Increase in pages crawled per day
-
What does it mean when GWT abruptly jump from 15k to 30k pages crawled per day?
I am used to see spikes, like 10k average and a couple of time per month 50k pages crawled.
But in this case 10 days ago moved from 15k to 30k per day and it's staying there. I know it's a good sign, the crawler is crawling more pages per day, so it's picking up changes more often, but I have no idea of why is doing it, what good signals usually drive google crawler to choose to increase the number of pages crawled per day?
Anyone knows?
-
Nice find Ryan.
-
Agreed. Especially since Google's own Gary Illyes respond to the following with:
How long is the delay between making it mobile friendly and it being reflected in the search results?
Illyes says “As soon as we discover it is mobile friendly, on a URL by URL basis, it will be updated.
Sounds like when you went responsive they double checked each URL to confirm. From: http://www.thesempost.com/googles-gary-illyes-qa-upcoming-mobile-ranking-signal-change/. Cheers!
-
I usually analyze backlinks with both gwt and ahrefs, and ahrefs also doesn't show any abnormally high DA backlink either.
Agree the responsive change is the most probable candidate, I have a couple of other websites I want to turn responsive before April 21st, that's an opportunity to test and see if that is the reason.
-
Ah, the responsive change could be a big part of it. You're probably getting crawls from the mobile crawler. GWT wouldn't be the best source for the recency on backlinks. I'd actually look for spikes via referrers in Analytics. GWT isn't always that responsive when reporting links. Still, it looks like the responsive redesign is a likely candidate for this, especially with Google's looming April 21st deadline.
-
Tw things I forgot to mention are:
- something like 2 weeks ago we turned the website responsive, could it be google mobile crawler is increasing the number of crawled pages, I have to analyze the logs to see if the requests are coming from google mobile crawler
- the total number of indexed pages didn't change, which make me wonder if a rise in the number of crawled pages per day is all that relevant
-
Hi Ryan,
- GWT (Search Traffic->Search Queries) shows a drop of 6% in impressions for brand based searches (google trends shows a similar pattern).
- GWT is not showing any recent backlink with an abnormally high DA.
- we actually had a couple of unusually high traffic from Facebook thanks to a couple of particularly successful post, but we are talking about a couple of spikes of just 5k visits and they both started after the rise of pages crawled per day.
If you have any other idea it's more than welcome, I wish I could understand the source of that change to be able to replicate it on other websites.
-
I am not sure I understand what you mean, that website has a total of 35k pages submitted through sitemap to GWT, of which only 8k are indexed. The total number of pages indexed have always been slowly increasing through time, it moved from 6k to 8k in the last couple of months, slowly with no spikes.
That's not the total number of pages served by the site, since dynamics search results page amount to around 150k total pages, we do not submit all of them in the sitemap on purpose, and GWT shows 70k pages as the total number of indexed pages.
I analyzed Google crawler activity through server logs in the past, it does pick a set of (apparently) random pages every night and does crawl them. I actually never analyzed what percentage of those pages are in the sitemap or not.
Internal link structure was built on purpose to try to favor ranking of pages we considered more important.
The point is we didn't change anything in the website structure recently. User generated content have been lowering duplicate pages count, slowly, through time, without any recent spike. We have a PR campaign which is increasing backlinks with an average rate of around 3 links per week, and we didn't have any high DA backlinks appearing in the last few weeks.
So I am wondering what made google crawler start crawling much more pages per day.
-
yes, I updated to parameters just before you posted
-
When you say URL variables do you mean query string variables like ?key=value
That is really good advice. You can check in your GWT. If you let google crawl and it runs in to a loop it will not index that section of your site. It would be costly for them.
-
I would also check you have not got a spike of URL parameters becoming available. I recently had a similar issue and although I had these set up in GWT the crawler was actively wasting its time on them. Once I added to robots the crawl level went back to 'normal'.
-
There could be several factors... maybe your brand based search is prompting Google to capture more of your site. Maybe you got a link from a very high authority site that prompts higher crawl volumes. Queries that prompt freshness related to your site could also spur on Google. It is a lot of guesswork, but can be whittled down some by a close look at Analytics and perhaps tomorrows OSE update (Fresh Web Explorer might provide some clue's in the meantime.) At least you're moving in the right direction. Cheers!
-
There are two variables in play and you are picking up on one.
If there are 1,000 pages on your website then Google may index all 1,000 if they are aware of all the pages. As you indicated, it is also Google's decision how many of your pages to index.
The second factor which is most likely the case in your situation is that Google only has two ways to index your pages. One is to submit a sitemap in GWT to all of your known pages. So Google would then have a choice to index all 1,000 as it would then be aware of their existence. However, it sounds like your website is relying on links. If you have 1,000 pages and a home page with one link leading to an about us page then Google is only aware of two pages on your entire website. Your website has to have a internal link structure that Google can crawl.
Imagine your website like a tree root structure. For Google to get to every page and index it then it has to have clear, defined, and easy access. Websites with a home page that links to a page A that then links to page B that then links to page C that then links to page D that then links to 500 pages can easily lose 500 pages if there is an obstruction between any of the pages that lead to page D. Because google can't crawl to page D to see all the pages on it.
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
-
A crawl revealed two home pages
After doing a site crawl using the moz tool, I have found two home pages-www.domain.com/ and www.domain.com. Both URLS have the exact same metrics and I have set a preferred domain name in google, will this hurt seo? Should I claim the www.domain.com/ as well as www.domain.com and domain.com in the search console? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Tom3_150 -
"One Page With Two Links To Same Page; We Counted The First Link" Is this true?
I read this to day http://searchengineland.com/googles-matt-cutts-one-page-two-links-page-counted-first-link-192718 I thought to myself, yep, thats what I been reading in Moz for years ( pitty Matt could not confirm that still the case for 2014) But reading though the comments Michael Martinez of http://www.seo-theory.com/ pointed out that Mat says "...the last time I checked, was 2009, and back then -- uh, we might, for example, only have selected one of the links from a given page."
Technical SEO | | PaddyDisplays
Which would imply that is does not not mean it always the first link. Michael goes on to say "Back in 2008 when Rand WRONGLY claimed that Google was only counting the first link (I shared results of a test where it passed anchor text from TWO links on the same page)" then goes on to say " In practice the search engine sometimes skipped over links and took anchor text from a second or third link down the page." For me this is significant. I know people that have had "SEO experts" recommend that they should have a blog attached to there e-commence site and post blog posts (with no real interest for readers) with anchor text links to you landing pages. I thought that posting blog post just for anchor text link was a waste of time if you are already linking to the landing page with in a main navigation as google would see that link first. But if Michael is correct then these type of blog posts anchor text link blog posts would have value But who is' right Rand or Michael?0 -
Crawl Diagnostics and Duplicate Page Title
SOMOZ crawl our web site and say we have no duplicate page title but Google Webmaster Tool says we have 641 duplicate page titles, Which one is right?
Technical SEO | | iskq0 -
Pageing page and seo meta tag questions
Hi if i am using paging in my website there is lots of product in my website now in paging total paging is 1000 pages now what title tag i need to add for every paging page or is there any good way we can tell search engine all page or same ?
Technical SEO | | constructionhelpline0 -
Can you 301 redirect a page to an already existing/old page ?
If you delete a page (say a sub department/category page on an ecommerce store) should you 301 redirect its url to the nearest equivalent page still on the site or just delete and forget about it ? Generally should you try and 301 redirect any old pages your deleting if you can find suitable page with similar content to redirect to. Wont G consider it weird if you say a page has moved permenantly to such and such an address if that page/address existed before ? I presume its fine since say in the scenario of consolidating departments on your store you want to redirect the department page your going to delete to the existing pages/department you are consolidating old departments products into ?
Technical SEO | | Dan-Lawrence0 -
Redirecting over-optimised pages
Hi One of my clients websites was affected by Penguin and due to no 'bad link' messages, and nothing really obvious from the backlink profile, I put it down to over-optimisation on the site. I noticed a lot of spammy pages and duplicate content, and submitted recommendations to have these fixed. They dragged their heels for a while and eventually put in plans for a new site (which was happening anyway), but its taken quite a while and is only just going live in a couple of weeks. My question is, should I redirect the URLs of the previously over-optimised pages? Obviously the new pages are nice and clean and from what I can tell there are no bad links pointing to the URLs, so is this an acceptable practice? Will Google notice this and remove the penalty? Thanks
Technical SEO | | Coolpink0 -
Removing pages from website
Hello all, I am fairly new to the SEOmoz community. But i am working for a company which organizes exhibitons, events and training in Holland. A lot of these events are only given ones ore twice and then we do not organise them any more because they are no longer relevant. Every event has its own few webpages which provide information about the event and are being indexed by Google. In the past we did not remove any of these events. I was looking in the CMS and saw a lot of events of 2008 and older which are being indexed. To clean the website and the CMS i am thinking of removing these pages of old events. The risk is that these pages have some links to them and are getting some traffic, so if i remove them there is a risk of losing traffic and rankings. What would be the wise thing to do? Make a folder with archive or something? Regards, Ruud
Technical SEO | | RuudHeijnen0 -
Ranking above PLACE PAGES
What does it take for results to show up above Place Page results. It seems like Google Local gets a lot of emphasis . Any thoughts?
Technical SEO | | musillawfirm0