Large site with faceted navigation using rel=canonical, but Google still has issues
-
First off, I just wanted to mention I did post this on one other forum so I hope that is not completely against the rules here or anything. Just trying to get an idea from some of the pros at both sources. Hope this is received well. Now for the question.....
"Googlebot found an extremely high number of URLs on your site:"
Gotta love these messages in GWT. Anyway, I wanted to get some other opinions here so if anyone has experienced something similar or has any recommendations I would love to hear them.
First off, the site is very large and utilizes faceted navigation to help visitors sift through results. I have implemented rel=canonical for many months now to have each page url that is created based on the faceted nav filters, push back to the main category page. However, I still get these damn messages from Google every month or so saying that they found too many pages on the site. My main concern obviously is wasting crawler time on all these pages that I am trying to do what they ask in these instances and tell them to ignore and find the content on page x.
So at this point I am thinking about possibly using robots.txt file to handle these, but wanted to see what others around here thought before I dive into this arduous task. Plus I am a little ticked off that Google is not following a standard they helped bring to the table.
Thanks for those who take the time to respond in advance.
-
Yes that's a different situation. You're now talking about pagination, which quite rightly, canonicals to parent page is not to be used.
For faceted/filtered navigation it seems like canonical usage is indeed the right way to go about it, given Peter's experience just mentioned above, and the article you linked to that says, "...(in part because Google only indexes the content on the canonical page, so any content from the rest of the pages in the series would be ignored)."
-
As for my situation it worked out quite nicely, I just wasn't patient enough. After about 2 months the issue corrected itself for the most part and I was able to reduce about a million "waste" pages out of the index. This is a very large site so losing a million pages in a handful of categories helped me gain in a whole lot of other areas and spread the crawler around to more places that were important for us.
I also spent some time doing some restructuring of internal linking from some of our more authoritative pages that I believe also assisted with this, but in my case rel="canonical" worked out pretty nicely. Just took some time and patience.
-
I should actually add that Google doesn't condone using rel-canonical back to the main search page or page 1. They allow canonical to a "View All" or a complex mix of rel-canonical and rel=prev/next. If you use rel-canonical on too many non-identical pages, they could ignore it (although I don't often find that to be true).
Vanessa Fox just did a write-up on Google's approach:
http://searchengineland.com/implementing-pagination-attributes-correctly-for-google-114970
I have to be honest, though - I'm not a fan of Google's approach. It's incredibly complicated, easy to screw up, doesn't seem to work in all cases, and doesn't work on Bing. This is a very complex issue and really depends on the site in question. Adam Audette did a good write-up:
http://searchengineland.com/five-step-strategy-for-solving-seo-pagination-problems-95494
-
Thanks Dr Pete,
Yes I've used meta no-index on pages that are simply not useful in any way shape or form for Google to find.
I would be hesitant noindexing my filters in question, but it sounds promising that you are backing the canonical approach and there is a latency on reporting. Our PA and DA is extremely high and we get crawled daily, so curious about your measurement tip (inurl) which is a good one!
Many thanks.
Simon
-
I'm working on a couple of cases now, and it is extremely tricky. Google often doesn't re-crawl/re-cache deeper pages for weeks or months, so getting the canonical to work can be a long process. Still, it is generally a very effective tag and can happen quickly.
I agree with others that Robots.txt isn't a good bet. It also tends to work badly with pages that are already indexed. It's good for keeping things out of the index (especially whole folders, for example), but once 1000s of pages are indexed, Robots.txt often won't clean them up.
Another option is META NOINDEX, but it depends on the nature of the facets.
A couple of things to check:
(1) Using site: with inurl:, monitor the faceted navigation pages in the Google index. Are the numbers gradually dropping? That's what you want to see - the GWT error may not update very often. Keep in mind that these numbers can be unreliable, so monitor them daily over a few weeks.
(2) Are there are other URLs you're missing? On a large, e-commerce site, it's entirely possibly this wasn't the only problem.
(3) Did you cut the crawl paths? A common problem is that people canonical, 301-redirect, or NOINDEX, but then nofollow or otherwise cut links to those duplicates. Sounds like a good idea, except that the canonical tag has to be crawled to work. I see this a lot, actually.
-
Did you find a solution for this? I have exactly the same issue and have implemented the rel canonical in exactly the same way.
The issue you are trying to address is improving crawl bandwidth/equity by not letting Google crawl these faceted pages.
I am thinking of Ajax loading in these pages to the parent category page and/or adding nofollow to the links. But the pages have already been indexed, so I wonder if nofollow will have any effect.
Have you had any progress? Any further ideas?
-
Because rel canonical does nothing more than give credit to teh chosen page and aviod duplicat content. it does not tell the SE to stop indexing or redirect. as far as finding the links it has no affect
-
thx
-
OK, sorry I was thinking too many pages, not links.
using no-index will not stop PR flowing, the search engine will still follow the links. -
Yeah that is why I am not real excited about using robots.txt or even a no index in this instance. They are not session ids, but more like:
www.example.com/catgeoryname/a,
www.example.com/catgeoryname/b
www.example.com/catgeoryname/c
etc
which would show all products that start with those letters. There are a lot of other filters too, such as color, size, etc, but the bottom line is I point all those back to just www.example.com/categoryname using rel canonical and am not understanding why it isn't working properly.
-
There are a large number of urls like this because of the way the faceted navigation works and I have considered no index, but somewhat concerned as we do get links to some of these urls and would like to maintain some of that link juice. The warning shows up in Google Webmaster tools when Googlebot finds a large number of urls. The rest of the message reads like this:
"Googlebot encountered extremely large numbers of links on your site. This may indicate a problem with your site's URL structure. Googlebot may unnecessarily be crawling a large number of distinct URLs that point to identical or similar content, or crawling parts of your site that are not intended to be crawled by Googlebot. As a result Googlebot may consume much more bandwidth than necessary, or may be unable to completely index all of the content on your site."
rel canonical should fix this, but apparently it is not
-
Check how you are getting these pages.
Robots.txt is not an ideal solution. If Google finds pages in other places, still these pages will be crawled.
Normally print pages won't have link value and you may no index them.
If there are pages with session ids or campaign codes, use canonical if they have link value. Otherwise no index will be good.
-
the rel canonical with stop you getting duplicate content flags, but there is still a large number of pages its not going to hide them.
I have never seen this warning, how many pages are we talking about?, either it is very very high, or they are confusing the crawler.You may need to no index them
Got a burning SEO question?
Subscribe to Moz Pro to gain full access to Q&A, answer questions, and ask your own.
Browse Questions
Explore more categories
-
Moz Tools
Chat with the community about the Moz tools.
-
SEO Tactics
Discuss the SEO process with fellow marketers
-
Community
Discuss industry events, jobs, and news!
-
Digital Marketing
Chat about tactics outside of SEO
-
Research & Trends
Dive into research and trends in the search industry.
-
Support
Connect on product support and feature requests.
Related Questions
-
Image Thumbnail in Google Mobile Search results
HI all, We can see that Google is now showing thumbnails of products in the search results on mobile.
Algorithm Updates | | RetailClicks
Very nice, but... What are specs of our snippets to show? Cause i see it at other search results of websites, but not ours?
Please help us out. Thanks!
Jeroen http://searchengineland.com/google-mobile-search-results-now-showing-images-snippets-2589190 -
Increase in impressions reported by Google Analytics
Because Universal Analytics (and Google Webmaster) only stores SEO data for 3 months, I've been downloading SEO data (from the Acquisition tab of Analytics) to get a record of how impressions, clicks, CTR etc are changing in the long term (our business is seasonal, so these long-term patterns are important). Today, I downloaded data for September, and found a very large increase in the number of impressions compared to previous months. I looked back at the data for August, which I've already downloaded, and found that Analytics is now reporting much higher numbers of impressions than I have in my downloaded data. The total number of impressions has roughly doubled, and the increase for individual URLs varies, with some increasing by a factor of 10. The number of clicks has also increased, by about 15% in total. Because of the 3 month cut-off, I could only look back as far as the 11th of July, but the impressions for the end of July are also much higher than in my downloaded data. I've noticed that Analytics has changed some other details in its reporting of SEO data. For example, the impressions and clicks data is no longer rounded. Could this increase in impressions be a result of those changes? Has anyone else experienced something similar? We can go ahead and use the new data but it will throw our analysis off for past months (which have the lower numbers). If others have experienced something similar it would be good to know, so that we can adjust our historical numbers accordingly.
Algorithm Updates | | MargotLoco20 -
Google not crawling click to expand content - suggestions?
It seems like Google confirmed this week in a G+ hangout that content in click to expand content e.g. 'read more' dropdown and tabbed content scenarios will be discounted. The suggestion was if you have content it needs to be visible on page load. Here's more on it https://www.seroundtable.com/google-index-click-to-expand-19449.html and the actual hangout, circa 11 mins in https://plus.google.com/events/cjcubhctfdmckph433d00cro9as. From a UX and usability point of view having a lot of content that was otherwise tabbed or in click to expand divs can be terrible, especially on mobile. Does anyone have workable solutions or can think of examples of really great landing pages (i'm mostly thinking ecommerce) that also has a lot of visible content? Thanks Andy
Algorithm Updates | | AndyMacLean0 -
How to find keywords competitor is using
I am doing work for a landscaping company and having trouble with finding the best keywords. Most of keywords are so expensive on adwords to use, so obviously we want to optimize as best possible. How do I find what keywords competitors are using for campaigns and/or optimized for? thx.
Algorithm Updates | | SexyLeggings0 -
Google Multiple Results
With Google's penchant for listing at times many results - one on top of the other - from the same domain, is it now advisable to not worry about having multiple pages in the same site targeting the same or very similar keywords? Is this (keyword/page internal competition) one less thing that I have to worry about or worry about less or what? Thanks! Best... Jane
Algorithm Updates | | 945010 -
Site Speed
I was wondering what benefits there are to investing the time and money into speeding up an eCommerce site. We are currently averaging 3.4 seconds of load time per page and I know from webmaster tools they hold the mark to be at closer to 1.5 seconds. Is it worth it to get to 1.5 seconds? Any tips for doing this? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | MichealGooden0 -
Google UK search volumes
If a user searches using Google.com but is based in the UK, is it classed as a Google UK search or a Google US search in terms of monthly search volumes? Most of my clients are targeting UK consumers and often rank well on Google UK but outside the top fifty for Google US. I have mentioned that that is fine unless a client happens to use google.com. Am I talking rubbish?
Algorithm Updates | | Switch_Digital0 -
Google seems to have penalised one section of our site? Is that possible?
We have a page rank 5 website and we launched a new site 6 months ago in February. Initially we had horrible urls with a bunch of numbers and stuff and we since changed them to lovely human readable urls. This had an excellent effect across the site except on one section of the site: http://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers/graduate-employers Although Google has indexed these pages and several have a PR 2 they do not appear in Google when previously they were on page 1 when we had the old urls. We figured we just needed some time for Google to get used to it, but it hasn't done anything. It is also worth mentioning we changed the page titles from: FIRM NAME | DOMAIN NAME then... FIRM NAME | Graduate Scheme, Jobs, Internships & Apprenticeships | DOMAIN NAME then.. FIRM NAME | Graduate Scheme, Jobs, Internships & Apprenticeships Do you think these are being penalised? There are two types of page: Example A: http://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers/graduates/addleshaw-goddard.htm Example B: http://www.allaboutcareers.com/careers/graduates/accenture.htm
Algorithm Updates | | jack860