How to noindex lots of content properly : bluntly or progressively ?
-
Hello Mozers !
I'm quite in doubt, so I thought why not ask for help ?
Here's my problem : I need to better up a website's SEO that consists in a lot (1 million+ pages) of poor content. Basically it's like a catalog, where you select a brand, a product series and then the product, to then fill out a form for a request (sorry for the cryptic description, I can't be more precise).
Beside the classic SEO work, a part of what (I think) I need to do is noindex some useless pages and rewrite important ones with great content, but for the noindexing part I'm quite hesitant on the how.
There's like 200 000 pages with no visits since a year, so I guess they're pretty much useless junk that would be better off in noindex. But the webmaster is afraid that noindexing that much pages will hurt its long tail (in case of future visits), so he wants to check the SERP position of every one of them, to only eliminate those that are in the top 3 (for these there's no hope of amelioration he thinks). I think it would be wasting a lot of time and resources for nothing, and I'd advise to noindex them regardless of their position.
The problem is I lack the experience to be sure of it and how to do it : Is it wise to noindex 200 000 pages bluntly in one time (isn't it a bad signal for google ?) or should we do this progressively in like a few months ?
Thanks a lot for your help !
Johann.
-
Sorry you're stuck in that spot. I really would be worried that this "fix" would make life worse for everyone, but it's tough to come up with solutions that don't seem like band-aids. Best you may be able to do is get more aggressive about the de-indexation, focus on improving some core content, and maybe re-work the internal linking to focus more on key pages (and spread internal PR a bit less thinly).
-
Yeah, I get what you're saying and totally agree, since a radical overhaul is what I recommended from the start, but only got a no-can-do response... until now. But their "yes" is more like :
-
Ok, rebuild our website entirely, just don't touch our website.
-
Errr what ?
Anyway, so a similar domain name and brand was in fact a bad idea.
Thanks a lot for your input (and your awesome moz posts
!
Cheers,
Johann.
-
-
Given their history, two domains with overlapping content and a similar name seems like a terrible idea to me, to be blunt. If this really is a Panda issue, then you're potentially going to aggravate the situation and send out even more low quality signals.
It's hard to speculate, but I've seen a few situations where what seemed like Panda turned out to be something deeper. Directory clients have been hit hard, for example, as Google just seems to be devaluing the entire space (along with price comparison sites, many types of affiliates, etc.). I'm not talking about spammy sites, even, but the ones that provide some original value. It's just that Google doesn't see them as the end-supplier, and so they're getting discounted.
An end-run to a new domain isn't going to fix this. I strongly suspect that you've got something deeper going on that may take a radical overhaul of the main site and even the business/brand. I think it's better to accept that now than continue a gradual decline over the next couple of years.
-
Hi everyone,
Some news on this story that may (or may not) be of interest for some (even if I can't give the domain name), and a new question (I may also start another discussion for that one) :
-
The website has lost a significant amount of trafic over the passing year, even with the massive noindexing of 200 000 pages (I finally convinced him to do it, but it clearly wasn't enough). About a 40% loss gradually with some panda updates (dates coincide nicely).
-
We've worked hard on it to offer a new section of interesting content (not a blog but nearly) that presented interesting original statistics on the niche with visual presentations, and a bunch of related content, about a hundred pages total. It's like a drop in the ocean, but it gained a bit of popularity, some nice links and good branding. I think it's probably the reason why the website is still standing, it even made a few top positions on new important keywords.
-
Last but not least, we've improved the user experience and bumped up our conversion rates so the loss in trafic is partly compensated by the gains in conversion (not completely though).
It still drags nearly a million pages of thin content, and still takes a little hit with every Panda roll-out... So no recovery, but a controled descent, as it's still alive.
Now I got the green light to a complete do-over, starting a rebuild with a completely new (lighter) structure and a new design. We're pumped full of ideas of great content and user experience, so it's gonna be a fresh new start. BUT, (there's always a but), the webmaster wants to keep the old website while it's still alive and I wonder if we can take a similar domain name to capitalize on the brand popularity. Like www.brand-domain.com instead of www.branddomain.com (in case it's not clear, we'll take the same domain name with a dash in it, so the brand stays recognizable).Is it gonna look manipulative for Google to have two websites with nearly the same domain name, the exact same brand, the same service (so the same keywords targeted) ? Any other caveats ?
(I know they are going to compete with each other, but they'll have different contents, and it would be temporary : as soon as the new one reaches the first one's popularity, we'll prepare a proper redirect - could be a month, could be a year later)Thanks for any input ! I'll wait before trying to start a new discussion to avoid any clutter^^
Johann
-
-
Thanks a lot for your insight dr pete
I'll sell the large cut sooner or later by convincing him. It's either that or I use a time machine to show his future stats when Google release the next Panda tweaks ^^
Option 1 is easier after all !
-
I wish I could convince people that more DOES NOT EQUAL better when it comes to index size. You'd think Panda would've been the nail in that coffin, but too many webmasters are still operating in 2005.
-
I've never seen an issue where a large-scale META NOINDEX caused Google to get suspicious. It's possible to NOINDEX the wrong pages and lose traffic, but Google generally doesn't get jumpy about it like they would a large scale 301-redirect (where you might be PR-sculpting).
If these are really duplicates, canonical tags might be a better bet. Honestly, while I agree with Stephen 99.9%, if there's no glaring current issue, you could ease into it. Start with the worst culprits - obvious, 100% duplicates. That should be an easier sell, too. If you can't sell the larger cut, it's not going to matter.
-
Damn, even by saying pages that don't generate traffic now won't much more in the future, and by giving an educated estimation of 0.05% potential future gains by keeping them versus the boatload of progress it could mean for the website to noindex them, it couldn't convince the webmaster to cut them out of the index...
Anyway thanks for your help everyone !
-
noindex asap
thumbs up for this
its not going to suddenly appear out of nowhere
ha ha... for sure!
-
Can you change the structure of the site and perhaps see this as an opportunity...
(granted lots of work required)
Adding another level of Sub categories to separate the content further and allow better indexing ?
-
If you use robots, it will not be able to read the follow tag, what i was suggesting is dont use robots but use meta tage "no-index,follow" to allow link juice to flow even though they are not indexed.
Search engines can still follow links of pages not indexxed, but a robots tells them they are not allowed to crawl the page.
-
Thanks for your replies.
Well, I'm not asking whether I should noindex those pages, I'm pretty sure I have to.
It's just that, noindex brutally one fifth of a website in one time would seem potentially suspect for the search engines... So I wonder if I should very carefully choose which ones to noindex and which ones to keep indexed even among unvisited pages, like the webmaster suggests, or do it slowly over a long period of time.
It's a big decision, I'm appealing to your professional experience to prevent me from making a potential mistake.
@AWCthreads : For the case of an e-commerce website, your suggestion would seem reasonable, because a robots.txt won't keep the pages out of the index if there's links to them, but would reduce the quantity of duplicate content. But in my case, it would not be enough, so the noindex meta tag is my only option it seems.
@Stephen : you're right, traffic can't appear out of thin air for these pages. Even if some of those should begin to see visits, they would still add up to a negligible part I believe. But I don't have the experience to support it or the numbers to prove it.
@Alan Mosley : I'll sure add the follow tag on these pages even if they're not indexed any more, it'll still be valuable. And I guess maybe it would prevent it from appearing too suspicious for the engines, wouldn't it ?
-
First remember that all pages in the index have PageRank and you should use that link juice to your advantage
http://perthseocompany.com.au/seo/tutorials/a-simple-explanation-of-pagerank
Blocking in robots is clumsy, you will have links pointing to pages that are not in the index poring link juice to nowhere. You can add a meta “noindex, follow” tag that will allow link juice to flow in and out of the pages.If the pages are duplicates then I would remove them and fix the broken links it causes.
-
remove from sitemap, noindex asap. he has no longtail from those pages, its not going to suddenly appear out of nowhere
-
Hi Johann. Excellent question and a source of dispute for some people. I've not done it, but many people who want to no-index a large volume of pages will create a directory and put those files in the directory and then put a robots.txt on the directory.
Some people would argue why you would want to put a bunch pages (product pages on an ecommerce site) in a no-index file as they will not be seen/shared/sold etc. Well, my response to that would be to prevent juice dillution on pages of little SEO value and help keep the juice directed at the 20-30% of the products that are making you the most money.
I'm curious what others have to say about this and hope people weigh in on it.
-
Yeah they are mostly duplicates (only about 10% difference in text with variations)...
But near 80% of the pages are indexed, probably because the website has a strong authority and a lot of visits : these are useful pages for people, just not useful to read^^. That's why I'm so hesitant to noindex that much content, even if the website HAS to improve its quality content ratio if it wants to stay for the long run.
Maybe I'll start with testing your sitemap idea. Thanks for the suggestion.
-
Are the pages mostly duplicate content? Do you know how many have been indexed?
If it's a lot, then yes, noindexing them will make it look like your site has dropped a ton of content. But if it's duplicate then I'd go for it anyway as it will probably help things.
Alternatively, how about removing them from the sitemap instead? They may still get found but at least you're giving them a clue that those pages don't matter to you.
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
-
SEO for a a static content website
Hi everyone, We would like to ask suggestions on how to improve our SEO for our static content help website. With the release of each new version, our company releases a new "help" page, which is created by an authoring system. This is the latest page: http://kilgray.com/memoq/2015/help-en/ I have a couple of questions: 1- The page has an index with many links that open up new subpages with content for users. It is impossible to add title tags to this subpages, as everything is held together by the mother page. So it is really hard to for users to find these subpage information when they are doing a google search. 2- We have previous "help" pages which usually rank better in google search. They also have the same structure (1 page with big index and many subpages) and no metadata. We obviously want the last version to rank better, however, we are afraid exclude them from bots search because the new version is not easy to find. These are some of the previous pages: http://kilgray.com/memoq/2014R2/help-en/ http://kilgray.com/memoq/62/help-en/ I would really appreciate suggestions! Thanks
Technical SEO | | Kilgray0 -
Z-indexed content
I have some content on a page that I am not using any type of css hiding techniques, but I am using an image with a higher z-index in order to prevent the text from being seen until a user clicks a link to have the content scroll down. Are there any negative repercussions for doing this in regards to SEO?
Technical SEO | | cokergroup0 -
Does duplicate content not concern Rand?
Hello all, I'm a new SEOer and I'm currently trying to navigate the layman's minefield that is trying to understand duplicate content issues in as best I can. I'm working on a website at the moment where there's a duplicate content issue with blog archives/categories/tags etc. I was planning to beat this by implementing a noindex meta tag on those pages where there are duplicate content issues. Before I go ahead with this I thought: "Hey, these Moz guys seem to know what they're doing! What would Rand do?" Blogs on the website in question appear in full and in date order relating to the tag/category/what-have-you creating the duplicate content problem. Much like Rand's blog here at Moz - I thought I'd have a look at the source code to see how it was dealt with. My amateur eyes could find nothing to help answer this question: E.g. Both the following URLs appear in SERPs (using site:moz,com and very targeted keywords, but they're there): https://mza.bundledseo.com/rand/does-making-a-website-mobile-friendly-have-a-universally-positive-impact-on-mobile-traffic/ https://mza.bundledseo.com/rand/category/moz/ Both pages have a rel="canonical" pointing to themselves. I can understand why he wouldn't be fussed about the category not ranking, but the blog? Is this not having a negative effect? I'm just a little confused as there are so many conflicting "best practice" tips out there - and now after digging around in the source code on Rand's blog I'm more confused than ever! Any help much appreciated, Thanks
Technical SEO | | sbridle1 -
404 or 503 Malware Content ?
Hi Folks When it comes to malware , if I have a site that uses iframe to show content off 3rd party sites which at times gets infected. Would you recommend 404 or 503 ing those pages with the iframe till the issue is resolved ? ( I am inclined to use 503 .. ) Then take the 404/503 off and ask for a reindex ( from GWT malware section ) OR Ask for a reindex as soon as the 404/503 goes up. ( I do understand we are asking to index as non existing page , but the malware warning gets removed ) PS : it makes sense for this business to showcase content using iframe on these special pages . I do understand these are not the best way to go about SEO.
Technical SEO | | Saijo.George0 -
Affiliate urls and duplicate content
Hi, What is the best way to get around having an affiliate program, and the affiliate links on your site showing as duplicate content?
Technical SEO | | Memoz0 -
Shopify duplicate content issue
We recently moved out site to shopify but now have a duplicate content issue as we have the same products in different collections. I have added canonical code to get rid of this but my webmaster tools still shows hundreds of duplicate pages. How can I tell if the code I added is working? How long will it take for google to recognise this and drop the duplicates from their index and is this likely to have a significant impact on SERPS? Our we page is www.devoted2vintage.co.uk. Thanks Paul
Technical SEO | | devoted2vintage1 -
Google inconsistent in display of meta content vs page content?
Our e-comm site includes more than 250 brand pages - lrg image, some fluffy text, maybe a video, links to categories for that brand, etc. In many cases, Google publishes our page title and description in their search results. However, in some cases, Google instead publishes our H1 and the aforementioned fluffy page content. We want our page content to read well, be descriptive of the brand and appropriate for the audience. We want our meta titles and descriptions brief and likely to attract CTR from qualified shoppers. I'm finding this difficult to manage when Google pulls from two different areas inconsistently. So my question... Is there a way to ensure Google only utilizes our title/desc for our listings?
Technical SEO | | websurfer0 -
The Bible and Duplicate Content
We have our complete set of scriptures online, including the Bible at http://lds.org/scriptures. Users can browse to any of the volumes of scriptures. We've improved the user experience by allowing users to link to specific verses in context which will scroll to and highlight the linked verse. However, this creates a significant amount of duplicate content. For example, these links: http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/1.5 http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/1.5-10 http://lds.org/scriptures/nt/james/1 All of those will link to the same chapter in the book of James, yet the first two will highlight the verse 5 and verses 5-10 respectively. This is a good user experience because in other sections of our site and on blogs throughout the world webmasters link to specific verses so the reader can see the verse in context of the rest of the chapter. Another bible site has separate html pages for each verse individually and tends to outrank us because of this (and possibly some other reasons) for long tail chapter/verse queries. However, our tests indicated that the current version is preferred by users. We have a sitemap ready to publish which includes a URL for every chapter/verse. We hope this will improve indexing of some of the more popular verses. However, Googlebot is going to see some duplicate content as it crawls that sitemap! So the question is: is the sitemap a good idea realizing that we can't revert back to including each chapter/verse on its own unique page? We are also going to recommend that we create unique titles for each of the verses and pass a portion of the text from the verse into the meta description. Will this perhaps be enough to satisfy Googlebot that the pages are in fact unique? They certainly are from a user perspective. Thanks all for taking the time!
Technical SEO | | LDS-SEO0