The evolution of Google's 'Quality' filters - Do thin product pages still need noindex?
-
I'm hoping that Mozzers can weigh in with any recent experiences with eCommerce SEO.....
I like to assume (perhaps incorrectly) that Google's 'Quality' filters (formerly known as Panda) have evolved with some intelligence since Panda first launched and started penalising eCommerce sites for having thin product pages. On this basis i'd expect that the filters are now less heavy handed and know that product pages with no or little product description on them are still a quality user experience for people who want to buy that product.
Therefore my question is this...
Do thin product pages still need noindex given that more often that not they are a quality search result for those using a product specific search query?Has anyone experienced penalty recently (last 12 months) on an ecommerce site because of a high number of thin product pages?
-
My apologies for taking so long to get to this question after you asked. Here are my thoughts.
Have you seen this article that I wrote for Moz on Panda and thin content?
https://moz.com/blog/have-we-been-wrong-about-panda-all-along
I don't actually believe that Google demotes/penalizes eCommerce sites for having thin product pages. I think it's much more complicated than this.
Most of the eCommerce sites that I have seen that were hit by Panda were, in my opinion, hit because their sites had very little to offer users to make them rise above the competition. If 10,000 different sites are all selling the same product, which site is Google going to show at the top of the search results?
When Panda first came out, people were quick to jump on the "duplicate content" bandwagon. Lots of people were rewriting product descriptions because they felt that they would be penalized for using stock product descriptions. But this is not true. If an eCommerce site is demoted by Panda or by a Quality filter I think it's extremely unlikely for it to see improvement just because the product description is rewritten.
Similarly, I don't think that noindexing product pages will make a big difference in the eyes of Panda. Now, if a site has a huge number of urls for each product (i.e. different sizes, colours, options, etc.), it's important to canonicalize those pages. In my opinion, this isn't for Panda reasons though but rather to help optimize your crawl budget and make it easier for Google to understand your site. You don't want Google to spend all of its time crawling 2000 variations of one product and not visiting the rest of your site.
So, back to your original question. Should we be noindexing product pages with no or little product description? I don't think there is a black and white answer for this. I would likely start by looking at analytics data to see how user engagement is for these pages. If I'm looking for a particular product, it may not actually need a product description. If your site is one of the few that sells this product and the page itself is useful then it might be ok. Check your analytics...are people spending time on these pages? Are they immediately bouncing off? Are they making purchases after visiting these pages? Or are they mostly pages that nobody ever visits? If that's the case then perhaps they shouldn't be in Google's index.
Another thing to look at is whether these product pages are frustrating to users. If you do have some indexed, you can look at data from Google Search Console Search Analytics. See what queries those pages are ranking for. Are those pages likely to answer the user's query? If not, if they are likely to frustrate users then they could be a Panda risk. For example, let's say you have a product page that is ranking relatively well for questions like, "How to choose a [product]", "what sizes does [product] come in?", "[product] user reviews". But, let's say that your particular page that is ranking for these terms doesn't answer any of those questions. It's my opinion that if your product pages are consistently not providing searchers with what they want, then they are at a risk for a Panda demotion and that demotion could be on your site as a whole.
I think Google is getting much better at figuring out what sites are most helpful to users. In most cases, rather than deciding on what to index and what to noindex, I think the better spend of time and money would be on finding ways to improve the user experience overall so that your site is by far the better option than your competitors'. It's hard to do that objectively though. You may need to get nonpartial users to visit your site and your competitors' sites and tell you honestly which site they would prefer for research and for purchasing.
I've likely skirted your question a little. I don't think the answer is black and white.
-
I don't think releasing a lot of thin and duplicate content product pages back into the index is a good idea, but if you try and and prove me wrong I'd love to know.
-
Thanks for joining the discussion Everett!
The ecommerce site in question currently has most of its product pages noindexed. This was implemented back in 2013 because the pages either have no product description or just a single sentence. The noindexing did bring about a Panda recovery at the time.
The site is currentky being redesigned and relaunched and a decision has to be made re. whether to leave the noindex on product pages in place. Three years down the line from when I recommended the noindex and three years of listening to Google's rhetoric re. providing content that gives quality user experience and I'm now looking at these pages and thinking.... "You know what....these pages would actually be a quality search result for people. Anyone searching for what they're optimised for (the specific product name) is likely to have the intent to buy. These pages allow you to buy the product that you want!. A product description is pointless. The searcher knows the product and wants to buy it and this page allows you to buy it from a site that is well known and trusted in it's niche!"
Because this is obvious to me I was hoping that it is now obvious to Google's quality filters and I can remove the noindex and get more traffic. Perhaps not....
-
QubaSEO,
I think many people give Google too much credit. As Andy said, one would need more information to tell you whether noindexing those thin product pages is a good move. At minimum, link, traffic and sales data for each of the URLs.
My advice is to read these posts and do the research necessary to make a customized decision for your site, as opposed to seeking general "best practice advice".
-
I have indeed, although it was more because all they carried on the page was literally a few lines per page and no value-add. Most of what was there was copied from the manufacturers site. Interesting, would you say that the pages were still a good quality search result for those using a product specific search query? i.e the searcher was able to fulfil their search intent and buy the product?
Perhaps I give Google too much credit...
-
Has anyone experienced penalty recently (last 12 months) on an ecommerce site because of a high number of thin product pages?
I have indeed, although it was more because all they carried on the page was literally a few lines per page and no value-add. Most of what was there was copied from the manufacturers site.
Google have also said they prefer you not to no-index pages, but instead, try and make the pages better. I would be cautious of advising that yes, no-indexing is a good idea, without knowing more about the site and taking a look.
Is there something going on with the site that is causing concern, or is this for a new site before they launch?
-Andy
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
-
Google Penguin update
When Google Penguin update will run again. The last time was in October 2013 and I'm still really curious now. Or have they stopped this and this is now continuously just like the panda?
Algorithm Updates | | NECAnGeL0 -
Google is showing crazy results
Google is showing crazy results in these days sometimes my sites are on top of all keywords sometimes far behind in search engine in same day what is going on ????
Algorithm Updates | | GM0070 -
So, useless link exchange pages still work?!
After 3 years out of SEO I thought things might have moved on, but apparently not. Bit of back link research and all the top sites in my niche have tons of reciprocal links to barely relevant sites. Do I really have to do this? I mean I thought this was so out of date, it's not much better than keyword stuffing. So, should I just forget my lofty principles asking myself 'is this of any value to my users?' and just take the medicine?
Algorithm Updates | | Cornwall0 -
Someone just told me that the Google doesn't read past the pipe symbol. I find that hard to believe. Is this true?
Someone just told me that the Google doesn't read past the pipe symbol.
Algorithm Updates | | MarketingAgencyFlorida0 -
How to show your ratings in the Google SERP
I've noticed that some organic search results are showing ratings just above the meta tag. How are these sites doing this? Example: If you search "cash advance", there is a result between #4 and #6 in the organic results. The site is "goldcashadvance.com". It's showing a 5-star rating in the result.
Algorithm Updates | | sparagi0 -
Google Dropped 3,000+ Pages due to 301 Moved !! Freaking Out !!
We may be the only people stupid enough to accidentally prevent the google bot from indexing our site. In our htaccess file someone recently wrote the following statement RewriteEngine On
Algorithm Updates | | David_C
RewriteCond %{HTTP_HOST} ^mysite.com$ [NC]
RewriteRule ^(.*)$ http://www.mysite.com/$1 [L,R=301] Its almost funny because it was a rewrite that rewrites back to itself... We found in webmaster tools that the site was not able to be indexed by the google bot due to not detecting the robots.txt file. We didn't have one before as we didn't really have much that needed to be excluded. However we have added one now for kicks really. The robots.txt file though was never the problem with regard to the bot accessing the site. Rather it was the rewrite statement above that was blocking it. We tested the site not knowing what the deal was so we went under webmaster tools then health and then selected "Fetch as Google" to have the website. This was our way of manually requesting the site be re-indexed so we could see what was happening. After doing so we clicked on status and it provided the following: HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Content-Length: 250
Content-Type: text/html
Location: http://www.mystie.com/
Server: Microsoft-IIS/7.5
MicrosoftOfficeWebServer: 5.0_Pub
MS-Author-Via: MS-FP/4.0
X-Powered-By: ASP.NET
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 02:27:49 GMT
Connection: close <title>301 Moved Permanently</title> Moved Permanently The document has moved here. We changed the screwed up rewrite mistake in the htaccess file that found its way in there but now our issue is that all of our pages have been severely penalized with regard to where they are now ranking compared to just before the indecent. We are essentially freaking out because we don't know the real time consequences of this and if or how long it will take for the certain pages to regain their prior ranks. Typical pages when down anywhere between 9-40 positions on high volume search terms. So to say the least our company is already discussing the possibilities of fairly large layoffs based on what we anticipate with regard to the drop in traffic. This sucks because this is peoples lives but then again a business must make money and if you sell less you have to cut the overhead and the easiest one is payroll. I'm on a team with three other people that I work with to keep the SEO side up to snuff as much as we can and we sell high ticket items so the potential effects if Google doesn't restore matters could be significant. My question is what would you guys do? Is there any way we can contact Google about such a matter? If you can I've never seen such a thing. I'm sure the pages that are missing from the index now might make their way back in but what will there rank look like next time and with that type of rewrite has it permanently effected every page site wide, including those that are still in the index but severely effected by the index. Would love to see things bounce back quick but I don't know what to expect and neither do my counterparts. Thanks for any speculation, suggestions or insights of any kind!!!0 -
Product microdata from Schema.org
An article (http://www.websitemagazine.com/content/blogs/posts/archive/2011/11/18/step-up-your-e-commerce-seo-game-with-product-microdata.aspx?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter) is claiming that using this product micro data (http://schema.org/Product) might help product pages rank better. Do you have any experience using these tags and would it be worth the time to implement these on a site with 1000's of products? Would it make sense to selectively implement them on specific products that actually have a good chance of ranking high instead?
Algorithm Updates | | pbhatt0 -
Working in the world of Google Farmer Update
So I know have seen how my websites have taken a nose dive from the google farmer update most likely with traffic significantly hit. Example site is callcatalog.com. What recommendations are there to deal with the new world order? How can we look at optimizing, changing, modifying our process to improve rankings and traffic?
Algorithm Updates | | seo_ploom0