Could large number of "not selected" pages cause a penalty?
-
My site was penalized for specific pages in the UK On July 28 (corresponding with a Panda update).
I cleaned up my website and wrote to Google and they responded that "no manual spam actions had been taken".
The only other thing I can think of is that we suffered an automatic penalty.
I am having problems with my sitemap and it is indexing many error pages, empty pages, etc... According to our index status we have 2,679,794 not selected pages and 36,168 total indexed.
Could this have been what caused the error?
(If you have any articles to back up your answers that would be greatly appreciate)
Thanks!
-
Canonical tag to what? Themselves? Or the page they should be? Are these pages unique by some URL variables only? If so, you can instruct Google to ignore specific get variables to resolve this issue but you would also want to fix your sitemap woes: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1235687
This is where it gets sticky, these pages are certainly not helping and not being indexed, Google Webmaster tools shows us that, but if you have this problem, how many other technical problems could the site have?
We can be almost certain you have some kind of panda filter but to diagnose it further we would need a link and access to analytics to determine what has gone wrong and provide more detailed guidance to resolve the issues.
This could be a red herring and your problem could be elsewhere but with no examples we can only give very general responses. If this was my site I would certainly look to identify the most likely issues and work through this in a pragmatic way to eliminate possible issues and look at other potentials.
My advice would be to have the site analysed by someone with distinct experience with Panda penalties who can give you specific feedback on the problems and provide guidance to resolve them.
If the URL is sensitive and can't be shared here, I can offer this service and am in the UK. I am sure can several other users at SEOMoz can also help. I know Marie Haynes offers this service as I am sure Ryan Kent could help also.
Shout if you have any questions or can provide more details (or a url).
-
Hi,
Thanks for the detailed answer.
We have many duplicate pages, but they all have canonical tags on them... shouldn't that be solving the problem. Would pages with the canonical tag be showing up here?
-
Yes, this can definitely cause problems. In fact this is a common footprint in sites hit by the panda updates.
It sound like you have some sort of canonical issue on the site: Multiple copies of each page are being crawled. Google is finding lots of copies of the same thing, crawling them but deciding that they are not sufficiently unique/useful to keep in the index. I've been working on a number of sites hit with the same issue and clean up can be a real pain.
The best starting point for reading is probably this article here on SEOmoz : http://www.seomoz.org/learn-seo/duplicate-content . That article includes some useful links on how to diagnose and solve the issues as well, so be sure to check out all the linked resources.
-
Hey Sarah
There are always a lot of moving parts when it comes to penalties but the very fact that you lost traffic on a known panda date really points towards this being a Panda style of penalty. Panda, is an algorithmic penalty so you will not receive any kind of notification in Webmaster Tools and likewise, a re-inclusion request will not help, you have to fix the problem to resolve the issues.
The not selected pages are likely a big part of your problem. Google classes not selected pages as follows:
"Not selected: Pages that are not indexed because they are substantially similar to other pages, or that have been redirected to another URL. More information."
If you have the best part of 3 million of these pages that are 'substantially similar' to other pages then there is every change that this is a very big part of your problem.
Obviously, there are a lot of moving parts to this. This sounds highly likely this is part of your problem and just think how this looks to Google. 2.6 million pages that are duplicated. It is a low quality signal, a possible attempt at manipulation or god knows what else but what we do know, is that is unlikely to be a strong result for any search users so those pages have been dropped.
What to do?
Well, firstly, fix your site map and sort out these duplication problems. It's hard to give specifics without a link to the site in question but just sort this out. Apply the noindex tag dynamically if needs be, remove these duplicates from the sitemap, heck, remove the sitemap alltogether for a while if needs be till it is fixed. Just sort out these issues one way or another.
Happy to give more help here if I can but would need a link or some such to advise better.
Resources
You asked for some links but I am not completely sure what to provide here without a link but let me have a shot and provide some general points:
1. Good General Panda Overview from Dr. Pete
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/fat-pandas-and-thin-content
2. An overview of canonicalisation form Google
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=139066
3. A way to diagnose and hopefully recover from Panda from John Doherty at distilled.
http://www.distilled.net/blog/seo/beating-the-panda-diagnosing-and-rescuing-a-clients-traffic/
4. Index Status Overview from Google
http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=2642366
Summary
You have a serious problem here but hopefully one that can be resolved. Panda is a primarily focused at on page issues and this is an absolute doozy of an on page issue so sort it out and you should see a recovery. Keep in mind you have 75 times more problem pages than actual content pages at the moment in your site map so this may be the biggest case I have ever seen so I would be very keen to see how you get on and what happens when you resolve these issues as I am sure would the wider SEOMoz community.
Hope this helps & please fire over any questions.
Marcus
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
-
Would You Redirect a Page if the Parent Page was Redirected?
Hi everyone! Let's use this as an example URL: https://www.example.com/marvel/avengers/hulk/ We have done a 301 redirect for the "Avengers" page to another page on the site. Sibling pages of the "Hulk" page live off "marvel" now (ex: /marvel/thor/ and /marvel/iron-man/). Is there any benefit in doing a 301 for the "Hulk" page to live at /marvel/hulk/ like it's sibling pages? Is there any harm long-term in leaving the "Hulk" page under a permanently redirected page? Thank you! Matt
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | amag0 -
URL structure - Page Path vs No Page Path
We are currently re building our URL structure for eccomerce websites. We have seen a lot of site removing the page path on product pages e.g. https://www.theiconic.co.nz/liberty-beach-blossom-shirt-680193.html versus what would normally be https://www.theiconic.co.nz/womens-clothing-tops/liberty-beach-blossom-shirt-680193.html Should we be removing the site page path for a product page to keep the url shorter or should we keep it? I can see that we would loose the hierarchy juice to a product page but not sure what is the right thing to do.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Ashcastle0 -
Removing massive number of no index follow page that are not crawled
Hi, We have stackable filters on some of our pages (ie: ?filter1=a&filter2=b&etc.). Those stacked filters pages are "noindex, follow". They were created in order to facilitate the indexation of the item listed in them. After analysing the logs we know that the search engines do not crawl those stacked filter pages. Does blocking those pages (by loading their link in AJAX for example) would help our crawl rate or not? In order words does removing links that are already not crawled help the crawl rate of the rest of our pages? My assumption here is that SE see those links but discard them because those pages are too deep in our architecture and by removing them we would help SE focus on the rest of our page. We don't want to waste our efforts removing those links if there will be no impact. Thanks
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | Digitics0 -
Question spam malware causing many indexed pages
Hey Mozzers, I was speaking with a friend today about a site that he has been working on that was infected when he began working on it. Here (https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site:themeliorist.ca) you can see that the site has 4400 indexed pages, but if you scroll down you will see some pages such as /pfizer-viagra-samples/ or /dapoxetine-kentucky/. All of these pages are returning 404 errors, and I ran it through SEO spider just to see if any of these pages would show up, and they don't. This is not an issue for a client, but I am just curious why these pages are still hanging around in the index. Maybe others have experience this issue too. Cheers,
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | evan890 -
De-indexing product "quick view" pages
Hi there, The e-commerce website I am working on seems to index all of the "quick view" pages (which normally occur as iframes on the category page) as their own unique pages, creating thousands of duplicate pages / overly-dynamic URLs. Each indexed "quick view" page has the following URL structure: www.mydomain.com/catalog/includes/inc_productquickview.jsp?prodId=89514&catgId=cat140142&KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=475&width=700 where the only thing that changes is the product ID and category number. Would using "disallow" in Robots.txt be the best way to de-indexing all of these URLs? If so, could someone help me identify how to best structure this disallow statement? Would it be: Disallow: /catalog/includes/inc_productquickview.jsp?prodID=* Thanks for your help.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FPD_NYC0 -
How much does "overall site semantic theme" influence rankings?
OK. I've optimized sites before that are dedicated to 1, 2 or 3 products and or services. These sites inherently talk about one main thing - so the semantics of the content across the whole site reflect this. I get these ranked well on a local level. Now, take an e-commerce site - which I am working on - 2000 products, all of which are quite varied - cookware, diningware, art, decor, outdoor, appliances... there is a lot of different semantics throughout the site's different pages. Does this influence the ranking possibilities? Your opinion and time is appreciated. Thanks in advance.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | bjs20100 -
Any advice on acquiring "jump to" via anchor link text?
Google says these types of references are generated algorithmically and that users should include a table of contents & descriptive anchor link text. Is there anything else we should take into consideration? Also, does anyone know how this works with pagination? Due to the design of our site, we can't make one really long article, but would need to divide it up into several 'pages'--even though it would all live on one URL (we'd use the # for pagination). Thank you in advance for your feedback.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | nicole.healthline1