Crawl Diagnostics Error Spike
-
With the last crawl update to one of my sites there was a huge spike in errors reported. The errors jumped by 16,659 -- majority of which are under the duplicate title and duplicate content category.
When I look at the specific issues it seems that the crawler is crawling a ton of blank pages on the sites blog through pagination.
The odd thing is that the site has not been updated in a while and prior to this crawl on Jun 4th there were no reports of these blank pages.
Is this something that can be an error on the crawler side of things?
Any suggestions on next steps would be greatly appreciated. I'm adding an image of the error spike
-
This would be another issue. I would need to look at the code to give you more insight. But off the bat I assume that this is an issue regarding mislabeling the rel=next and rel=prev. They can be kind of tricky to work with on a broad based update due to the fact that they are intended to refer to specific pages. If you do not have the end page labeled Google says :
"When implemented incorrectly, such as omitting an expected rel="prev" or rel="next" designation in the series, we'll continue to index the page(s), and rely on our own heuristics to understand your content."
I would look into this first. If the answer is still elusive to you the next option would probably be finding a different set of eyes on the code to see if there are any minor oversights that you may have overlooked.
-
One last thing;
It seems that I have a game plan for addressing this issue, but as I think about this one thing has me concerned in the way Roger crawled the site.
The site has maybe a total of 100 articles, which would account for ?Page=10, but what I'm seeing is errors on ?Page=104. When you look at that page its a blank. Where is Roger coming up with that parameter?
Do you think this is a Roger issue or something else?
-
Makes sense
-
Unless you have some super secret page that is buried somewhere deep down in your site that you can ONLY get to from those pages, it wouldn't make sense to have them follow the links. All that will happen is they land on the next page, scrape it to the noindex tag and move on. They won't index and this just waste your sites bandwidth and slows everything else down. If it's a noindex it should usually be a nofollow unless you are looking to track conversions or some other specific only navigable through those pages.
-
Hey Jake;
Whats your option of using "nofollow" vs "follow" on the pages i'm blocking from indexing? Is there a reason to prevent them from following the links on these pages?
-
Cool glad we could help!
if you want to clean up your code and are posting site wide for them I would recommend the none tag
Accounts for both
noindex, nofollow
-
Thank you again for the input, the goal here is not provide accurate reporting and ensure that the site conforms to the search engines requirements.
Currently the "?page=" parameter is not blocked through . it sounds like this maybe the issue.
I will update the code to address that and see what kind of results we get with the next update. I think this is best addressed at the code level, rather then the robots.txt.
Thanks
-
Rodger crawls like the Google bot and takes his hints from the robot.txt file. So whatever Rodger is seeing is usually what the other spiders are seeing as well. From time to time I have encountered slight glitches to the SEOmoz crawler as they change and update their algorithm.
When it comes down to it, Google examines a link profile through a microscope akin to the Large Hadron Collider. where as we have to examine it through a magnifying glass from 1935.
The wonderful people here at SEOmoz are always trying to give us a better view, but it is still imperfect. I would say if all else fails and this report continues to show errors in moz then get your reports for your clients directly from webmaster tools.
-
** How do I tell Roger no to crawl these blank pages?**
Any easy solution is to block roger in robots.txt
User-agent: rogerbot
Disallow: [enter pages you do not wish to be crawled]
But a better solution would be to fix the root problem. If your only goal is to provide clean reporting to your client the above will work. If your goal is to ensure your site is crawled correctly by Google/Bing, then Jake's suggestion will work. You can help Google and Bing understand your site by telling them how to handle parameters.
I would prefer to fix the root issue though. Do the pages which are being reported as duplicate content have the "noindex" tag on them? If so, you can report the issue to the moz help desk (help@seomoz.org) so they can investigate the problem.
-
Hey Jake;
Thanks for your feedback, i did make some changes to the code (posted in the reply to Jamie). I'll take a closer look at the webmaster tools to make sure things are OK on that end.
FYI: The "rel=prev / rel=next tags" are implemented
I added code to manage
to pages that are accessed through
- /Blog/?tag=
- /Blog/category/
- /Blog/archive.aspx
As a secondary concern, with Roger now reporting all these issues in SEOMoz, I provide these reports to my clients and thus having 16k errors is not a good PR thing. How do I tell Roger no to crawl these blank pages?
-
It looks like Rodger found his way into your variable URLs!
This could definitely cause a problem if the engine crawlers are seeing this path as well. Have you made any changes to the code on your site or the URL structure lately?
Regardless, you might want to examine in your Webmaster Tools for both Google and Bing.
For Google you will want to check the blocked URL's under the Health menu. This will give you the information on what pages are and are not blocked. If you notice that the Head Match term you are looking to exclude is not listed make sure that you upload the term to the robots.txt file on your site. Other fixes for this include canonicalisation tagging or the implementation of the rel=prev / rel=next tags. There are a few other ways that are more complicated and I recommend avoiding unless absolutely necessary.
But good news everyone! Google has a few ways to go about fixing the indexation.
Bing is a little Different but just as easy. In the Bing Webmaster Tools under the Index tab, there is a tool called URL Nor<a class="cpad Subject message-low-priority-icon marginleft5 bold">malization</a> you can tell the crawlers to exclude a portion of the query string without changing anything on your database. It also automatically finds and suggests <a class="cpad Subject message-low-priority-icon marginleft5 bold">query parameters for normalization as well. This is a recent change for Bing and could account for the sudden jump in warnings.</a>
I hope this helps and you keep being awesome!
-
Hey Jamie;
In an effort to block crawling of pages on the blog that are essentially duplicating content I added coded (on (4/16) to insert :
to pages that are accessed through
/Blog/?tag=
/Blog/category/
/Blog/archive.aspx
I did not do this for
/Blog/?page=
There were no changes to the robots.txt
There were no updates to canonical tag
There were no updates to pagination
Thanks for your prompt reply
-
Can you share what changes have been made to the site? A few ways this can happen are:
-
a change to the robots.txt file
-
a change to your site's template either removing a canonical tag, a noindex tag, or altering your pagination in any way such as modifying paginated titles
-
resolving an onsite issue which prevented crawling of these pages
-
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
-
404 Crawl Diagnostics with void(0) appended to URL
Hello I am getting loads of 404 reported in my Crawl report, all appended with void(0) at the end. For example: http://lfs.org.uk/films-and-filmmakers/watch-our-films/1289/void(0)
Moz Pro | | moshen
The site is running on Drupal 7, Has anyone come across this before? Kind Regards Moshe | http://lfs.org.uk/films-and-filmmakers/watch-our-films/1289/void(0) |0 -
If links have been disavowed, do they still show in crawl reports?
I have a new client who says they have disavowed all their bad links, but I still see a bunch of spammy backlinks in my external links report. I understand that disavow does not mean links are actually removed so will they continue to show in Google Webmaster Tools and in my Moz reports? If so, how do I know which ones have been disavowed and which have not? Regards, Dino
Moz Pro | | Dino640 -
Lag time between MOZ crawl and report notification?
I did a lot of work to one of my sites last week and eagerly awaited this week's MOZ report to confirm that I had achieved what I was trying to do, but alas I still see the same errors and warnings in the latest report. This was supposedly generated five days AFTER I made the changes, so why are they not apparent in the new report? I am mainly referring to missing metadata, long page titles, duplicate content and duplicate title errors (due to crawl and URL issues). Why would the new crawl not have picked up that these have been corrected? Does it rely on some other crawl having updated (e.g. Google or Bing)?
Moz Pro | | Gavin.Atkinson0 -
Can we add sites to the crawl queue for OSE?
Is it possible to request that Open Site Explorer crawls a new URL on its next run? This tool is the first place I go to when working on a new site, and when there is "No Data Available" this is a little frustrating. I fully appreciate that this lack of data is usually a signal that the website is either very new or of low quality, however that if often the reason that I am brought in and would very much like to benchmark and provide initial analysis using this tool. It would make sense that OSE crawls the sites that Moz members are working on wouldnt it? Scott.
Moz Pro | | eseyo0 -
Duplicate pages with canonical links still show as errors
On our CMS, there are duplicate pages such as /news, /news/, /news?page=1, /news/?page=1. From an SEO perspective, I'm not too worried, because I guess Google is pretty capable of sorting this out, but to be on the safe side, I've added canonical links. /news itself has no link, but all the other variants have links to "/news". (And if you go wild and add a bunch of random meaningless parameters, creating /news/?page=1&jim=jam&foo=bar&this=that, we will laugh at you and generate a canonical link back to "/news". We're clever like that.) So far so good. And everything appears to work fine. But SEOMoz is still flagging up errors about duplicate titles and duplicate content. If you click in, you'll see a "Note" on each error, showing that SEOMoz has found the canonical link. So SEOMoz knows the duplication isn't a problem, as we're using canonical links exactly the way they're supposed to be used, and yet is still flagging it as an error. Is this something I should be concerned about, or is it just a bug in SEOMoz?
Moz Pro | | LockyDotser0 -
Errors on my Crawl Diagnostics
I have 51 errors on my Crawl Diagnostics tool.46 are 4xx Client Error.Those 4xx errors are links to products (or categories) that we are not selling them any more so there are inactive on the website but Google still have the links. How can I tell Google not to index them?. Can those errors (and warnings) could be harming my rankings (they went down from position 1 to 4 for the most important keywords) thanks,
Moz Pro | | cardif0 -
SEOMoz only crawling 5 pages of my website
Hello, I've added a new website to my SEOmoz campaign tool. It only crawls 5 pages of the site. I know the site has way more pages then this and also has a blog. Google shows at least 1000 results indexed. Am I doing something wrong? Could it be that the site is preventing a proper crawl? Thanks Bill
Moz Pro | | wparlaman0