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.
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
-
Does adding a noindex tag reduce duplicate content?
I've been working under the assumption for some time that if I have two (or more) pages which are very similar that I can add a noindex tag to the pages I don't need and that will reduce duplicate content. As far as I know this removes the pages with the tag from Google's index and stops any potential issues with duplicate content. It's the second part of that assumption that i'm now questioning. Despite pages having the noindex tag they continue to appear in Google Search console as duplicate content, soft 404 etc. That is, new pages are appearing regularly that I know to have the noindex tag. My thoughts on this so far are that Google can still crawl these pages (although won't index them) so shows them in GSC due to a crude issue flagging process. I mainly want to know: a) Is the actual Google algorithm sophisticated enough to ignore these pages even through GSC doesn't. b) How do I explain this to a client.
Technical SEO | | ChrisJFoster0 -
Send noindex, noarchive with 410?
My classifieds site returns a 410 along with an X-Robots-Tag HTTP header set to "noindex,noarchive" for vehicles that are no longer for sale. Google, however, apparently refuses to drop these vehicles from their index (at least as reported in GWT). By returning a "noindex,noarchive" directive, am I effectively telling the bots "yeah, this is a 410 but don't record the fact that this is a 410", thus effectively canceling out the intended effect of the 410?
Technical SEO | | tonyperez0 -
Duplicate content vs. less content
Hi, I run a site that is currently doing very well in google for the terms that we want. We are 1,2 or 3 for our 4 targeted terms, but havent been able to jump to number one in two categories that I would really like to. In looking at our site, I didn't realize we have a TON of duplicate content as seen by SEO moz and I guess google. It appears to be coming from our forum, we use drupal. RIght now we have over 4500 pages of duplicate content. Here is my question: How much is this hurting us as we are ranking high. Is it better to kill the forum (which is more community service than business) and have a very tight site SEO-wise, or leave the forum even with the duplicate content. Thanks for your help. Erik
Technical SEO | | SurfingNosara0 -
A problem with duplicate content
I'm kind of new at this. My crawl anaylsis says that I have a problem with duplicate content. I set the site up so that web sections appear in a folder with an index page as a landing page for that section. The URL would look like: www.myweb.com/section/index.php The crawl analysis says that both that URL and its root: www.myweb.com/section/ have been indexed. So I appear to have a situation where the page has been indexed twice and is a duplicate of itself. What can I do to remedy this? And, what steps should i take to get the pages re-indexed so that this type of duplication is avoided? I hope this makes sense! Any help gratefully received. Iain
Technical SEO | | iain0 -
Does this content get indexed?
A lot of content on this site is displayed in pop up pages. Eg. Visit the Title page http://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/corporate.nsf/web/Certificate+of+Title To access the sample report or fee details, the info is shown in a pop up page with a strange url. Example: http://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/corporate.nsf/web/Certificate+of+Title+-+Fee+Details I can't see any of these pages being indexed in Google or other search engines when I do a site search: http://www.landgate.wa.gov.au/corporate.nsf/web/Certificate+of+Title+-+Fee+Details Is there a way to get this content indexed besides telling the client to restructure this content?
Technical SEO | | Bigheadigital0 -
Duplicate Content and URL Capitalization
I have multiple URLs that SEOMoz is reporting as duplicate content. The reason is that there are characters in the URL that may, or may not, be capitalized depending on user input. A couple examples are: www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/Houses-for-sale www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/houses-for-sale www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/Houses-for-rent www.househitz.com/Pennsylvania/houses-for-rent There are currently thousands of instances of this on the site. Is this something I should spend effort to try and resolve (may not be minor effort), or should I just ignore it and move on?
Technical SEO | | Jom0 -
Block Quotes and Citations for duplicate content
I've been reading about the proper use for block quotes and citations lately, and wanted to see if I was interpreting it the right way. This is what I read: http://www.pitstopmedia.com/sem/blockquote-cite-q-tags-seo So basically my question is, if I wanted to reference Amazon or another stores product reviews, could I use the block quote and citation tags around their content so it doesn't look like duplicate content? I think it would be great for my visitors, but also to the source as I am giving them credit. It would also be a good source to link to on my products pages, as I am not competing with the manufacturer for sales. I could also do this for product information right from the manufacturer. I want to do this for a contact lens site. I'd like to use Acuvue's reviews from their website, as well as some of their product descriptions. Of course I have my own user reviews and content for each product on my website, but I think some official copy could do well. Would this be the best method? Is this how Rottentomatoes.com does it? On every movie page they have 2-3 sentences from 50 or so reviews, and not much unique content of their own. Cheers, Vinnie
Technical SEO | | vforvinnie1 -
Forget Duplicate Content, What to do With Very Similar Content?
All, I operate a Wordpress blog site that focuses on one specific area of the law. Our contributors are attorneys from across the country who write about our niche topic. I've done away with syndicated posts, but we still have numerous articles addressing many of the same issues/topics. In some cases 15 posts might address the same issue. The content isn't duplicate but it is very similar, outlining the same rules of law etc. I've had an SEO I trust tell me I should 301 some of the similar posts to one authoritative post on the subject. Is this a good idea? Would I be better served implementing canonical tags pointing to the "best of breed" on each subject? Or would I be better off being grateful that I receive original content on my niche topic and not doing anything? Would really appreciate some feedback. John
Technical SEO | | JSOC0