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
-
Value in adding rel=next prev when page 2-n are "noindex, follow"?
Category A spans over 20 pages (not possible to create a "view all" because page would get too long). So I have page 1 - 20. Page 1 has unique content whereas page 2-20 of the series does not. I have "noindex, follow" on page 2-20. I also have rel=next prev on the series. Question: Since page 2-20 is "noindex, follow" doesn't that defeat the purpose of rel=next prev? Don't I run the risk of Google thinking "hmmm….this is odd. This website has noindexed page 2-20, yet using rel=next prev." Even though I do not run the risk, what is my upset in keeping rel=next prev when, again, the pages 2-20 are noindex, follow. thank you
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | khi50 -
Given the new image mismatch penalty, is watermarking considered "cloaking"?
Google has released a new penalty called "Image mismatch". Which actually penalizes sites that show images to Google than are not the same as the ones offered to users when accessing the site. Although I agree with those sites that the image is completely different that the one shown in image search, lately I've seen lots of big sites using some king of watermark or layer that reads something like "To see the high quality of this image, click here" in order to "force" the user to visit the site hosting the image. Considering the latest changes to Google's image search, which made lots of sites lose their "image search traffic", are these techniques considered part of the new penalty Google is applying? Or does it only apply to the first scenario when the image is completely different? You can read more on this new penalty here.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | FedeEinhorn0 -
Show wordpress "archive links" on blog?
I here conflicting reports on whether to show wordpress archive links on the blog or not. Some say it is important for viewers to see, others say it is not and creates way too many links. I think both have good points but for SEO purposes, I lean towards removing them. What do Moz users think?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seomozinator0 -
What is the proper syntax for rel="canonical" ??
I believe the proper syntax is like this [taken from the SEOMoz homepage]: However, one of the sites I am working on has all of their canonical tags set up like this: I should clarify, not all of their canonicals are identical to this one, they simply use this naming convention, which appears to be relative URLs instead of absolute. Doesn't the entire URL need to be in the tag? If that is correct, can you also provide me with an explanation that I can give to management please? They hate it when I say "Because I said so!" LOL
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | danatanseo0 -
How would you handle 12,000 "tag" pages on Wordpress site?
We have a Wordpress site where /tag/ pages were not set to "noindex" and they are driving 25% of site's traffic (roughly 100,000 visits year to date). We can't simply "noindex" them all now, or we'll lose a massive amount of traffic. We can't possibly write unique descriptions for all of them. We can't just do nothing or a Panda update will come by and ding us for duplicate content one day (surprised it hasn't already). What would you do?
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | M_D_Golden_Peak1 -
Facebook "lockout"
I'm not sure what the correct term is, but I've visited websites that require me to like page 1 of an article, to view page 2. Little annoying but fair enough, they wrote the content, I clearly find it of value as I want page 2. I run a download website, with user generated content. We used to only allow downloads to members, this resulted in 5,000+ new signups per day and a massive userbase. We now allow guests to download content, the majority are freeloaders, not even a thank you to the artist. I am about to employ a system for guests, that forces them to like, tweet or G+ the download, for it to begin. If they don't, no download. Are there any SEO considerations here? The page this will be implemented on, isn't a crawlable page. Cheers.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | seo-wanna-bs0 -
"site" operator and pages
Hi folks, We are having trouble in indexing, We have certain pages which are not coming in results when I am using the site operator in Google. for e.g. : sitename.com/widgets/red They are not showing any link results in Google webmaster tools too. But the pages which only linked through them are displaying in results when I am using site operator. for e.g: sitename.com/widgets/red/large We are redirecting some of the search which are close or exact match to the respective pages for e.g: sitename.com/search/red --> sitename.com/widgets/red We are fluctuating on rankings too in google serps form top ppositions to no where, for sitename.com/widgets/red and most of the times when google shows sitename.com/search/red instead of itename.com/widgets/red. Can you please put a light on this issues.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | semshah1430 -
We are changing ?page= dynamic url's to /page/ static urls. Will this hurt the progress we have made with the pages using dynamic addresses?
Question about changing url from dynamic to static to improve SEO but concern about hurting progress made so far.
Intermediate & Advanced SEO | | h3counsel0