Does adding lots of new content on a site at one time actually hurt you?
-
When speaking with a client today, he made the comment that he didn't want all of the new content we'd been working to be added to the site all at once for fear that he would get penalized for flooding the site with new content. I don't have any strong data to confirm or refute the claim, is there any truth to it?
-
I agree with all colleagues above, I cant see how your web site will be penalised due to lots of pages uploaded at the same time.
However Adding Too Many Pages Too Quickly May Flag A Site To Be Reviewed Manually. This means thought that you will add hundreds of thousand of link a night. Here is the related via by Matt Cutts:
Hope you find this useful!
-
It is a real estate site and the content is a directory of the various condos available in their community. The pages are all unique and have real valuable content, so I don't think there will be any issues with content quality.
There is new content and blogging that occurs regularly on the site. I think that the client's concern comes from some old concepts that if we're only adding content infrequently, but in mass, that it may be seen as spammy.
-
I agree with Jesse. Earlier this year we added a new data-driven section to our website that included (believe it or not) 83,000 pages, all unique in content since the information is highly technical in nature. No associated penalties have resulted from this.
-
I agree with Jesse for the most part. I think the key is: what kind of content we are talking about? Adding tons of low-value, thin content pages to a site all at once (or even gradually) is probably going to diminish the authority of existing content. I do think that adding thousands of pages that have no page authority to a site that contains pages with a decent amount of authority could, theoretically, dilute the authority of the existing pages depending on site architecture, internal linking and the ratio of existing pages versus new pages. However, I would expect this to be only temporary, and if the new content is great quality, should be nothing to worry about long term.
-
Thanks Jesse, that was my thought exactly. If anything, I see incrementally adding the content as a negative thing, since it will lead to a less than complete user experience.
-
No truth to that whatsoever. That's weird paranoia.
If there was some sort of problem WITH the content, maybe. But there would be no penalty for all new content added.
I've done total site overhauls plenty of times and they get indexed quick with no penalties.. (although I will say the speed of this seems to be in flux, but I digress.)
Don't let the client worry about this. Think about any website that initially launches: why would Google penalize that?
Hope this helps. Paranoia is often the toughest challenge when it comes to dealing with clients/site owners.
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
-
Is good for SEO update blog post dates after update post content
Hello I am updating some posts of my Blog, adding new and fresh content and rewriting some of the existing. After doing that I am thinking to update de post publishing so that I appears on front page of the blog and user can read ir again. But I don't know if it is good for google to change the publishing date of the post that he had indexed 5 years ago. Also I don't know if google will read it again if it is old and see the new changes in order to improve it in search results
Algorithm Updates | | maestrosonrisas0 -
Google stopped showing time frame for the cached results of the websites; Why? Any alternatives?
Hi Moz community If we Google "site:website.com"; it'll list the cached pages from the website. And we used to check them on required date range like how and which pages got indexed. But date range is not working now and the results are missing the pages which got indexed at the selected date range. Any idea why Google does this? Any alternatives to find the recently indexed pages? Thanks
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Can we ignore "broken links" without redirecting to "new pages"?
Let's say we have reaplced www.website.com/page1 with www.website.com/page2. Do we need to redirect page1 to page2 even page1 doesn't have any back-links? If it's not a replacement, can we ignore a "lost page"? Many websites loose hundreds of pages periodically. What's Google's stand on this. If a website has replaced or lost hundreds of links without reclaiming old links by redirection, will that hurts?
Algorithm Updates | | vtmoz0 -
Any benefit to splitting up links from one company to diff pages?
We are the presenting sponsor for this big event in our area (Chasco Fiesta). As part of being their sponsor, their website has linked to us in five different places on their site. But it's all to our homepage. Would there be any benefit to having them link to other pages on our site instead of just our homepage (assuming the other pages are a reasonable expectation for the user, of course)? Thanks, Ruben
Algorithm Updates | | KempRugeLawGroup0 -
Ranking under a non-geobased, one word phrase
We have a local client who would like to score under the words "locksmith" and "locksmiths". What is the best way to get him to rank organically and not just in Google Plus Local for those keywords?
Algorithm Updates | | GregWalt0 -
One SERP Result, Two Different Link Destinations?
Because my vocabulary isn't up to par, it may be easier for you to skip ahead to the image I've attached. One of my web pages shows up in the Google SERP like this. It has the blue "title" link that goes to one page (URL A), and under that, there is a green "breadcrumb" link that goes to a different page (URL B). Any idea why this is happening and how it can be fixed? Thanks in advance, Benjamin FjhUX.jpg
Algorithm Updates | | 1000Bulbs0 -
How to retain those rankings gained from fresh content...
Something tells me I know the answer to this question already but I'd always appreciate the advice of fellow professionals. So.....fresh content is big now in Google, and i've seen some great examples of this. When launching a new product or unleashing (yes unleashing) a new blog post I see our content launches itself into the rankings for some fairly competitive terms. However after 1-2 weeks these newly claimed rankings begin to fade from the lime light. So the question is, what do I need to do to retain these rankings? We're active on social media tweeting, liking, sharing and +1ing our content as well as working to create exciting and relevant content via external sources. So far all this seems to have do is slow the fall from grace. Perhaps this is natural. But i'd love to hear your thoughts, even if it is just keep up the hard work.
Algorithm Updates | | RobertChapman1 -
Google said that low-quality pages on your site may affect rankings on other parts
One of my sites got hit pretty hard during the latest Google update. It lost about 30-40% of its US traffic and the future does not look bright considering that Google plans a worldwide roll-out. Problem is, my site is a six year old heavy linked, popular Wordpress blog. I do not know why the article believes that it is low quality. The only reason I came up with is the statement that low-quality pages on a site may affect other pages (think it was in the Wired article). If that is so, would you recommend blocking and de-indexing of Wordpress tag, archive and category pages from the Google index? Or would you suggest to wait a bit more before doing something that drastically. Or do you have another idea what I could to do? I invite you to take a look at the site www.ghacks.net
Algorithm Updates | | badabing0