexed, though blocked by robots.txt

That riled me too. Why the ### are they bothering to index pages that could not possibly ever come up in a search? In my case, it's things like the Contact and Legal pages--not pages linked from hundreds of other sites with meaningful linking text. (“Contact the webmaster” or “Legal stuff” in your own footer is not meaningful linking text.) I could slap on a Noindex tag and let them crawl--and then that would make one more thing to ignore in the “Crawled but not indexed” category instead.

On a whim I tried searching for “contact page for example.com”--the only way a roboted-out page could conceivably come up in a bona fide search. Nope, even that doesn't bring it bobbing to the surface. So, tell you what, Google. Why don't you throw all those Contact and Legal and Search pages out of the index, freeing up room for legitimate pages you've inexplicably chosen not to index.

Greetings and Gidday all,

Came to see if anyone had noticed that Google Analytics > Aquisition > Search Console > Queries is now showing (coincidentally?) 16 months of keyword data, where previously it was 90-93 days worth. As I prefer GA to GSC for this raw data, if this is the reason - YAAY!

<rant>
In GSC my new https index (switched to https after twenty years in late May) is reporting the infuriating "Submitted URL not selected as canonical". What does that even mean? The pages are the https version of the previous http page. Nothing else has changed about the file content. How on earth can they be "not selected as canonical"?

And yes, pages I couldn't care less about being indexed at this point are in, while these more important pages are not ...aaaarrrg!
</rant>

I'd also been notified in late May that my site was being switched over to the "mobile first" index, so I'm assuming it might have something to do with that as well?

It is strange, my overall traffic is holding, or increasing marginally, but GA > Acquisition > Search Console > Landing Pages numbers have tanked since the day in May that the switch to the mobile index occurred, with impressions and click throughs down by 20-45% for individual pages (logical, I'll need to bone up on improving my mobile SERP performance), but I assumed this would have also impacted the overall performance as well, and that doesn't seem to have happened.

I'm still trying to figure out what's going on.

Meanwhile, I'm going back through all my pages, double checking for "mobile friendliness", internal links etc. and once done, will resubmit my sitemap.xml via GSC to see if that makes a difference.

Oh and a bit OT: anyone noticed their GA > Audiences >Benchmarking > Channel > Benchmark sessions reporting zero since early June?

I've reported it, with a screencap, but no luck so far. And they're usually pretty quick when I've done so in the past.

Cheers for now.

"Submitted URL not selected as canonical"

Which Page is Canonical? [moz.com]