Google SERP Favicon Mismatch Fix

-

 

Wrong favicon in Google Search after website migration — and how we resolved it

A step-by-step account of how we diagnosed, escalated, and finally resolved a brand favicon mismatch in Google Search results following a domain migration from LWReid to Trutex.

The problem

Following a website migration from the LWReid brand to Trutex, the correct Trutex shield favicon was showing perfectly in the browser tab — but Google Search was still displaying the old circular "LW" logo next to the site name in search results.


The head of sales noticed this first:

Head of Sales
"The favicon is still coming up with 'LWReid' on Google Search — has this been fixed yet?"

The technical lead initially suggested it was a caching issue:

Technical Lead
"I think it's a cached result. Is there a way to invalidate it again?"

Both were partly right — but the full picture was a bit more nuanced.

SEO analysis: what was actually happening

The root cause was Google's favicon caching behaviour. Unlike page content, Google treats favicons as low-priority re-crawl targets, since it doesn't expect them to change frequently. A domain migration is exactly the kind of scenario where this assumption breaks down.

Here's a summary of the mismatch at the time:

  • Google Search: displaying old "LW" circular logo (stale cache)
  • Browser tab: showing correct Trutex shield favicon
  • GSC crawl status: all favicon URLs returning HTTP 200 OK

Favicon URLs confirmed accessible in Google Search Console

The following Trutex favicon assets were all crawled successfully and returned status 200 OK:

/sfsites/c/resource/LWReidAssetsNew/images/favicon.ico
/sfsites/c/resource/LWReidAssetsNew/images/favicon.svg
/sfsites/c/resource/LWReidAssetsNew/images/apple-touch-icon.png
/sfsites/c/resource/LWReidAssetsNew/images/favicon-96x96.png

So technically, everything was in place — Google just hadn't re-crawled and updated its favicon cache yet.

The redirect problem we uncovered

Monitoring the old domain revealed a secondary issue. The legacy favicon URL:

https://www.lwreid.com.au/favicon.ico

...was redirecting to:

https://www.trutex.com.au/favicon.ico  →  404 Not Found

This meant anyone (including Googlebot) following the old redirect was landing on a broken URL. The correct target should have been:

https://www.trutex.com.au/sfsites/c/resource/LWReidAssetsNew/images/favicon.ico

Recommended fix (for the technical team)

Two options were proposed, in order of preference:

Preferred — root-level placement
Place the favicon directly at https://www.trutex.com.au/favicon.ico. This avoids redirect chains entirely and aligns with Google's documented preference for root-level favicons.
Alternative — correct the redirect
Redirect 301 /favicon.ico https://www.trutex.com.au/sfsites/c/resource/LWReidAssetsNew/images/favicon.ico

Steps taken to accelerate the fix

Rather than waiting passively, the following actions were taken on the SEO side to push Google to re-evaluate the favicon:

Step 1 — GSC URL inspection

Requested indexing of the favicon URL (favicon.ico) directly inside Google Search Console using the URL Inspection tool. The live test returned "URL is available to Google" and indexing was requested.

Step 2 — Homepage recrawl request

Requested indexing of the homepage (https://www.trutex.com.au/) in GSC, since Google derives the favicon association from the homepage's <link rel="shortcut icon"> tag.

Step 3 — Google favicon feedback form

Submitted a report via Google's official favicon feedback form, selecting issue type "The wrong favicon is displaying" and providing the correct favicon URLs and the implemented <link> tag as evidence.


Step 4 — Monitoring

Continued monitoring the favicon in live Google Search results and GSC crawl stats to track when the update propagated.

The outcome

The technical team did not implement any server-side changes to the redirect. Despite this, approximately one week after the GSC recrawl requests and feedback form submission, the correct Trutex favicon appeared in Google Search results.

Resolved

Google updated its cached favicon naturally after the combination of: (1) GSC indexing requests for the favicon and homepage, and (2) the favicon feedback form submission. No server changes were required.

Why this matters beyond aesthetics

A favicon mismatch after a domain migration is easy to overlook — it doesn't affect rankings directly. But it does matter for:

  • Brand trust in search results. Users scanning results use the favicon as a quick brand recognition cue. An outdated logo signals an unfinished migration.
  • CTR impact. Unrecognised or generic favicons can subtly reduce click-through rates compared to a strong brand icon.
  • Crawl signal cleanliness. Broken redirect chains to favicons add minor crawl inefficiency and introduce unnecessary 404 signals.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Recovered from Spammy Structured Markup Penalty: How I Helped a UK-Based Business Increase Website Visits

-
Image
I was working at Prateek Technosoft India Pvt Ltd company when I helped one of our clients recover from a Spammy Structured Markup penalty. The client, "Jewels-Airport-Transfers," is a UK-based business that was facing a significant "Rich Result" drop in Google SERP for the website. When I audited their website, I found two major issues: a doorway page issue and a Spammy Structured Data problem caused by the previous SEO agency's incorrect guidance. The Spammy Structured Data issue was confirmed by using Google's Structured Data Testing Tool, which showed 11 errors and 5 warnings, as well as the disappearance of the site's rich snippets in organic search. I had access to the Google Webmaster Tool (Google Search Console) to monitor the structured data report. The Search Console notification read, "Spammy structured data for http://www.jewels-airport-transfers.co.uk/ might be dropped from search results." Screenshot 1: "This Spammy Structur...
Read more

How I Achieved First Page First Position for High Search Volume Keyword on Google SERP

-
Image
In this post, I would like to share my experience of bringing one of our clients to the first page first position on Google SERP for a high search volume keyword. The client, Pothys, is a big brand in the textile industry with a strong reputation in offline marketing. However, their website was not optimized for basic SEO practices, which I discovered during my initial audit. Pothys was facing a common challenge among businesses - ranking high on Google for a high search volume keyword, "Silk Sarees." When I first analyzed the keyword position, the website was ranking at 7th position on the first page of Google SERP. But Pothys was determined to reach the first position. The search volume of the keyword "Silk Sarees" is (49500/month). I identified several issues with the website that were hindering its search engine ranking. These issues included: Keyword cannibalization : The same keyword "Silk Sarees" was targeted on multiple pages on the site, which was...
Read more

Duplicate Meta Tags Due to Paginated Pages Index

-
Image
I recently identified the SCG blog posts had duplicate meta tags issues. It is identified by the technical SEO discussion with the SEO industry person about the topic “Pagination”. During the discussion I said, the paginated pages should be indexed . After my discussion, I deep dive on the topic and analysed the paginated pros and cons. The SCG blog posts duplicate meta tags issues is technical problem, it is occurred because paginated pages were indexable. Mostly the paginated pages essentially add no value despite being indexed on SERP. Pagination is a clever way of distributing content across pages and users may even click those pages to discover the content. However, on SERP they bear the same meta tags and context as they did on the level 1 page. Consequently, issues like keyword cannibalization, duplicate content cluster, and index bloat arise. Aiming to improve the bot experience on the site blog posts, I non-indexed and followed all the paginated pages encountered. Be...
Read more