Take a good amount of existing landing pages offline because of low traffic, cannibalism and thin content
-
Hello Guys,
I decided to take of about 20% of my existing landing pages offline (of about 50 from 250, which were launched of about 8 months ago).
Reasons are:
-
These pages sent no organic traffic at all in this 8 months
-
Often really similiar landing pages exist (just minor keyword targeting difference and I would call it "thin" content)
-
Moreover I had some Panda Issues in Oct, basically I ranked with multiple landing pages for the same keyword in the top ten and in Oct many of these pages dropped out of the top 50.. I also realized that for some keywords the landing page dropped out of the top 50, another landing page climbed from 50 to top 10 in the same week, next week the new landing page dropped to 30, next week out of 50 and the old landing pages comming back to top 20 - but not to top ten...This all happened in October..Did anyone observe such things as well?
That are the reasons why I came to the conclustion to take these pages offline and integrating some of the good content on the other similiar pages to target broader with one page instead of two. And I hope to benefit from this with my left landing pages. I hope all agree?
Now to the real question:
Should I redirect all pages I take offline? Basically they send no traffic at all and non of them should have external links so I will not give away any link juice. Or should I just remove the URL's in the google webmaster tools and take them then offline? Like I said the sites are basically dead and personally I see no reason for these 50 redirects.
Cheers,
Heiko
-
-
If you remove a URL and allow it to 404 you can either remove it in GWT as well, or wait for them to update it. I would remove it in GWT as well just to be sure.
There is no difference whether you have the files on the server or not unless the redirect comes down someday for awhile (even for an hour), which could result in all of those pages being reindexed. Other potential issues are if you have the site available on another domain or sub-domain that points to the same folder, in which case your redirects might not work on the other domain, depending on how they were written.
For these reasons, I would go ahead and remove the files from the server just to be safe. You can back them up somewhere local or at some point before the "Public HTML" folder on the server.
-
Thanks Everett for your response, changes are in process and I will implement it this week. But it would be even better do remove the not redirected URLs in webmaster tools. right?
Technical question to the redirected URLs: Is there any difference if I leave the redirected webpages on the server or if I delete them?
-
I've done this many times with good results. If the page has no traffic and no external links just remove it, and allow it to 404 so the URLs get removed from the index. If the page has traffic and/or external links, 301 redirect it to the most appropriate page about the topic. In either case remove/update internal links, including those within sitemaps.
Simple as that.
-
It all make sense.
-
-
Well, yes I expect that the other pages will benefit from it, because I basically can overtake the good content parts to the similiar pages. Moreover I can set more internal links to the pages which are actually ranking and generating more traffic. Of course, I could just take off all internal links from the dead pages, but I see no sense in there existence any more.
-
I know that you don't get a penalty for duplicate content. But I think it makes more sense to have one (improved) page for a topic/keyword than having 2 pages and one is basically dead from traffic perspective. From their whole structure the pages are just to simiiliar beside the "content" and even if this cannot force manual actions, it can lead to panda/hummingbird issues you will never recognize.
-
Yeah this action has nothing to do with the dead pages, you are right, I just wanted to mention it, because for me I inptreted it in the way, that google tests similiar pages in there performance and this can lead to longterm decreases. That was for me just another reason for putting similiar websites together and think more in "topical hubs". I talk about really similiar websites like for 3 phrase keywords when just the last word differs and the content is unique but basically tells the user the same like on the other page...
-
-
Question. If the fluctuations were due to the different pages competing with each other, shouldn't you see the different pages exchange places, one goes up, the other far down, then swap places and keep dancing?
-
Yes make sense. It's also what the people at koozai describe in the link Sheena posted.
Yet, my personal seo-religion so far have dictated me to never remove, every time I asked myself if I should, I got to the conclusion was better not to.
Let me re-check your motivation to do so:
- These pages sent no organic traffic at all in this 8 months
That's horrible, but removing them is going to improve something else? Maybe, or maybe not. You can find out only trying out (testing).
- Often really similiar landing pages exist (just minor keyword targeting difference and I would call it "thin" content)
If you are worried about duplicate content penalization, there's no such thing as a duplicate content penalization, google doesn't penalize duplicate content, google just make a choice, choosing one among different duplicate page to rank. Matt Cutts on that here.
If you have multiple landing pages for similar keyword with thin content, improve the content. You can find authoritative voices advocating multiple landing pages for related keyword interlinking as a perfectly whitehat LSI SEO strategy.
- Moreover I had some Panda Issues in Oct, basically I ranked with multiple landing pages for the same keyword in the top ten and in Oct many of these pages dropped out of the top 50..
I doubt your algo penalization is due to those 0-traffic landing page mentioned above, remove them and see what happen, but I bet won't change it. Instead I would look honestly at all your website and ask myself what spammy, stuffing, nasty dirty little things did I in the past?
-
Yes I checked, these pages don't have external backlinks, generating only link juice through internally linking. As I will change the internal linking and the pages I take down will not get any more internal links this should'nt make any difference...
I just want to avoid any redirect, which is not necessary to really make sure that only pages who have a relevant similiar page get a redirect. makes sense, right?
-
Have you checked with OSE and other tools to see the page juice/authority they may have?
-
Thanks for your opinions!
There are no manual actions against the pages, so shouldn't care about this! Like I said mostly they are generating no traffic at all (for these ones I cannnot see a good reason to redirect and not just delete them from the index and take them down) and some URL's are just competing against each other and the ranking fluctuations are quite high and therefore I want to put these competing pages together.
I guess I will redirect the pages which still have relevant similiar pages left, but don't redirect pages which basically had no traffic at all in 8 months and no real similiar page is existing.
-
This article is about removing blog posts, but I think it's still relevant: http://www.koozai.com/blog/search-marketing/deleted-900-blog-posts-happened-next/
The 'removals/redirects' & 'lessons learnt' sections are particularly important to consider.
-
It's possible, but it sounds like the ranking fluctuations are likely from multiple URLs competing for the same search queries ("Often really similar landing pages exist - just minor keyword targeting difference and I would call it "thin" content") rather than poor link profiles. He didn't mention any manual penalties either.
I agree that you would not want all 50 URLs redirecting to one or even just a few URLs. Only redirect the ones that are really related to the content of the remaining pages and let the rest drop off. Also make sure you have a killer 404 page that helps users get to the right pages.
-
I'm not so sure.
Common sense tells me that pages without any Page Authority, or those that may have been penalised (or indeed not indexed) for having spammy, thin content, etc will only pass these **negative **signals on through a 301 redirect?
Also surely if there is as many as 250 potential landing pages all redirecting (maybe even to one single URL), it'd surely raise alarm bells for a crawler?
-
What you're really doing is consolidating 'orphan SEO pages' to fewer, higher value pages - which is a specific example Google providesas a "good reason to redirect one URL to another." I would 301 the pages to their most relevant, consolidated landing pages that remain.
Hope this helps!
-
Why not to redirect? If you don't you will keep seeing them in error in WMT, which is not a good thing. Also returning 410 in theory is an option, but I tried in the past and WMT ignores that.
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
-
Webmaster tools Hentry showing pages that don't exist
In Webmaster Tools I have a ton of pages listed under Structured Data >> Hentry. These pages are not on my website and I don't know where they are coming from. I redid the site for someone and perhaps they are from the old site. How do I find and delete these? Thank you Rena
Technical SEO | | renalynd270 -
3,511 Pages Indexed and 3,331 Pages Blocked by Robots
Morning, So I checked our site's index status on WMT, and I'm being told that Google is indexing 3,511 pages and the robots are blocking 3,331. This seems slightly odd as we're only disallowing 24 pages on the robots.txt file. In light of this, I have the following queries: Do these figures mean that Google is indexing 3,511 pages and blocking 3,331 other pages? Or does it mean that it's blocking 3,331 pages of the 3,511 indexed? As there are only 24 URLs being disallowed on robots.text, why are 3,331 pages being blocked? Will these be variations of the URLs we've submitted? Currently, we don't have a sitemap. I know, I know, it's pretty unforgivable but the old one didn't really work and the developers are working on the new one. Once submitted, will this help? I think I know the answer to this, but is there any way to ascertain which pages are being blocked? Thanks in advance! Lewis
Technical SEO | | PeaSoupDigital0 -
Rel canonical for partner sites - product pages only or also homepage and other key pages?
Hello there Our main site is www.arenaflowers.com. We also run a number of partner sites (eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/). We've relcanonical'd the products on the partner site back to the main (arenaflowers.com) site. eg: http://flowershop.cancerresearchuk.org/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013 rel canonicals back to: http://www.arenaflowers.com/flowers/tutti_frutti_es_2013). My question: Should we also relcanonical the homepage and other key pages on partner sites back to the main arenaflowers website too? The content is similar but not identical. We don't want our partner sites to be outranking the original (as is the case on kw flower delivery for example). (NB this situation may be complicated by the fact we appear to have an unnatural link penalty on af.com (and when we did an upgrade a while back, the af.com site fell out of the index altogether due to some issues with our move to AWS.) We're getting professional SEO advice on this but wondered what the Moz community's thoughts were.. Cheers, Will
Technical SEO | | ArenaFlowers.com0 -
Avoiding Cannibalism and Duplication with content
Hi, For the example I will use a computers e-commerce store... I'm working on creating guides for the store -
Technical SEO | | BeytzNet
How to choose a laptop
How to choose a desktop I believe that each guide will be great on its own and that it answers a specific question (meaning that someone looking for a laptop will search specifically laptop info and the same goes for desktop). This is why I didn't creating a "How to choose a computer" guide. I also want each guide to have all information and not to start sending the user to secondary pages in order to fill in missing info. However, even though there are several details that are different between the laptops and desktops, like importance of weight, screen size etc., a lot of things the checklist (like deciding on how much memory is needed, graphic card, core etc.) are the same. Please advise on how to pursue it. Should I just write two guides and make sure that the same duplicated content ideas are simply written in a different way?0 -
Would this be considered "thin content?"
I share a lot of images via twitter and over the last year I've used several different tools to do this; mainly twitpic, and now instagram. Last year I wanted to try to find a way to host those images on my site so I could get the viewers of the picture back to my site instead a 3rd party (twitpic, etc.) I found a few plugins that worked "sort of" well, and so I used that for a while. (I have since stopped doing that in favor of using instagram.) But my question is do all of these image posts hurt my site you think? I had all of these images under a category called "twitter" but have since moved them to an uncategorized category until I figure out what I want to do with them. I wanted to see if anyone could chime in and give me some advice. Since the posts are just images with no content (other than the image) and the title isn't really "optimized" for anything do these posts do me more harm than good. Do I delete them all? Leave them as is? Or do something else? Also in hindsight I'm assuming this was a bad idea since the bounce rate for people clicking on a link just to see an image was probably very high, and may have caused the opposite result of what I was looking for. If I knew than what I know now I would have tracked the bounce rate of those links, how many people who viewed one of those images actually went to another page on the site, etc. But hindsight's 20/20. 🙂
Technical SEO | | NoahsDad0 -
How do I deal with my pages being seen as duplicate content by SeoMoz?
My Dashboard is giving my lots of warnings for duplicate content but it all seems to have something to do with the www and the slash / For example: http://www.ebow.ie/ is seen as having the same duplicate content as http:/ebow.ie/ and http://www.ebow.ie Alos lots to do with how Wordpress categorizes pages and tags that is driving me bonkers! Any help appreciated! Dave. seomoz.png
Technical SEO | | ebowdublin0 -
When Is It Good To Redirect Pages on Your Site to Another Page?
Suppose you have a page on your site that discusses a topic that is similar to another page but targets a different keyword phrase. The page has medium quality content, no inbound links, and the attracts little traffic. Should you 301 redirect the page to a stronger page?
Technical SEO | | ProjectLabs1 -
Getting home page content at top of what robots see
When I click on the text-only cache of nlpca(dot)com on the home page http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:UIJER7OJFzYJ:www.nlpca.com/&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1 our H1 and body content are at the very bottom. How do we get the h1 and content at the top of what the robots see? Thanks!
Technical SEO | | BobGW0